Free Flow of Information for whom?
13 years ago
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
07 January 2011
Hero of the Day: Rep. Lynn Woolsey
... for having the unswerving moxie to reintroduce her public option bill in the face of a slew of new Republican bills in the works aimed at eviscerating or eliminating the new health care laws.
18 July 2010
Single-Payer was the only decent idea
With all due respect to my friends who have urged me to relax my objections to the upcoming changes in health insurance "because we need to change things, and this is a start," ... the new plan sucks.
There is no incentive whatsoever for the insurers to reduce premium costs by any means other than minimizing the bang for the buck. So unless you can afford the high deductible and co-payments that will be assessed if you leave your insurance network, the list of covered doctors and hospitals is very likely to be reduced. Meaning:
There is no incentive whatsoever for the insurers to reduce premium costs by any means other than minimizing the bang for the buck. So unless you can afford the high deductible and co-payments that will be assessed if you leave your insurance network, the list of covered doctors and hospitals is very likely to be reduced. Meaning:
- you may have to leave a doctor you have been seeing for some time and whom you trust.
- you might be in trouble if you have a medical emergency in a location where there are no nearby hospitals in your network and you are admitted to a bed for more than ER care.
- the insurers have not been asked to absorb a single dollar's worth of impact in our attempt to create a more fair system.
- the Conservatives are right. This bill sucks and should be repealed. LET'S START OVER indeed.
02 October 2009
Journalist of the day: Helen Thomas
Dana Milbank - Washington Sketch - washingtonpost.com:
Let's just give her a lifetime achievement Best Journalist award, come to think of it.
Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers....
"Has the president given up on the public option?" she inquired from her front-row-middle seat...."...[W]hy do you keep asking me?" Gibbs inquired.
"Because I want your conscience to bother you," Thomas replied.
Let's just give her a lifetime achievement Best Journalist award, come to think of it.
04 September 2009
Wanna give your baby its best shot at life? Move to a country with socialized health care.
posted by i.n.kazar
As a follow-up to my examination of life expectancy here is a selected list of countries in order of "number of infant mortality deaths per 1,000 live births. On this list, the closer one is to #1 the worse the survival rate of newborns, so I'm starting from the end.
224. Singapore: 2.31 infant deaths/1000
223. Bermuda: 2.46
222. Sweden: 2.75
221. Japan: 2.79
[and again: "OK but where's the U.S., did you skip it??"]
217. France: 3.33
214. Norway: 3.58
211. Czech Republic: 3.79
204. South Korea: 4.26
198. Netherlands: 4.73
196. Australia: 4.75
193. United Kingdom: 4.85
189. Canada: 5.04
["WHAT ABOUT THE U.S.?!" ... hang on, I'm almost there]
181. Cuba: 5.82
[and now quite a decline between Communist Cuba and the next one on the list ...]
180. United States: 6.26
Yes, that is right, according to the CIA's figures your baby born in this country is 2.7 times as likely to die in infancy than a baby born in the top-ranked Singapore. At number 38 from the end of the CIA's reverse-ranked list, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the second decile when looking at the survival rate of infants around the globe.
Still think that our money-driven health system is something to cling to? I have some ideas as to why our infant mortality rate would be so high, but I'll leave that for a possible future post.
As a follow-up to my examination of life expectancy here is a selected list of countries in order of "number of infant mortality deaths per 1,000 live births. On this list, the closer one is to #1 the worse the survival rate of newborns, so I'm starting from the end.
224. Singapore: 2.31 infant deaths/1000
223. Bermuda: 2.46
222. Sweden: 2.75
221. Japan: 2.79
[and again: "OK but where's the U.S., did you skip it??"]
217. France: 3.33
214. Norway: 3.58
211. Czech Republic: 3.79
204. South Korea: 4.26
198. Netherlands: 4.73
196. Australia: 4.75
193. United Kingdom: 4.85
189. Canada: 5.04
["WHAT ABOUT THE U.S.?!" ... hang on, I'm almost there]
181. Cuba: 5.82
[and now quite a decline between Communist Cuba and the next one on the list ...]
180. United States: 6.26
Yes, that is right, according to the CIA's figures your baby born in this country is 2.7 times as likely to die in infancy than a baby born in the top-ranked Singapore. At number 38 from the end of the CIA's reverse-ranked list, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the second decile when looking at the survival rate of infants around the globe.
Still think that our money-driven health system is something to cling to? I have some ideas as to why our infant mortality rate would be so high, but I'll leave that for a possible future post.
31 August 2009
Wanna live longer? Move to a country with socialized health care.
posted by i.n.kazar
Countries in order of life expectancy, as reported by the CIA Factbook, with details on the health care systems of some of the countries (enough to communicate my point) as reported by the World Health Organization and other sources. Oh, and by the way, many of the governments topping the list have panels empowered to examine health expenditures in the final year(s) of life. Contrary to the 'death panel' hysteria promoted by groups in the U.S. that wish to preserve our lovely status quo, countries whose governments take stock of the expenses and questions of dignity at end-of-life have the LONGEST life expectancy. If you don't believe me, click some of my links and do some reading for yourselves, instead of just repeating what your favorite columnists and radio hosts might be spouting.
1. Macau: 84.36 years -- Mixture of government-provided healthcare and private services overseen by the government. (WHO and Wikipedia)
[hmmm... not the U.S.? where we are not subjected to "the nightmares of government-controlled medicine"?]
2. Andorra: 82.51 years -- 92% of the population covered by the government health agency (WHO pdf)
3. Japan: 82.12 years -- "In the Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including screening examinations for particular diseases at no direct cost to the patient, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1983[1], all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice.... It is compulsory to be enrolled in a Japanese insurance program if you are a resident of Japan." (Wikipedia)
"The basic principle governing the delivery of health care services is that all citizens should be able, at any time and place, to receive the care they require, with an affordable personal contribution.
"The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare announced a health promotion programme, the National Health Promotion Movement in the 21st Century (Healthy Japan 21), in 2000. The movement, unlike traditional programmes, emphasizes ‘primary prevention’, aiming at early detection and treatment of diseases." (WHO)
4. Singapore: 81.98 years -- "There is a dual system of health care delivery. The public system is managed by the Government, while the private system is provided by private hospitals and general practitioners." (WHO)
[OK but where's the U.S., did you skip it??]
5. San Marino: 81.97 years
6. Hong Kong: 81.86 years
7. Australia: 81.63 years -- "Australia’s health care system is a partnership between the Federal, State and Territory, and local governments. Through the Health and Ageing portfolio, the Federal Government provides national leadership, determines national policies and outcomes, and shares responsibility for funding services....
"The system is complex, with delivery provided by both the public and private sectors." (WHO)
8. Canada: 81.23 years -- "Canada has an extensive social security network, including old age pension, family allowance, employment insurance and social assistance. Basic health care is provided to all Canadians through a universal free health care system." (WHO)
9. France: 80.98 years
10. Sweden: 80.86 years
13. Israel: 80.73 years
19. Italy: 80.20 years
[WHAT ABOUT THE U.S.?!]
23. Spain: 80.05 years
30. Netherlands: 79.40 years
36. United Kingdom: 79.01 years
38. Jordan: 78.87 years
40. South Korea: 78.72 years
50. United States: 78.11 years
Countries in order of life expectancy, as reported by the CIA Factbook, with details on the health care systems of some of the countries (enough to communicate my point) as reported by the World Health Organization and other sources. Oh, and by the way, many of the governments topping the list have panels empowered to examine health expenditures in the final year(s) of life. Contrary to the 'death panel' hysteria promoted by groups in the U.S. that wish to preserve our lovely status quo, countries whose governments take stock of the expenses and questions of dignity at end-of-life have the LONGEST life expectancy. If you don't believe me, click some of my links and do some reading for yourselves, instead of just repeating what your favorite columnists and radio hosts might be spouting.
1. Macau: 84.36 years -- Mixture of government-provided healthcare and private services overseen by the government. (WHO and Wikipedia)
[hmmm... not the U.S.? where we are not subjected to "the nightmares of government-controlled medicine"?]
2. Andorra: 82.51 years -- 92% of the population covered by the government health agency (WHO pdf)
3. Japan: 82.12 years -- "In the Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including screening examinations for particular diseases at no direct cost to the patient, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1983[1], all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice.... It is compulsory to be enrolled in a Japanese insurance program if you are a resident of Japan." (Wikipedia)
"The basic principle governing the delivery of health care services is that all citizens should be able, at any time and place, to receive the care they require, with an affordable personal contribution.
"The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare announced a health promotion programme, the National Health Promotion Movement in the 21st Century (Healthy Japan 21), in 2000. The movement, unlike traditional programmes, emphasizes ‘primary prevention’, aiming at early detection and treatment of diseases." (WHO)
4. Singapore: 81.98 years -- "There is a dual system of health care delivery. The public system is managed by the Government, while the private system is provided by private hospitals and general practitioners." (WHO)
[OK but where's the U.S., did you skip it??]
5. San Marino: 81.97 years
6. Hong Kong: 81.86 years
7. Australia: 81.63 years -- "Australia’s health care system is a partnership between the Federal, State and Territory, and local governments. Through the Health and Ageing portfolio, the Federal Government provides national leadership, determines national policies and outcomes, and shares responsibility for funding services....
"The system is complex, with delivery provided by both the public and private sectors." (WHO)
8. Canada: 81.23 years -- "Canada has an extensive social security network, including old age pension, family allowance, employment insurance and social assistance. Basic health care is provided to all Canadians through a universal free health care system." (WHO)
9. France: 80.98 years
10. Sweden: 80.86 years
13. Israel: 80.73 years
19. Italy: 80.20 years
[WHAT ABOUT THE U.S.?!]
23. Spain: 80.05 years
30. Netherlands: 79.40 years
36. United Kingdom: 79.01 years
38. Jordan: 78.87 years
40. South Korea: 78.72 years
50. United States: 78.11 years
16 July 2009
Partisan Schmartisan
--posted by Ilyse Kazar
A party-line Senate committee vote on legislation to remake the nation’s health care system underscored the absence of political consensus on what would be the biggest changes in social policy in more than 40 years.Sheeeeeesh. I feel SO done with all parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
