Fortunately, it is to be on HBO. That means some people, at least, will see it.
If it were at the theaters, it would get acclaim, some would see it but not enough people. And likely, too, it wouldn't be the people seeing it who should see it.
This way, if it's on HBO, in our homes, in our living rooms, we don't have to get up and go anywhere to take it in.
And there's more and cheaper food, too.
Showing posts with label health care crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care crisis. Show all posts
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Still don't think we need health care reform?
If you still don't think we need health care reform here in the US, consider these three facts and all the supporting data:
1) In the U.S., health care costs run nearly $7,000 per person. But in Cuba, they spend around $251 per person.
•United States health spending per capita is $6,697 per person according to Catlin, A, C. Cowan, S. Heffler, et al, "National Health Spending in 2005." Health Affairs 26:1 (2006). As with the number of uninsured, the number continues to increase and is projected to be $7,092 per capita in 2006, $7,498 per capita in 2007 and reaching $12,782 by 2016, according the Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures, National Health Expenditures Projections 2006-2016,
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2006.pdf
•The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report says Cuba spends $251 per capita on health care. (Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html)
2) In Cuba, access to health care is universal.
•"Cuban dissatisfaction with their personal lives does not mean they are negative about the revolutionary government's achievements in health care and education. A near unanimous 96 percent of respondents say that health care in Cuba is accessible to everyone. Gallup polls in other Latin American cities have found that on average only 42 percent believe health care is accessible." Gallup/ ConsultorÃa Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo, "Cubans Show Little Satisfaction with Opportunities and Individual Freedom Rare Independent Survey Finds Large Majorities Are Still Proud of Island's Health Care and Education," January 10, 2007.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/
300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla
3) Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate and a longer average lifespan than the United States.
•The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report's human development index states the life expectancy in the United States is 77.5, and is 77.6 in Cuba. Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf.
•According to the United Nations Statistics Division, Population and Vital Statistics Report, the rate of infant deaths per thousand in Cuba is 6.2 per thousand, and in the United States is 6.8. "Table 3, Live births, deaths, and infant deaths, latest available year, June 15, 2007."
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/serATab3.pdf
And there is a hell of a lot more where this comes from.
1) In the U.S., health care costs run nearly $7,000 per person. But in Cuba, they spend around $251 per person.
•United States health spending per capita is $6,697 per person according to Catlin, A, C. Cowan, S. Heffler, et al, "National Health Spending in 2005." Health Affairs 26:1 (2006). As with the number of uninsured, the number continues to increase and is projected to be $7,092 per capita in 2006, $7,498 per capita in 2007 and reaching $12,782 by 2016, according the Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures, National Health Expenditures Projections 2006-2016,
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2006.pdf
•The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report says Cuba spends $251 per capita on health care. (Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html)
2) In Cuba, access to health care is universal.
•"Cuban dissatisfaction with their personal lives does not mean they are negative about the revolutionary government's achievements in health care and education. A near unanimous 96 percent of respondents say that health care in Cuba is accessible to everyone. Gallup polls in other Latin American cities have found that on average only 42 percent believe health care is accessible." Gallup/ ConsultorÃa Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo, "Cubans Show Little Satisfaction with Opportunities and Individual Freedom Rare Independent Survey Finds Large Majorities Are Still Proud of Island's Health Care and Education," January 10, 2007.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/
300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla
3) Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate and a longer average lifespan than the United States.
•The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report's human development index states the life expectancy in the United States is 77.5, and is 77.6 in Cuba. Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf.
•According to the United Nations Statistics Division, Population and Vital Statistics Report, the rate of infant deaths per thousand in Cuba is 6.2 per thousand, and in the United States is 6.8. "Table 3, Live births, deaths, and infant deaths, latest available year, June 15, 2007."
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/serATab3.pdf
And there is a hell of a lot more where this comes from.
Don't need health care reform?
If anyone still says we don't need to reform health care in America, point out the following new study, in addition to all the existing data there is out there:
"Mothers are giving birth to lighter babies in the U.S., and no one is quite sure why."
"The finding, published Thursday in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, has potentially troubling public-health implications, if the trend continues. Low-birth-weight babies are at higher risk for a host of health problems."
"Between 1990 and 2005, the birth weight of full-term babies in the U.S. declined nearly two ounces to an average of 7 pounds, 7.54 ounces, a reversal of a trend that had seen birth weights climb steadily since the 1950s, according to the study. Babies were also born 2.5 days earlier on average in 2005 than in 1990, the study said."
It goes on:
"The results are 'surprising and unexpected,' said Emily Oken, an author of the paper and an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School. "We do need to keep a close eye on the babies that are the smallest babies to see if the proportion of those is increasing over time, because they may require extra resources and have extra health concerns,' she said."
If this most expensive of health care systems in the world that we have here in the US--and it is--is the best in the world, as people claim, why do we now have this additional issue/potential problem?
And check this out, it isn't just minorities and/or the poor to whom this is happening, either:
"Researchers repeated their analysis in a sample of low-risk women—healthy, educated Caucasians in their mid-to-late 20s—and found that the decrease in birth weight was even more pronounced, suggesting that the trend wasn't the result of changes in the population of mothers."
The fact is, for the most money we can spend in the world in every measure, the only ones benefitting from all the money spent are the insurance companies and corporations.
We're getting less healthy.
We rank 37th, internationaly, when considering mortality rates. (Read: when people die).
That's behind Costa Rica, people.
If you don't think we need health care reform, please do some research. You will find out differently.
If you know, as I do, that we do need this reform--and desperately--contact your congressional representatives now. Email them and tell them we need this.
Hopefully it's not too late.
____________________________
For lots more data--hard statistics--on the US' health care system and how expensive, ineffective and downright unhealthy it is, go here.
"Mothers are giving birth to lighter babies in the U.S., and no one is quite sure why."
"The finding, published Thursday in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, has potentially troubling public-health implications, if the trend continues. Low-birth-weight babies are at higher risk for a host of health problems."
"Between 1990 and 2005, the birth weight of full-term babies in the U.S. declined nearly two ounces to an average of 7 pounds, 7.54 ounces, a reversal of a trend that had seen birth weights climb steadily since the 1950s, according to the study. Babies were also born 2.5 days earlier on average in 2005 than in 1990, the study said."
It goes on:
"The results are 'surprising and unexpected,' said Emily Oken, an author of the paper and an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School. "We do need to keep a close eye on the babies that are the smallest babies to see if the proportion of those is increasing over time, because they may require extra resources and have extra health concerns,' she said."
If this most expensive of health care systems in the world that we have here in the US--and it is--is the best in the world, as people claim, why do we now have this additional issue/potential problem?
And check this out, it isn't just minorities and/or the poor to whom this is happening, either:
"Researchers repeated their analysis in a sample of low-risk women—healthy, educated Caucasians in their mid-to-late 20s—and found that the decrease in birth weight was even more pronounced, suggesting that the trend wasn't the result of changes in the population of mothers."
The fact is, for the most money we can spend in the world in every measure, the only ones benefitting from all the money spent are the insurance companies and corporations.
We're getting less healthy.
We rank 37th, internationaly, when considering mortality rates. (Read: when people die).
That's behind Costa Rica, people.
If you don't think we need health care reform, please do some research. You will find out differently.
If you know, as I do, that we do need this reform--and desperately--contact your congressional representatives now. Email them and tell them we need this.
Hopefully it's not too late.
____________________________
For lots more data--hard statistics--on the US' health care system and how expensive, ineffective and downright unhealthy it is, go here.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Three big problems with and for health care reform
There are at least three big problems with and for the health care reform right now, in Washington, that could lead to who knows where--not the least of which is that the reform will yet be killed.
First, there is the fact that right now, today, Massachussetts is rather famously voting for a Senator to replace Ted Kennedy.
Ol' Ted will surely "spin in his grave", so to speak, if the Conservative, Republican Scott Brown--Tea Bagger that he is--wins the seat.
Hopefully all the Democrats turn out today and are backed by some independent voters and put Martha Coakley in the Senate.
If not, the Democrats lose their super-majority in the Senate and we lose our ability to pass any health care reform.
And that will be for years.
Cross your fingers.
The second problem for health care reform right now is that the mandate for all Americans to buy health care insurance may get thrown out as unconstitutional.
And you know? I have to say, it does seem that it would be tough to get this to fly in our courts.
Americans forced to buy health insurance by their government?
I don't think so.
And anyway, what sense did that ever make, anyway? If you can't afford health care, how is it that the government's mandating you to buy it is going to make that happen?
If you don't have the money for health care, you simply don't have the money for health care, government mandate or no government mandate.
And finally, this brings us to what is wrong, ultimately, at its core, for this entire health care reform. The third and final thing wrong with this is that the very industries we were supposed to be reforming were allowed in the room---heck, in the negotiations--during the whole debate to begin with.
That's insane.
Since when does the patient get to be their own doctor?
Meaning, our problems with health care should have meant that the hospitals and doctors and insurance agencies--especially the insurance agencies--shouldn't have been let in on the health care reform debate and proposals. They're all putting things in there for themselves, not the American people.
So what happened?
The "single-payer" option was discarded right away and this alone was estimated to have saved us $350 billion dollars per year---enough to pay for the entire health care reform.
It simply makes no sense to have 1300 different health care insurance forms--one for each insurance agency in the country. The savings would have been huge.
And the "public option" for a government insurance plan for us--at much lower costs--was thrown out.
How else can we get insurance companies to keep their costs down unless there is a government option?
The result was that the American people and the actual reforms we needed were thrown out, for the sake of the corporations and their profits.
I hope this will all have been worth it and we get some good health care reform.
Right now, nothing is certain.
Not what's in the bill and not whether we'll even get a bill.
Here's hoping.
First, there is the fact that right now, today, Massachussetts is rather famously voting for a Senator to replace Ted Kennedy.
Ol' Ted will surely "spin in his grave", so to speak, if the Conservative, Republican Scott Brown--Tea Bagger that he is--wins the seat.
Hopefully all the Democrats turn out today and are backed by some independent voters and put Martha Coakley in the Senate.
If not, the Democrats lose their super-majority in the Senate and we lose our ability to pass any health care reform.
And that will be for years.
Cross your fingers.
The second problem for health care reform right now is that the mandate for all Americans to buy health care insurance may get thrown out as unconstitutional.
And you know? I have to say, it does seem that it would be tough to get this to fly in our courts.
Americans forced to buy health insurance by their government?
I don't think so.
And anyway, what sense did that ever make, anyway? If you can't afford health care, how is it that the government's mandating you to buy it is going to make that happen?
If you don't have the money for health care, you simply don't have the money for health care, government mandate or no government mandate.
And finally, this brings us to what is wrong, ultimately, at its core, for this entire health care reform. The third and final thing wrong with this is that the very industries we were supposed to be reforming were allowed in the room---heck, in the negotiations--during the whole debate to begin with.
That's insane.
Since when does the patient get to be their own doctor?
Meaning, our problems with health care should have meant that the hospitals and doctors and insurance agencies--especially the insurance agencies--shouldn't have been let in on the health care reform debate and proposals. They're all putting things in there for themselves, not the American people.
So what happened?
The "single-payer" option was discarded right away and this alone was estimated to have saved us $350 billion dollars per year---enough to pay for the entire health care reform.
It simply makes no sense to have 1300 different health care insurance forms--one for each insurance agency in the country. The savings would have been huge.
And the "public option" for a government insurance plan for us--at much lower costs--was thrown out.
How else can we get insurance companies to keep their costs down unless there is a government option?
The result was that the American people and the actual reforms we needed were thrown out, for the sake of the corporations and their profits.
I hope this will all have been worth it and we get some good health care reform.
Right now, nothing is certain.
Not what's in the bill and not whether we'll even get a bill.
Here's hoping.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
We've been sold out on reform, health care and otherwise
From a friend--Michael--and "Crooks and Liars", the blog. This is another rare case of wanting to put something up that expresses my feelings, particularly about living in this sick society we call America, where the corporations and their huge profits are far more important than the citizens of the state.
Notes on the Moral and Political Degradation of America
By Ian Welsh Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 2:15pm
The news in the last few days has continued the drumbeat of demoralizing events which started in the Bush administration, and with only a few hiccups has continued through the Obama administration. It is clear that Obama is, fundamentally, Bush's 3rd term.
First we have the health care "reform" debacle, where it has been confirmed that the White House pushed Harry Reid to accept Lieberman's ultimatum, not go to reconciliation. There will be no public option in the Senate bill. There will be no Medicare expansion. There will be no cap on yearly limits. What there will be is a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, some subsidies which can still leave people spending money they can't afford, and guaranteed issue of lousy plans (Plans where only 70% of the premiums have to be spent on care, for example.) Unless progressive Senators are willing to filibuster, or House progressives are willing to vote against en-masse, something very close to the Senate plan is what will pass, because as I noted some time ago, the White House's bottom line is that something, anything must pass, and conservative Dems are willing to kill the bill to make sure it doesn't actually threaten health industry profits in any way, shape, or form. (Thus why drug importation, which would cost Pharma money, will be made illegal.)
All of this was completely predictable. Furthermore the weakness of progressive and liberal legislators, is largely to blame:
Obama and the Democratic leadership's bottom line is they must pass some bill called "health care reform". Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn't progressives bottom line
This is Negotiation 101, and progressive legislators either don't understand it, or are spineless. As a result they, and Americans, have been rolled yet again. What is depressing about this is that it should be a surprise to no one, but apparently has surprised many.
It is also noteworthy that spending billions on turning brown people into a fine red mist (a.k.a. the Afghan war) is acceptable, but health care (a.k.a. saving actual American lives) is something which can't cost money. What an interesting--and clearly evil--set of priorities that reveals. I guarantee that real healthcare reform would save more American lives than the entire war on terror—assuming said "war" hasn't cost more American lives than it's saved, which is almost certainly the case.
Next we have what Glenn Greenwald is calling the creation of Gitmo North, in which people whom the government judges there is not enough evidence to convict, will be held indefinitely without trial. This is the very definition of tyranny. Any nation which does this is a nation of men, not laws. America has forsaken its fundamental premise and proved its degradation. Yes, this started under Bush, but as Obama embraces this, it because a bipartisan project and the new elite consensus. This is now something which has been confirmed as US policy which is extremely unlikely to change no matter who is in power.
Then we have bankers are giving themselves bonuses larger than the entire economy's GDP growth this year.
As Peter Morici notes:
How much is $140 billion?
The U.S. economy grew at a $89 billion annualized rate in the third quarter. That was the first growth since the second quarter of 2008 and came to $22 billion in actual growth in the third quarter.
The bankers, after causing the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, are rewarded with six times the growth accomplished so far in the much heralded “economic recovery.”
Meanwhile, seven million families face foreclosure and 25 million Americans can’t find full time work.
To add this sad state, we have the sad spectacle of Obama lecturing the bankers. Meanwhile in Britain, instead of lecturing, the government has imposed a 50% tax on bonuses, and France looks like to follow suit. The British government's response to threats to move employees out of the country? "That's nice, you do that."
The fact of the matter, as I've long said, is that bankers at the big banks are a net drain on the economy. Their venality and recklessness has wiped out the entire economic gains of the last decade and plunged the economy into its worst crisis since the Great Depression.
Now I'm not surprised they have the gall to pay themselves these bonuses. The entire profits of most large banks in the last expansion were based on open fraud. Of course criminals who have not been punished, but have been rewarded for their crimes are going to continue to steal. What is shocking is that the government is essentially doing nothing. Obama's "Pay Czar" is a sick joke, especially compared to just taxing all bonuses at 50%. Heck, even taxing bonuses at 50% is sad—they should be taxed a good confiscatory 90%. A class of people who caused an economic calamity of this magnitude do not deserve to be paid more than janitors.
Why? Because, as a British study noted, janitors actually create value. So do homemakers. So do assembly-line workers. Modern bankers, on the other hand, destroy value. They make the economy weaker. That isn't the way it should be, but when you bail out the banks for trillions and they decrease their lending to businesses and increase their credit card interest rates to as much as 29% it's clear that all they are is parasites, sucking blood from their hosts.
In a healthy, non-degraded society, none of the behavior listed above would be allowed. Not only would there be confiscatory taxes leveled, there would be massive ongoing criminal investigations into what happened.
In a healthy, non-degraded society, saving American lives by making sure they have health care would be a priority. Especially since the US pays twice as much per person as many countries which get far better results. This would be considered much more important than a war in a far away country, because it would be understood that even if you believe that turning brown people into a fine red mist saves American lives, health care would save more lives. And, done right (a.k.a. single payer) it would even save money. But that was never on the table, and even the limp-wristed compromise of a weak public option was too much for the rich and powerful to tolerate. Americans exist to be looted systematically by their elites, and if they die young and live sick, who cares? They are just sacks of money and the goal of government is to make dipping your hand into that sack as easy as possible for industries which can afford to buy government.
And, last but not least, in a healthy, non-degraded society, the government is not allowed to lock up people indefinitely without trial. If you don't understand why this is, I can't explain it to you, any more than it is apparently possible to explain to a plurality of Americans why torturing people is evil, and beyond the pale. The fact that it can't be explained any more to many Americans, of course, is exactly why it is fair to call this degradation.
Moral and political degradation.
Original link:
http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/notes-moral-and-political-degradation-am
Notes on the Moral and Political Degradation of America
By Ian Welsh Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 2:15pm
The news in the last few days has continued the drumbeat of demoralizing events which started in the Bush administration, and with only a few hiccups has continued through the Obama administration. It is clear that Obama is, fundamentally, Bush's 3rd term.
First we have the health care "reform" debacle, where it has been confirmed that the White House pushed Harry Reid to accept Lieberman's ultimatum, not go to reconciliation. There will be no public option in the Senate bill. There will be no Medicare expansion. There will be no cap on yearly limits. What there will be is a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, some subsidies which can still leave people spending money they can't afford, and guaranteed issue of lousy plans (Plans where only 70% of the premiums have to be spent on care, for example.) Unless progressive Senators are willing to filibuster, or House progressives are willing to vote against en-masse, something very close to the Senate plan is what will pass, because as I noted some time ago, the White House's bottom line is that something, anything must pass, and conservative Dems are willing to kill the bill to make sure it doesn't actually threaten health industry profits in any way, shape, or form. (Thus why drug importation, which would cost Pharma money, will be made illegal.)
All of this was completely predictable. Furthermore the weakness of progressive and liberal legislators, is largely to blame:
Obama and the Democratic leadership's bottom line is they must pass some bill called "health care reform". Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn't progressives bottom line
This is Negotiation 101, and progressive legislators either don't understand it, or are spineless. As a result they, and Americans, have been rolled yet again. What is depressing about this is that it should be a surprise to no one, but apparently has surprised many.
It is also noteworthy that spending billions on turning brown people into a fine red mist (a.k.a. the Afghan war) is acceptable, but health care (a.k.a. saving actual American lives) is something which can't cost money. What an interesting--and clearly evil--set of priorities that reveals. I guarantee that real healthcare reform would save more American lives than the entire war on terror—assuming said "war" hasn't cost more American lives than it's saved, which is almost certainly the case.
Next we have what Glenn Greenwald is calling the creation of Gitmo North, in which people whom the government judges there is not enough evidence to convict, will be held indefinitely without trial. This is the very definition of tyranny. Any nation which does this is a nation of men, not laws. America has forsaken its fundamental premise and proved its degradation. Yes, this started under Bush, but as Obama embraces this, it because a bipartisan project and the new elite consensus. This is now something which has been confirmed as US policy which is extremely unlikely to change no matter who is in power.
Then we have bankers are giving themselves bonuses larger than the entire economy's GDP growth this year.
As Peter Morici notes:
How much is $140 billion?
The U.S. economy grew at a $89 billion annualized rate in the third quarter. That was the first growth since the second quarter of 2008 and came to $22 billion in actual growth in the third quarter.
The bankers, after causing the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, are rewarded with six times the growth accomplished so far in the much heralded “economic recovery.”
Meanwhile, seven million families face foreclosure and 25 million Americans can’t find full time work.
To add this sad state, we have the sad spectacle of Obama lecturing the bankers. Meanwhile in Britain, instead of lecturing, the government has imposed a 50% tax on bonuses, and France looks like to follow suit. The British government's response to threats to move employees out of the country? "That's nice, you do that."
The fact of the matter, as I've long said, is that bankers at the big banks are a net drain on the economy. Their venality and recklessness has wiped out the entire economic gains of the last decade and plunged the economy into its worst crisis since the Great Depression.
Now I'm not surprised they have the gall to pay themselves these bonuses. The entire profits of most large banks in the last expansion were based on open fraud. Of course criminals who have not been punished, but have been rewarded for their crimes are going to continue to steal. What is shocking is that the government is essentially doing nothing. Obama's "Pay Czar" is a sick joke, especially compared to just taxing all bonuses at 50%. Heck, even taxing bonuses at 50% is sad—they should be taxed a good confiscatory 90%. A class of people who caused an economic calamity of this magnitude do not deserve to be paid more than janitors.
Why? Because, as a British study noted, janitors actually create value. So do homemakers. So do assembly-line workers. Modern bankers, on the other hand, destroy value. They make the economy weaker. That isn't the way it should be, but when you bail out the banks for trillions and they decrease their lending to businesses and increase their credit card interest rates to as much as 29% it's clear that all they are is parasites, sucking blood from their hosts.
In a healthy, non-degraded society, none of the behavior listed above would be allowed. Not only would there be confiscatory taxes leveled, there would be massive ongoing criminal investigations into what happened.
In a healthy, non-degraded society, saving American lives by making sure they have health care would be a priority. Especially since the US pays twice as much per person as many countries which get far better results. This would be considered much more important than a war in a far away country, because it would be understood that even if you believe that turning brown people into a fine red mist saves American lives, health care would save more lives. And, done right (a.k.a. single payer) it would even save money. But that was never on the table, and even the limp-wristed compromise of a weak public option was too much for the rich and powerful to tolerate. Americans exist to be looted systematically by their elites, and if they die young and live sick, who cares? They are just sacks of money and the goal of government is to make dipping your hand into that sack as easy as possible for industries which can afford to buy government.
And, last but not least, in a healthy, non-degraded society, the government is not allowed to lock up people indefinitely without trial. If you don't understand why this is, I can't explain it to you, any more than it is apparently possible to explain to a plurality of Americans why torturing people is evil, and beyond the pale. The fact that it can't be explained any more to many Americans, of course, is exactly why it is fair to call this degradation.
Moral and political degradation.
Original link:
http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/notes-moral-and-political-degradation-am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
