It's been a long time since I've felt like blogging about anything here - basically life has been good to me for almost a year now, which I know is probably contrary to what most people are experiencing right now. However that's the way it is and hence my tea-times are more often than not bright happy affairs these days.
But there is one thing since America put on its "O" face that is really getting my goat up right now and that is health care reform. It just boggles my mind that here we are with the greatest opportunity since Independence just about to put free into freedom again and really get this nation back to something respectable again, and oh look, seems like we're gonna blow it. There is just no way that opposition to sweeping reform would stand even a cats chance in hell, were it not for the oodles of corporate money sloshing around in Washington and turning everyone's heads to mush and pockets to green.
Anyway it occurred to me today that there is one huge voting group that should be coming out en-mass in favor of radical health care reform and that's the religious right and every pro-lifer there is out there. Why? Well I'll tell you why...
America supposedly has the best health care in the world but the problem is almost no one has access to it. When you look at the average level of care it is, well just that, average. And when you look at what most people get then then it is decidedly below par. This shows up in many, many ways but one of them is our infant mortality rate. Look at any list and Team USA is way below the top, bringing up the rear behind a whole slew of pesky countries with "socialized" medicine. Wikipedia cites two sources (UN and the good old CIA) that put our infant mortality rate at 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births - that's the number that die in the first year - and the New York times reported 2006 CDC figures of 6.8 deaths per 1,000 placing us at 29th in the world. According to that article there are no fewer than 22 countries with rates below 5.0% and many countries below 3.5%. So think about it, if America had one of these "best in the world" (in reality, not in our dreams) health care systems we could easily have 3% fewer deaths per 1,000 infants.
But what does that mean?
Well in 2008 the US recorded 4,247,000 births so our 29th-in-class infant mortality rate will cause about 289,000 infant deaths within the first year. That's a tragic number but we can do better. If our health care system could yield the results of those allegedly awful socialized medical systems the Europeans have and our mortality rate was more like 3.8% (which only puts us in 9th place ahead of France but behind the Czech Republic) then we'd see "only" 161,000 infant deaths. So improving our health care system could save 127,000 babies lives a year.
Isn't that staggering?
Every pro-lifer should be out campaning now. Screw Roe Vs Wade, this is an easy one to win if they put just 10% of the effort into it they do trying to stop abortions. And corporations are soul-less entities that are easy to target, there's no guilt or shame in shooting down a few mega-rich insurance and health-care companies. So what is keeping them?
But wait, there is more...
While it is true that the potential saving in infant lives is far, far fewer than the number of abortions per year, currently around 1.2 million, according the pro-lifer's very own statistics about 21% of all abortions are performed for financial reasons - because they cannot afford to have a baby. So guess what the number one cause of bankruptcy is in this country? Yes, medical bills. Do you think maybe more people could afford to have a baby if they weren't crippled with medical costs, or too afraid of being plunged into debt for the rest of their lives raising one? With average health-care coverage costs in the US of $4,700 per single person just who the heck do you think can afford healthcare even for themselves, let alone more kids. Its no wonder that over 50 million are un-insured now, and that US mortality rate to year 5 is more like 8 per 1,000 (sorry I lost the link).
So if pro-lifers really want to reduce abortion rates perhaps they should focus on making health-care more affordable. If 20% of those abortions didn't happen any more that would be, wow, another 240,000 babies... wow it would be a positive baby boom with an extra 260,000 or so new kids on the block each year. Think of all those souls they could save... and without the burden of health-care costs on their minds they might even grow up to be happy well adjusted souls that are less tempted by crime and drugs. Oh, the evil they could avert if only they would rally behind health-care reform.
But oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. It's "socialized", whatever that means, so it must be bad. Shudder the thought of anyone else telling them how to live their lives. That would be a completely alien concept to them that would be impossible to adopt, if anyone is going to do any healing or bossing around it can only be the big J-C and he wasn't a socialist at all was he.
Or was he... huh, what do you know, seems like he was dishing out free health care and healing all the frickin' time, never collected a dime of insurance premiums. Never denied any treatments, even foot massages were a-okay as I recall...
So, do you get why I'm p*ssed off by the whole thing and the lack of indignation, protestation and action by the whole "moral majority"
Grrrrr. Don't make me drink my tea in the dark again people!
7 comments:
The high infant mortality rate in the US is not a good angle to take in the health care debate. The fact is that 22-25 weeks gestation births are counted as spontaneous abortions in most other countries and, unfortunately are counted as live births in the US. Always love hearing the sheep baaahhhing out the same garbage over and over when they really don't know what they are talking about.
@Anonymous - well that's any interesting comment, care to provide some statistics or references so we know you really know what you're talking about? A gut check says that would be a lot of late term "spontaneous abortions" in the 22-25 period because basically you're saying that 50% of all infant mortalities in the US are actually caused by this effect. And if it is so well known you'd think that those people that compile the statistics would make allowances for it and adjust their figures accordingly (but I can believe maybe they don't - I just want to know that this is a fact).
I know its hard to believe, but what other country in the world would be stupid enough to stick an aborted fetus in an incubator and call it a live birth. Its not a medical issue, its a social issue.
From CDC:
Current definitions of live birth in the United States
The 1992 Revision of the Model State Vital Statistics Act and Regulations (1) recommends the following
definition of live birth. This definition is based on the definition promulgated by the World Health
Organization in 1950 and revised in 1988 by a working group formed by the American Academy of Pediatrics
and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2). The revision added clarifiers to help
determine what should be considered a live birth:
‘‘Live Birth’’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human
conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such expulsion or extraction, breathes,
or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta
is attached. Heartbeats are to be distinguished from transient cardiac contractions; respirations are to be
distinguished from fleeting respiratory efforts or gasps.
Forty-eight of the registration areas use a definition of live birth that is very similar to this definition, five
areas use a shortened definition of live birth, and four registration areas have no formal definition of live
birth.
I would like to draw your attention to the phrase "irrespective of the duration of pregnancy".
America is what I like to call a "victim" society. Its not our fault we had a 22 week gestation baby, even though I'm 16, drank, smoked, and did drugs, its our medical system. Its not my fault I died of a heart attack at fifty, even though I was a fat useless turd, its the medical systems fault. Time to take some responsibility for our own miserable existance Amerika! Do you really think that having universal healthcare coverage is going to make you less fat or less stupid America.
Also from CDC (
Heron M. Deaths: Leading causes for 2004. National vital statistics reports 2007;56(5). Hyattsville, MD: NCHS. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_05.pdf.)
"The leading cause of infant death in 2004 was Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities (congenital malformations) and accounted for one-fifth of all infant deaths. Disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight,not elsewhere classified was ranked 2nd, followed by Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."
Just be a little skeptical when you here something. Thats all I ask in life, and I'm frequently disappointed.
Just heard this story that helps prove my point about Americans and there thoughts on health:
Offering $ to help fat people lose weight not working
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/14/what-will-it-take-for-americans-to-lose-weight/
Priceless.
Well thanks for that doc, it has exactly the table I needed. So according to those stats the 679 per 100,000 deaths under 1 of all causes only 112.9 are attributable to short gestation or low birth rate of any kind. Although I agree adding in non-viable births (although pro-lifers will argue there is no-such thing) is surely skewing the stats it is not going to be 3 deaths per 1000.
Indeed if you check this doc http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_02.pdf from the NCHS on page 8 that for births where the mother received no pre-natal care the death rate is more like 37 per 1000. Pretty staggering.
Anyway I don't think for a minute health care reform will make Americans less stupid or fat, but isn't it a fact that a complete lack of health care before you are basically chronically or terminally ill isn't going to help your condition. Might as well just live out your days enjoying that satiating fast food and mind dumbing TV waiting for Godot... Any population will have vast numbers of people who will not be proactive about their health care unless it is jammed down their throats by the government, schools and society as a whole. But doing so ultimately benefits everyone, its a moral good and a social good - or at least that is what I believe. So while it is fine to say Americans are dumb so leave them to it, I'm afraid I rather believe that by and large most people do support reform and free health care, the problem is a big fat greedy corporations are preventing them from getting it and those corps have their fingers in every pie and pies the world over so watch out. What starts here may ultimately end up in everyone's laps so give us a chance - the worst we can do is screw it up and be the laughing stock of the world and goodness knows we've have plenty of practice in the last decade or so.
Another thing the government can do to immediately impact healthcare is outlaw tobacco products, alcohol, and fast food. Why isn't anyone talking about that?
Because outlawing what people want is always useless.
The good ol' "soshalizm iz ebel" meme is still in full effect. Anyone with half a brain should know what's good for them.
Glad you don't drink too much tea in the dark nowadays, I wish I could...
C
Post a Comment