Please support our advertisers
U.S. has the Worst Health Care per a Dollar Spent
Submitted by Grace Kelly on July 21, 2008 - 11:26am.
The report found that the US ranked 42nd in the world for life expectancy despite spending more on health care per person than any other country.
(BBC)
First of all, a British paper, the BBC had to report this very important information! Basically for developed country, the U.S. get the least health care for a dollar spent. Actually the undeveloped countries when they have health care are more effective with their money, however all the other conditions of living overwhelm the influence of heath care. Health care can't fix starvation for example. Basically our private health care system is just interested in more greedy profits and is not working. So when the Republicans scream "socialism", those Republican would have every American pay the most for health care while receiving the poorest health care of any developed country! If people were able to compete among countries for health care, then no one would buy American's health care. People die so Health Insurance CEOs can have huge salaries and huge benefits!
Unfortunately, the data appears locked behind an expensive subscription, so the information is coming from the British newspaper, the BBC:
The report found that the US ranked 42nd in the world for life expectancy despite spending more on health care per person than any other country.
Overall, the American Human Development Report ranked the world's richest country 12th for human development.
The study looked at US government data on health, education and income....
* Of the world's richest nations, the US has the most children (15%) living in poverty
* Of the OECD nations, the US has the most people in prison - as a percentage and in absolute numbers
* 25% of 15-year-old students performed at or below the lowest level in an international maths test - worse than Canada, France, Germany and Japan
* If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than [additional] 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life
(BBC)
Every corporate board and CEO of every health care and health insurance company should be held morally accountable for putting profits before health. It is time to take health care profits and health care insurance bureaucracy (at least 33% of a health care dollar) out of the health care system.
»
- Grace Kelly's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Stumble It!
Yes, but
First of all, the BBC is a radio network and not a newspaper. Expect to be pounced on by the counter-clockwise among us (that is, those with only a right wing who fly relentlessly in circles). It's related to the government of the UK, but not owned by them - and it is respected enough that radio all across the globe uses their feeds for international news. It's not socialist radio, it's just good radio.
Now, that out of the way ...
Our health care has been more expensive than our competition for at least 10 years. I do remember it being reported, at least in a few places, back a long time ago. It was then completely ignored by the Republicans and their agenda in conspiracy with the Democrats and their ... well, I'm not sure what's wrong with the Democrats, but they are at best very timid.
The problem has been known for a long time, and yet no one wants to do anything about it. Why? I don't know. Cowardice is probably the only reasonable explanation.
The facts regarding how pitiful our nation has become are relatively well known. Yes, we can always use a reminder, and thanks for it. But we can't forget that the people in Washingtoon have had this at their disposal for a long, long time - in both parties. None of them were as appalled by it as I was, apparently.
I always say that the solution for this is to take everyone in the current health care system and line them up with their backs against the wall. I don't want to kill them, you see, just wound them - because I think the horror of the situation will suddenly become more vivid once they have to walk into the ER with a gunshot wound.
Then again, the way our leaders can constantly ignore this problem while spending $500B to destroy Iraq leads me to wonder if a real revolution isn't the only reasonable solution after all.
My screed on leadership today
Point taken, however BBC Online exists
So while it may have started out as radio, to me it is online newspaper publishing service, I also watch the BBC news at 10 on Channel 17
I am a Democrat, I am speaking out! I don't know how Democrats can speak out more forcefully, when we do so at every opportunity. The point is that mainstream media does not cover our speaking out! So it only appears that Democrats don't speak out because "health care" is one of the topics that mainstream media will not cover often. When mainstream media does cover health care it certainly does not quote a negative point of view.
And if you look at the voting records and the speeches on health care on the congressional floor, the differences between Republican and Democratic positions are night and day clear. We know the Republicans like to try to sell the lie "the Democrats do it too", but it is a LIE. While Democrats have a few "Lieberman" corrupt members, we as a party have been working very hard to provide better candidates. The exceptions actually prove the rule. The Republicans are a top-down enforced loyalty party that has totally supported corporations at the expense of people and at the expense of the common good. Republicans are especially corrupted in health care votes.
Speaking out?
I realize that Democrats are good at speaking out. What I'm saying is that they are terrible at accomplishing anything.
In all honesty, I believe that we might as well say that the answer lies with pixies and fairies rather than Democrats for the simple reason that there is no evidence that pixies are incapable of getting anything done but considerable evidence that the Democrats can't do anything of value.
In the case of the health care "system": it's well known that people are dying because of this, and have been for some time. Is it possible to shame our leaders into actually doing something by "speaking out"? Perhaps. But their leadership is rather pitiful in the first place if they have been this willing to sit back and watch people die because of their cowardice. That gives me little hope that an additional dose of shame will do that much good.
Remember, our leaders have long known this and have been complicit in the deaths of millions all the same. Why on earth would you trust them to ever do the right thing?
I don't know how long the people of this once great nation will be willing to take this crap. I hope it's not too long, and I hope we can solve it peacefully.
If we can't, I know which end of the rifle I'll be on. Do you?
Giving up?
It is the Republican mantra to only go where one can win, to only go where the pickin's are good. In the Democratic universe, we fight on principle no matter what the odds. Because it is not a matter of odds, it is a matter of who we are. Dying is inevitable, the question is how will you live?
Health Care Policy
First, we will always have a private component to health care. All countries have private health care components, even Britain, where a private health care system paid for out of pocket or by private insurance runs along side the public system. Canada and Taiwan, which have the programs most similar to the "single payer" systems that most progressives -- including me -- see as the best option for the US, both have health care systems that are private entirely, with the government providing only insurance and some regulation.
Second, the failure of Democrat leaders to move toward a good health care system is mostly due to fear, especially following the HilaryCare debacle of 1993-94. Except for a few people like John Conyers and his 80 co-sponsors (only Ellison in Minnesota), most leaders are afraid to lead on this topic. Case in point is Obama, who ran for senate endorsing a single payer system, but has reverted to a complicated plan that protects the insurance industry position.
Third, if DFL progressives really want to work toward a single payer system, the best opportunity may well be the Marty/Tschumper Minnesota Health Plan now before the Minnesota house and senate. Electing officials who already endorse the plan, re-electing the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, and putting pressure on Democrats who have worked to stop the bill, especially the leadership of the DFL house and senate and important committee leaders like Huntley and Berglin, will go a long way toward making single payer a reality. If and when single payer is in place in Minnesota, not only will all Minnesotans benefit, but the example may well serve as a catalyst to promote creation of a national plan. That's what happened in Canada. -- Patronius