One of the many people unable to get adequate mental care under the current private insurance system.
As many of you already know, Obama’s new health-care plan will allow your doctor to put down your grandmother like a rabid dog if she comes down with arthritis, bursitis, or just “a case of the Mondays.” I’m kidding, of course. It will be up to a government-appointed panel of socialist veterinary students. Your doctor will have nothing to do with it.
As many Americans have discovered, well reasoned health-care policy can only be reached through the careful application of shouting. Shouting masks the mind-control techniques favored by secular death-panel advocates everywhere. Tin-foil underpants are optional — but if they’re good enough for Glenn Beck, they’re good enough for me.
All kidding aside, health-care reform is a serious, serious issue. And as such, it deserves serious debate. It’s not getting that type of serious debate right now because discussing health care reform with the self-proclaimed “conservative” movement is like discussing international monetary policy with a troop of baboons, except the baboons throw less poo.
I want to have a real discussion on this issue. It’s too important not to talk about it. But if we’re going to have a serious conversation, we need to at least agree on the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one gets to have their own set of facts. Let’s nail down the facts about American health care, and then we can talk intelligently about how we can reform it, or if reform is even needed.
The main argument against reform is that the United States has the best health care in the world. I’d like to test that theory. A few things to note: every single other “first world” nation has some form of single-payer, government-sponsored health-care plan. We are the only one that does not. So let’s see how the U.S. privatized system compares to the the single-payer systems found around the world.
Costs
One of the greatest fears I have heard, over and over again is that government-run health care will cause costs to skyrocket. Let’s see how costs are doing today under our private health-care system.
According to the OECD data, we spend more per capita on health-care than any other nation on earth — by a large margin. But, as is the case with fiscal deficits, often this type of massive spending is rationalized by pointing out that our GDP is much higher as well, so the total cost as a percentage of our GDP is still low. Let’s see if that pans out here.
Tags: glenn beck, health care, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, obama, obamacare, sarah palin, uninsured
some shocking statistics here. still, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. frightens me. it’s the one I don’t understand and can’t explain. is it because women aren’t getting good pre-natal care due to lack of insurance? is it environmental? i don’t know.
The infant mortality rate can be directly connected to poor birthing practices in the United States.
Most people in the States don’t realize that having a baby in a hospital is the wrong way to do it. We are the only “developed” nation has doctors attend more births than midwives.
Why is this a problem? Most doctors have never seen a natural, live birth. “Their” way of doing it is to lay a woman on her back and pump her full of a drugs that are harmful to the fetus. Skeptical? Here’s how it goes: Women are given a muscle relaxant to reduce the pain of labor, which negatively effects the uterus’ ability to contract, so the drug Pitocin is administered. The woman doesn’t feel the effects of the Pit, but the baby does, because it makes the uterus expand and contract rapidly. Eventually, this will cause more pain, so more pain killers are administered, then more pit, and so on until a C-Section is needed. Also, doctors make women believe that getting a C-Section as an “alternative” to giving birth is safe, when in fact, it is not – cesareans are MAJOR surgery. It’s not like getting your tonsils taken out – they cut your stomach open, dig into your body and physically pull an 8lb mass out of it. But doctors won’t tell you ANY of this, because hospital births are PROFITABLE.
If you go up to a pregnant woman in the States and ask “have you considered having a live natural birth with a doula and midwife?” they will probably look at you like you are crazy. The truth is that it’s crazy to NOT have natural birthing be your first choice. The position that a woman is put in the hospital – on her back – is biologically the WORST for giving birth. It makes the pelvis physically smaller and increases the chance of injury and complications. A doula will teach you how to breath, how to move, how to rotate your hips through a contraction. Natural births occur in a squatting position, often in a body of water – because it’s the healthiest and safest for the mother and baby.
In my opinion (and the opinion of many others), a doctor is only needed during the birthing process if something goes wrong. If there are complications that WARRANT a hospital visit, a doctor should step in.
Go back and look at the graphs. The low infant mortality rates are in countries that favor natural births to hospital births.
(If you are interested in seeing a film about this issue, “The Business of Being Born” is a must-see!)
I see that I left a couple of things out:
1) Pitocin is infamous for putting babies into distress. The extreme rate of the contractions reduces blood flow and oxygen to the fetus.
2) The cost of a natural birth compared to the cost of a hospital birth is actually very cheap, and the doula/midwife usually provides everything, including a portable hot tub for the live birth.
Great response Sarah. I denied induction both times and was past due date. Doulas encouraged me not to let the medical community push me around.
The best line:
“I realize people are intrinsically afraid of a government panel deciding who gets health care, but it’s been shown again and again that insurance companies have a vested, monetary interest in denying you coverage as often as possible.”
This is something that people don’t discuss. AT ALL. I have excellent private insurance. It still has taken me two months to get an appointment with a specialist. Anyone who talks about how great our private insurance system is has probably never had a serious medical issue. They’ve gone to the doctor a few times for non life threatening illnesses. Try having a pervasive medical issue, especially a rare one. You soon learn how private insurance is truly not on your side.
I know that in the African American community, the infant mortality rate has stayed the same over the last 40 years. This figures into the statistics overall. I honestly think that the infant mortality rate is so high because of many different things, such as both poverty and environment. I also know that I’m sure that there are women that have high risk pregnancies that probably don’t get the services that they should because of money.
It might seem a silly question, but how are infant mortality rates calculated? For example, what if a baby is born at 24 wks? That is barely viable. Would other countries write that off & not count it towards infant mortality rates, but we count it as an actual death, since we have the capability to save a % of them?
“Fortunately, infant mortality rates are reported using WHO standards, which do NOT include any reference to the length of the infant, duration of the pregnancy, but do define a ‘live birth’ as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.”
It was a good thought, but no, that is not the case.
The infant mortality rate has always shocked me. I don’t understand, like Patti, how it can be so high.
I have private insurance through my employer and miraculously, since I only cover myself, I don’t have to pay a premium. I know I’m lucky. But the thing that irks me is that I still can’t afford to use it and all the rates just doubled. I can’t pay a $600 deductible, nor can I pay $50 to see a therapist. I support myself and my best friend, who has been ill and disabled for years but keeps getting rejected for any kind of disability from the government. She doesn’t have insurance and has, obviously, a laundry basket of things she needs to see a doctor about.
It really burns me that people will shoot down this reform bill when people like my friend – people with children, no less – face the decision of going into thousands of dollars of additional debt or getting sicker (or worse). This is supposed to be the greatest country in the world? How? By killing off the weakest of the herd so only the strong survive? That’s bull crap.
Sorry for the mini-rant. Desperation makes me angry.
John – this article is awesome. Thank you so much for putting this together. I already knew that the U.S. fares badly with other first-world countries when it comes to providing effective health care, but I didn’t know just how bad it is. I also support the health care reform initiatives, and am disgusted with and tired of (some) Americans who are showing just how stupid humans can be by arguing without knowing the facts, and shouting at each other.
I’m trying to understand why this is a debate. How can we not be for insuring the underinsured or uninsured, particularly children. Even the WSJ seems to understand the importance of catching those who slip through the cracks, which seems like more and more people these days…
Well they can use your money then,not mine.
Please note I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m gathering information so that I can formulate my own point of view on this. It’s tough to understand since I’m abroad. (Our insurance plan is not managed care, so we use it wherever in the world we are and submit the paperwork towards the deductible.)
Good article but merely a start to the “FACTS”. In order to fully understand and convey this “issue” you have to dig deeper demographically than the generalizations shown here. I have some pretty strong opinions and history on this subject as I ran for office a few years back on a State Health Care reform platform. I dont think this is a FED problem but a State problem and it can be proven by stats. Stats which both the FED and the insurance industry has been collecting for years and data by which all insurance rates are calculated.
I will begin by poking holes in the idea that life expectancy is an accurate predictor. You cant justifiably compare the US life expecatancy with that of Anguilla with a population of 6,800, no murder rate to speak of and no “dangerous or contributing” industry to subtract from its LE Rate. Its simply not a fair comparison.
Next add the murder rates and surprisingly the US is 51st in this stat. Singapore, with a FAR FAR FAR more restrictive policing…
system than the US could fathom has a murder rate of 0.48 compared to the US 5.8. Which when you look at it in a sheer numbers comparison blows a BIG hole in the life expectancy issue. Point being there are additional forces at work in these other (more socialized) countries that directly affect their life expectancy and thereby their health.
Next you have to look at the Immigration/Migration rates. US leads the world in this areas as this is what we were founded on. We accept people from all walks of life which is great but when you are accepting people who have lived much of their life from coutries where life expectancies are 1/3 to 1/2 that of the US then throwing them into the mix it pulls our stats down further. Close the borders (an unpopluar decision) and see what our data does over a 10 year period.
What were are truly fighting here is a llifestyle issue and in ture AMerican fashion and want our cake with icing and all the trimmings but get pissed when we get fat and…
look to blame others. In order to TRULY discuss this you have to look at the US as a collection of small countries (states) with different needs and address those accordingly. I went ahead and took Idaho and compared it to Ohio. 1 rural, albeit growing State and one old highly indurtialized DENSE state in Ohio. Heres some tidbits…Life Expec Idaho – 77.9 Life Expec Ohio – 76.2 Poverty Rate Idaho – 12% Poverty Rate Ohio – 13.1% Childhood Obesity Idaho – 10.1% Childhood Obesity Ohio – 14.2%, Syphillis Rate Idaho .8 Syphillis Rate Ohio 4.3!! Ohio 9th in population density, Idaho 44th in Population density.
For the record the Life Expectancy for District of Columbia…72!!!
Point being if we look at this myopically and a single bullet fix we are doomed to waste billions of dollars at a minimum…
There are flat out people in this country who CAN afford health coverage but choose not to because something like cable TV or a boat or something of the like is a more important monthly expenditure. I am sure there is not stat out there for that but its damn true.
There are also the people out there who can afford it but dont because if ego..”I am healthy as a horse”. There are also people out there who refuse to get REGULAR medical care and as a result tax the system “and raise insurance rates”, because they are too scared or proud to see a doctor.
When I ran for office I suggested a government ASSISTED program whereby people could purchase lower cost health care and planned to set it similar to the way the State sets its “living wage” initiative for state funded projects by putting the costs a small notch below private rates but not so low that they drive away current private consumers from the private companies. I further suggested that in order to qualify for the coverage…
the individual HAD to have a regular check up no less than twice a year and the same premium bumps would apply in the case of smoking, obesity etc as that of private companies. I have no problem with a Govt ASSISTED program but Govt run is BS and will cripple and entire industry.
Chris – I had no idea you ran for office! Your points regarding state-specific demographics are very valid. What happens when Idaho becomes more densely populated and the trend that you’ve pointed out is true there as well? We’re only getting larger as a population and until we inhabit other countries or planets, we only have a limited amount of real estate to do it in. These trends in densely populated areas will inevitably spread. Maybe the life expectancy demographic was flawed, but if we look at what you’ve pointed out in its most narrow perspective, we can deduce that the more Americans there are in a geographic region, the quicker we die, the fatter we become, the more STDs we catch and the more broke we become. And what you said about people spending money on luxury items instead of health care is absolutely true. I guess I just see it as a problem that’s individual in nature, but because of our collective stupidity, we don’t really have a choice but to address it nationally. Look at California . . .
Look at California – we have more people than any other state and have probably more statewide initiatives as well. We are also more bankrupt than any other state in the country. I’m not sure that state-specific legislation is going to save any more money in the long-run. I think it will draw out the problem and throw good money after bad. And, how is a government run ALTERNATIVE going to stop privatized insurance companies? I see it as more of a check and balance system. Shit – FedEx and UPS flourished when they competed with the federal government’s postal system and they didn’t do it by providing a CHEAPER alternative. They did it through innovation.
A) shouting is the only way to keep this from belong shoved down our throats. B) canada is admitting that their system is almost bankrupt. C) isn’t it just like the gubmint to tell us we have to shell out trillions to fix a problem THEY created? D) why do people trust the govt — the ones who bankrupted ss and Medicare, and brought us such models of efficiency as public schools and farm subsidies. E) why is this even the govt’s job? The one thing the constitution says they are supposed to do – national defense – they are trying to cut.
a) I disagree vehemently. Shouting is about drowning out debate. It’s about mob rule rather than civilized discourse.
b) While they’ve experienced funding problems, the Canadian system is not “almost bankrupt” and Canadians have expressed a 10-to-1 preference for their health care system over ours: http://bit.ly/2vlKdG
c) How did the government create a health care problem? Explain.
d)Social Security and Medicare work just fine. The problem is that their coffers are raided to pay for other programs.
e)That’s simply not true. Right after “[to] provide for the common defence” it says “[to] promote the general Welfare.” You must not have finished the sentence. And we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. I think we could scale back on that a bit, don’t you?
a) Maybe I shouldn’t use the word “shouting” because I don’t think that’s very productive either. But after promising bipartisanship, the administration has done everything in its power to quell alternate voices.
b) http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
d) Look up the difference between “provide” and “promote.”
Definitions of provide on the Web:
supply: give something useful or necessary to; “We provided the room with an electrical heater”
give what is desired or needed, especially support, food or sustenance; “The hostess provided lunch for all the guests”
Definitions of promote on the Web:
contribute to the progress or growth of; “I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom”
Matt,
a) How is the administration “quelling” voices? I don’t see it. It’s pretty hard to find consensus when leading Republicans have pretty much admitted the party won’t vote for health care reform in any form.
b) From your article “Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they’ve been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that’s not the case.”
d) (actually “e”) Nice semantic argument. Parsing words doesn’t really change their meaning, though. But if you want “provide”? I can give you “provide.”
Section 8
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;”
So by your own logic, the Constitution specifically gives the Federal government the right to provide services like health care.
Problem solved.
Plus, anyone trying to cite medicare as a reason to implement further social programs for healthcare is making my argument for me. It is one of the most wasteful and inefficient programs to ever grace us with its ineptitude. How about reforming medicare/caid, reducing the risks for md’s to get sued to death (incentivizing ordering unneeded tests) and encouraging health savings plans tax free to be coupled with cheap, high deductible insurance. Oh wait, because the ins and bar assn have huge lobbies and dems in their pockets.
There are many things we could do to improve Medicaid, but its overhead is ridiculously low — 2% to 4% by most accountings. Even if you adjust for various factors to make its overhead more in line with private firms, it has no need to make a profit. All the money that goes to executives and shareholders at a private firm can be saved via a public system.
From Factcheck.org regarding the study that “tort reform” would deliver savings:
‘But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” ‘
Matthew, Christopher.
I love the input but a point-by-point rebuttal would get huge and unwieldy really fast. Let’s tackle issues one at a time. What’s the first point you’d like to discuss?
John,
Like others, thank you for putting this together as well as putting together such a straightforward and reasoned argument. There is too much vitrol over the entire subject.
Thanks for posting this. It’s absolutely IMMORAL that we don’t have a national health plan. Please help spread the word about the House of Representative Bill, H.R. 676, sponsored by John Conyers of Michigan. It’s the “United States National Health Care Act”.
We need it.
NOW.
Immoral? Since when is preventing the gov’t from taking over ANOTHER portion of our lives immoral? This article is very slanted towards national health care. It’s easy to see the author’s bias in his generalized “statistics” and charts. As was brought up by others, a national health care plan will have no impact on infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. It will, however, drive our costs through the roof, as Congress’ own estimates show. $1.4 trillion in added costs over the next 10 years. And we all know how the gov’t consistently underestimates costs.
We don’t need THIS plan.
Now or ever.
I really don’t care about babies and infant mortality. I think we are already overpopulated now. I know that’s cold hearted, but that’s my take on that. What I would like answered is “If a foreigner invaded us we would not care a hoot about the cost of protecting ourselves. Why if that foreigner is a germ does it not matter?” How about if that need for pr0tection comes in the form of preventing psychological death? Or prevents me from chewing? Health care should be as important as military protection.
Nice place ya got here.
I been bloggin’ the stew outa health policy reform this year.
http://bgladd.blogspot.com
Sick of it. Dubious that anything substantive is gonna happen. Too much money on the table.