Monday, July 30, 2007 by The New York Times | An Immoral Philosophy | by Paul Krugman
When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.
Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That’s why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.
But President Bush says that access to care is no problem - “After all, you just go to an emergency room” - and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.
It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn’t about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we’ll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.
The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage - a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.
Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children’s health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.
So what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
99,000 dies of hospital infections ...65% don't clean lab coat in a week ... don't wash hands enough ...
Hazardous Hospitals: How the Profit Motive Can Kill You | by Yves Engler / July 28th, 2007
A front–page article in Yesterday’s New York Times reports “The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected this year that one of every 22 patients would get an infection while hospitalized — 1.7 million cases a year — and that 99,000 would die, often from what began as a routine procedure.”
A little reported on New England Journal of Medicine study from a few months back concluded that 19,000 people die from preventable infections acquired during the insertion of catheters.
...
... several European countries have all but eliminated MRSA, .... The New England Journal of Medicine study reports that catheter related blood stream infections dropped 66% with some minor changes (including rigorous hand-washing, thorough cleaning of the skin around catheters, and wearing sterile masks, gowns and gloves as well as removing catheters from patients as soon as possible and avoiding inserting catheters in the groin area). ... concluded that up to 75 percent of deadly infections caught in hospitals could be avoided by doctors and nurses using better washing techniques. (Studies show that over half of the time physicians fail to clean their hands before treating patients and that 65 percent of physicians and other medical professionals go more than a week without washing their lab coat.)
...
The biggest barrier to improvement, however, is our economic system, which focuses on cures and technology because that’s where the biggest, quickest profits can be found. Pfizer isn’t likely to fund studies that look into the role hand-washing plays in hospital-acquired infections since they don’t see a profit in doing so. ...
...
... More than 70 per cent of hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one common antibiotic. ...
According to an analysis of 1.5 million insurance claims for antibiotic prescriptions in 2004, 40% of people who filled an antibiotic prescription had not seen a doctor in at least a month. Without seeing the patient, how can doctors determine whether their symptoms were the result of a viral infection — which don’t respond to antibiotics — or a bacterial infection that do. This over-prescription of antibiotics increases the growth of multi-resistant organisms.
... Additionally, half of all antibiotics sold each year are used on animals, according to New Scientist. ... The administration of low doses is especially problematic since it becomes a feeding ground for organisms to mutate. ...
To end this practice, the European Union recently banned antibiotic growth promoters. Washington and Ottawa, kowtowing to the animal industry, have done little. ...
A front–page article in Yesterday’s New York Times reports “The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected this year that one of every 22 patients would get an infection while hospitalized — 1.7 million cases a year — and that 99,000 would die, often from what began as a routine procedure.”
A little reported on New England Journal of Medicine study from a few months back concluded that 19,000 people die from preventable infections acquired during the insertion of catheters.
...
... several European countries have all but eliminated MRSA, .... The New England Journal of Medicine study reports that catheter related blood stream infections dropped 66% with some minor changes (including rigorous hand-washing, thorough cleaning of the skin around catheters, and wearing sterile masks, gowns and gloves as well as removing catheters from patients as soon as possible and avoiding inserting catheters in the groin area). ... concluded that up to 75 percent of deadly infections caught in hospitals could be avoided by doctors and nurses using better washing techniques. (Studies show that over half of the time physicians fail to clean their hands before treating patients and that 65 percent of physicians and other medical professionals go more than a week without washing their lab coat.)
...
The biggest barrier to improvement, however, is our economic system, which focuses on cures and technology because that’s where the biggest, quickest profits can be found. Pfizer isn’t likely to fund studies that look into the role hand-washing plays in hospital-acquired infections since they don’t see a profit in doing so. ...
...
... More than 70 per cent of hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one common antibiotic. ...
According to an analysis of 1.5 million insurance claims for antibiotic prescriptions in 2004, 40% of people who filled an antibiotic prescription had not seen a doctor in at least a month. Without seeing the patient, how can doctors determine whether their symptoms were the result of a viral infection — which don’t respond to antibiotics — or a bacterial infection that do. This over-prescription of antibiotics increases the growth of multi-resistant organisms.
... Additionally, half of all antibiotics sold each year are used on animals, according to New Scientist. ... The administration of low doses is especially problematic since it becomes a feeding ground for organisms to mutate. ...
To end this practice, the European Union recently banned antibiotic growth promoters. Washington and Ottawa, kowtowing to the animal industry, have done little. ...
Friday, July 27, 2007
SCHIP child coverage: with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent
July 25, 2007 by TruthDig.com | Children’s Healthcare Is a No-Brainer | by Amy Goodman
...
The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it. The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.
The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as “young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris.
According to the American Association for Respiratory Care, with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent. Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, says: “It is a public health good in and of itself and will save lives to increase the tobacco tax. Cigarettes kill and cigarettes provoke lung cancer, and every child and every [other] human being we can, by increasing the cigarette tax, stop from smoking or slow down from smoking is going to have a public health benefit, save taxpayers money from the cost of the effects of smoking and tobacco.”
...
With children’s lives at stake, Edelman has no patience for political gamesmanship: “Why is this country, at this time, the richest in the world, arguing about how few or how many children they can serve? We ought to-this is a no-brainer. The American people want all of its children served. All children deserve health coverage, and I don’t know why we’re having such a hard time getting our president and our political leaders to get it, that children should have health insurance.” ...
...
The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it. The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.
The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as “young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris.
According to the American Association for Respiratory Care, with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent. Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, says: “It is a public health good in and of itself and will save lives to increase the tobacco tax. Cigarettes kill and cigarettes provoke lung cancer, and every child and every [other] human being we can, by increasing the cigarette tax, stop from smoking or slow down from smoking is going to have a public health benefit, save taxpayers money from the cost of the effects of smoking and tobacco.”
...
With children’s lives at stake, Edelman has no patience for political gamesmanship: “Why is this country, at this time, the richest in the world, arguing about how few or how many children they can serve? We ought to-this is a no-brainer. The American people want all of its children served. All children deserve health coverage, and I don’t know why we’re having such a hard time getting our president and our political leaders to get it, that children should have health insurance.” ...
Bush: "I’ll veto the bill.”: State Child Health Insurance Program has reduced the number of [poor, uninsured] children by about a quarter
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 by CommonDreams.org | A Heartless “Philosophy” | by Robert Weissman
...
A case can be made that the administration’s effort to block expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) should top the list.
SCHIP is a complement to Medicaid, and provides health insurance to uninsured children from low-income families, typically those making up to 200 percent of the poverty line ($34,000). It has had enormous success in its 10 years of existence. Four million children receive health insurance through SCHIP. It has reduced the number of children in families at or slightly above the poverty line who are uninsured by about a quarter.
...
But President Bush says no.
He has a “philosophical” objection to expanding SCHIP.
“I believe government cannot provide affordable health care,” Bush said at a media event last week. “I believe it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill.”
...
As against expanding SCHIP, the administration proposes a preposterous tax credit to help pay for individual insurance coverage. Because individual insurance coverage is both the least efficient component of the health insurance market and the one most rife with abuse, it is a certainty that the administration plan would be a failure.
...
A case can be made that the administration’s effort to block expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) should top the list.
SCHIP is a complement to Medicaid, and provides health insurance to uninsured children from low-income families, typically those making up to 200 percent of the poverty line ($34,000). It has had enormous success in its 10 years of existence. Four million children receive health insurance through SCHIP. It has reduced the number of children in families at or slightly above the poverty line who are uninsured by about a quarter.
...
But President Bush says no.
He has a “philosophical” objection to expanding SCHIP.
“I believe government cannot provide affordable health care,” Bush said at a media event last week. “I believe it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill.”
...
As against expanding SCHIP, the administration proposes a preposterous tax credit to help pay for individual insurance coverage. Because individual insurance coverage is both the least efficient component of the health insurance market and the one most rife with abuse, it is a certainty that the administration plan would be a failure.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
People who drank one or more diet sodas each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda
Study: Diet Soda Linked to Heart Risks | By JAY LINDSAY | The Associated Press | Tuesday, July 24, 2007; 6:02 PM
BOSTON -- People who drank one or more diet sodas each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda, a large but inconclusive study found. The results surprised the researchers who expected to see a difference between regular and diet soda drinkers.
It could be, they suggest, that even no-calorie sweet drinks increase the craving for more sweets, and that people who indulge in sodas probably have less healthy diets overall. ...
BOSTON -- People who drank one or more diet sodas each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda, a large but inconclusive study found. The results surprised the researchers who expected to see a difference between regular and diet soda drinkers.
It could be, they suggest, that even no-calorie sweet drinks increase the craving for more sweets, and that people who indulge in sodas probably have less healthy diets overall. ...
[Iraq / Depleted Uranium shells] is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year ...
World | Iraqis blame U.S. depleted uranium for surge in cancer | 19:20 | 23/07/2007
CAIRO, July 23 (RIA Novosti) - Iraq's environment minister blamed Monday the use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for the current surge in cancer cases across the country.
As a result of "at least 350 sites in Iraq being contaminated during bombing" with depleted uranium (DU) weapons, Nermin Othman said, the nation is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year.
Speaking at a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, she also complained that many chemical plants and oil facilities had been destroyed during the two military campaigns since the 1990s, but the ecological consequences remain unclear.
...
CAIRO, July 23 (RIA Novosti) - Iraq's environment minister blamed Monday the use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for the current surge in cancer cases across the country.
As a result of "at least 350 sites in Iraq being contaminated during bombing" with depleted uranium (DU) weapons, Nermin Othman said, the nation is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year.
Speaking at a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, she also complained that many chemical plants and oil facilities had been destroyed during the two military campaigns since the 1990s, but the ecological consequences remain unclear.
...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" ...
Deborah Burger| BIO | Ugly Health Care Waiting Times? Look at the U.S | Posted July 11, 2007 | 11:09 AM (EST)
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"
If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.
...
But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved.
U.S. waiting times are like the elephant in the room few of the critics care to address. Listen to what the chief medical officer of Aetna had to say in March.
Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these nuggets drop:
* The U.S. "healthcare system is not timely."
* Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."
* "In many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."
* In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."
Brennan's comments went unreported in the major media. But some reports are now beginning to break through, spurred by the debate SiCKO has spawned.
Business Week, no great fan of a national healthcare system, reported in late June that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."
...
Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. "a new approach of targeting investments to reduce waiting times combined with transparent reporting of wait times is having a substantial impact on access in the Canadian system," wrote Robert Bell, MD, of Toronto's University Health Network, with several of his RN and physician colleagues in a letter to the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer. ...
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"
If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.
...
But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved.
U.S. waiting times are like the elephant in the room few of the critics care to address. Listen to what the chief medical officer of Aetna had to say in March.
Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these nuggets drop:
* The U.S. "healthcare system is not timely."
* Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."
* "In many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."
* In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."
Brennan's comments went unreported in the major media. But some reports are now beginning to break through, spurred by the debate SiCKO has spawned.
Business Week, no great fan of a national healthcare system, reported in late June that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."
...
Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. "a new approach of targeting investments to reduce waiting times combined with transparent reporting of wait times is having a substantial impact on access in the Canadian system," wrote Robert Bell, MD, of Toronto's University Health Network, with several of his RN and physician colleagues in a letter to the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer. ...
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
resources wasted by private health insurance on administration and profit ... could cover all necessary medical care ...
Monday, July 2, 2007 by | Rescue Plan: Single-payer System Is The Answer To Public Health Insurance Woes | by Andrew D. Coats
...
Two generations ago, when employer-based private health insurance definitively failed to provide for the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
As the most recent generation of Americans has grown up, the failures of private health insurance have come to touch each of us in some personal way.
It has failed to:
* Remain affordable. Premiums, co-pays and deductibles mushroom, and employers pass their costs on to employees. Health care benefits present a sticking point in nearly every union contract.
* Cover those who have it. Health care costs related to illness are the main cause of bankruptcies in America, according to a 2005 study by Harvard professors. Astonishingly, of those who were bankrupt because of medical bills, three out of four had health insurance at the outset of their illness.
* Protect the patient-physician relationship. Insurance company interference in decisions that should be made between doctor and patient has become routine. Insurance rules delay and deny payment for diagnostic tests as well as treatments and very often control where a patient may seek care.
* Contain spending. Health costs soar, both per capita and as a percent of gross domestic product.
* Improve quality. The United States lags far behind all other developed nations on a broad index of health outcomes.
* Reverse health disparities. Consider appalling data from the Centers for Disease Control that the ratio of black to white mortality among newborn babies has worsened in recent decades. A study by former Surgeon General David Satcher showed not only that blacks continue to die sooner than whites but that the overall ratio of black to white mortality changed very little between 1960 and 2000.
* Cover the uninsured. Census Bureau data show that more than one in five Americans lack insurance for part of the year and more than one in six have no health insurance for 12 consecutive months or more.
...
Americans know from personal experience that private health insurance ties up an enormous amount of resources in administrative costs and profits at least $350 million annually, according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. American and Canadian Medicare both have proven for decades that very low overhead costs are feasible in a public health program.
The resources wasted by private health insurance on administration and profit could be used instead to cover all necessary medical care, for everyone primary care, specialty care, hospital care, dental care, mental health care, home care, rehabilitation, nursing home care and prescription drugs. ...
...
Two generations ago, when employer-based private health insurance definitively failed to provide for the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
As the most recent generation of Americans has grown up, the failures of private health insurance have come to touch each of us in some personal way.
It has failed to:
* Remain affordable. Premiums, co-pays and deductibles mushroom, and employers pass their costs on to employees. Health care benefits present a sticking point in nearly every union contract.
* Cover those who have it. Health care costs related to illness are the main cause of bankruptcies in America, according to a 2005 study by Harvard professors. Astonishingly, of those who were bankrupt because of medical bills, three out of four had health insurance at the outset of their illness.
* Protect the patient-physician relationship. Insurance company interference in decisions that should be made between doctor and patient has become routine. Insurance rules delay and deny payment for diagnostic tests as well as treatments and very often control where a patient may seek care.
* Contain spending. Health costs soar, both per capita and as a percent of gross domestic product.
* Improve quality. The United States lags far behind all other developed nations on a broad index of health outcomes.
* Reverse health disparities. Consider appalling data from the Centers for Disease Control that the ratio of black to white mortality among newborn babies has worsened in recent decades. A study by former Surgeon General David Satcher showed not only that blacks continue to die sooner than whites but that the overall ratio of black to white mortality changed very little between 1960 and 2000.
* Cover the uninsured. Census Bureau data show that more than one in five Americans lack insurance for part of the year and more than one in six have no health insurance for 12 consecutive months or more.
...
Americans know from personal experience that private health insurance ties up an enormous amount of resources in administrative costs and profits at least $350 million annually, according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. American and Canadian Medicare both have proven for decades that very low overhead costs are feasible in a public health program.
The resources wasted by private health insurance on administration and profit could be used instead to cover all necessary medical care, for everyone primary care, specialty care, hospital care, dental care, mental health care, home care, rehabilitation, nursing home care and prescription drugs. ...
one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: ... market capitalism itself ...
Health Costs Screw Business, Too | he victim Sicko won't acknowledge. | By Timothy Noah | Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 2:01 AM ET
...
... Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself.
I refer not to health insurers, nor to health-maintenance organizations, nor to for-profit hospitals, but rather to businesses outside the health-care sector that are saddled with the growing cost of providing health insurance to their employees. This obligation puts American companies at a disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors whose governments provide health care. The most obvious victim, ironically, is a company Moore knows very well: General Motors. Because of health-care obligations, the automaker that Moore pilloried in his first film, Roger and Me, is fighting for its life.
...
It's tempting to demonize business for whittling away at health-care benefits, but over the past two decades the cost to business of providing those benefits has roughly doubled, to a great extent because health insurers and hospitals now employ vast bureaucratic armies to fight over medical bills. Health-care costs are now outrunning income gains by about 3 percentage points. This means that for the typical worker, raises are, for the foreseeable future, an artifact of the past. That's terrible news for labor, but it's terrible news for bosses, too, because it robs them of a necessary tool to get employees to perform good work.
...
...
... Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself.
I refer not to health insurers, nor to health-maintenance organizations, nor to for-profit hospitals, but rather to businesses outside the health-care sector that are saddled with the growing cost of providing health insurance to their employees. This obligation puts American companies at a disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors whose governments provide health care. The most obvious victim, ironically, is a company Moore knows very well: General Motors. Because of health-care obligations, the automaker that Moore pilloried in his first film, Roger and Me, is fighting for its life.
...
It's tempting to demonize business for whittling away at health-care benefits, but over the past two decades the cost to business of providing those benefits has roughly doubled, to a great extent because health insurers and hospitals now employ vast bureaucratic armies to fight over medical bills. Health-care costs are now outrunning income gains by about 3 percentage points. This means that for the typical worker, raises are, for the foreseeable future, an artifact of the past. That's terrible news for labor, but it's terrible news for bosses, too, because it robs them of a necessary tool to get employees to perform good work.
...
1,800,000 U.S. VETERANS HAVE NO HEALTH CARE
June 27, 2007 at 14:38:17 | 1,800,000 U.S. VETERANS HAVE NO HEALTH CARE | by Victor Martinez | http://www.opednews.com
As the nation struggles to improve medical and mental health care for
military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, about 1.8
million U.S. veterans under age 65 lack even basic health insurance or access to care at Veterans Affairs hospitals, a new study has found.
The ranks of uninsured veterans have increased by 290,000 since 2000, said Stephanie J. Woolhandler, the Harvard Medical School professor who presented her findings yesterday before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
About 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans -- or one in eight -- lacked
health coverage in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are
available, she said, up from 9.9 percent in 2000. Veterans 65 and older are eligible for Medicare. About 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured in 2005, the Census Bureau reports.
"The data is showing that many veterans have no coverage and they're sick and need care and can't get it," Woolhandler said. ...
As the nation struggles to improve medical and mental health care for
military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, about 1.8
million U.S. veterans under age 65 lack even basic health insurance or access to care at Veterans Affairs hospitals, a new study has found.
The ranks of uninsured veterans have increased by 290,000 since 2000, said Stephanie J. Woolhandler, the Harvard Medical School professor who presented her findings yesterday before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
About 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans -- or one in eight -- lacked
health coverage in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are
available, she said, up from 9.9 percent in 2000. Veterans 65 and older are eligible for Medicare. About 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured in 2005, the Census Bureau reports.
"The data is showing that many veterans have no coverage and they're sick and need care and can't get it," Woolhandler said. ...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
organized thousands of coffee klatches across the country where suburban housewives ... listen to a special recorded message about the evils of socia
June 27, 2007 (July 16, 2007 issue) | Michael Moore's Sicko | Christopher Hayes
...
But after introducing us to the horror stories all too typical among even the 250 million Americans fortunate enough to have health insurance, Moore takes a few moments for a brief history lesson. How, he asks, did we get here? And it's in this time warp that we encounter the Gipper. This is not Gipper the Governor or Gipper the President or even Gipper the B-list actor. This is Gipper, silver-tongued shill for the interests of capital.
...
So as momentum for national, universal healthcare built during the Truman Administration, foes such as the American Medical Association sought to build grassroots opposition. In an ingenious stroke, as Moore reports in Sicko, it organized thousands of coffee klatches across the country where suburban housewives could sip coffee, gossip and listen to a special recorded message about the evils of socialized medicine, a message delivered by the one and only Ronald Reagan.
...
Moore's solution is simple: Get rid of the health insurance companies. Don't just tinker with the healthcare system, banish profit from the delivery of healthcare altogether. Socialize it. Make it a public good. It's a testament to the health insurance industry's power that as "universal healthcare" lurches toward the political middle, this proposal seems in some ways more radical than ever. Moore recognizes that if single-payer is ever going to come to America, it's going to be over the insurance companies' dead bodies. One way of understanding Sicko is as the opening salvo in a battle to make that happen. The movie alone can't do that, which is part of the reason Moore has teamed up with the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, the labor union most zealously committed to single-payer. It'll be sending its members, along with like-minded doctors, to every single showing of the film's opening night to talk up single-payer to audiences. And it's currently rolling across the country in a multicity tour designed to leverage the film's publicity to push single-payer back into the national conversation.
...
... Then Oprah turned to the audience and said she finally "got it" when in the film Moore points out that we don't charge for the services of firemen or think profit should have anything to do with firefighting. ...
...
But after introducing us to the horror stories all too typical among even the 250 million Americans fortunate enough to have health insurance, Moore takes a few moments for a brief history lesson. How, he asks, did we get here? And it's in this time warp that we encounter the Gipper. This is not Gipper the Governor or Gipper the President or even Gipper the B-list actor. This is Gipper, silver-tongued shill for the interests of capital.
...
So as momentum for national, universal healthcare built during the Truman Administration, foes such as the American Medical Association sought to build grassroots opposition. In an ingenious stroke, as Moore reports in Sicko, it organized thousands of coffee klatches across the country where suburban housewives could sip coffee, gossip and listen to a special recorded message about the evils of socialized medicine, a message delivered by the one and only Ronald Reagan.
...
Moore's solution is simple: Get rid of the health insurance companies. Don't just tinker with the healthcare system, banish profit from the delivery of healthcare altogether. Socialize it. Make it a public good. It's a testament to the health insurance industry's power that as "universal healthcare" lurches toward the political middle, this proposal seems in some ways more radical than ever. Moore recognizes that if single-payer is ever going to come to America, it's going to be over the insurance companies' dead bodies. One way of understanding Sicko is as the opening salvo in a battle to make that happen. The movie alone can't do that, which is part of the reason Moore has teamed up with the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, the labor union most zealously committed to single-payer. It'll be sending its members, along with like-minded doctors, to every single showing of the film's opening night to talk up single-payer to audiences. And it's currently rolling across the country in a multicity tour designed to leverage the film's publicity to push single-payer back into the national conversation.
...
... Then Oprah turned to the audience and said she finally "got it" when in the film Moore points out that we don't charge for the services of firemen or think profit should have anything to do with firefighting. ...
if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%
Steve's note: The following article describes two important studies (from Harvard and Berkeley) that impressively link income inequality to many various social problems, like higher mortality rates, crime, welfare, substance abuse and educational problems. It explains why the growing inequality of the Reagan Years, described in detail on this web site, played such a critical role in worsening our nation's social problems. An extremely important read!
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH | By Peter Montague
...
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," according to an editorial in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- conclude that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has previously found a relationship between income inequality and health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
...
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments, minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH | By Peter Montague
...
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," according to an editorial in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- conclude that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has previously found a relationship between income inequality and health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
...
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments, minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Poverty [and Inequality] Can Make You Get Sick and Die
Thursday, May 03, 2007 | Poverty Can Make You Get Sick and Die
Several studies prove it. The policies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and the GOP, in general, have harmed Americans by attacking the public health, increasing death rates as a result.
...
What might have been common sense has been left to researchers to prove: poverty and poor health go hand in hand. Poverty means many things to a growing number of people but two factors are obvious: bad nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Indeed, every step down the economic ladder worsens overall health.
There is yet another factor. The latest research leads to the conclusion that the mere fact of inequality increases mortality rates. This is an increase having nothing to do with nutrition or living conditions. It is a matter of inequality in and of itself.
Some of these conclusions may be found in two studies published by the British Medical Journal. The conclusion is impossible for conservatives and Social Darwinists to refute: The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. There is the possibility, of course, that America's privileged elite, Bush's base, doesn't really care about the health of society. As they might say in London's East End: Oi'm awlroight, Jack!
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
- Peter Montague, Economic Inequality and Health
Several studies prove it. The policies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and the GOP, in general, have harmed Americans by attacking the public health, increasing death rates as a result.
...
What might have been common sense has been left to researchers to prove: poverty and poor health go hand in hand. Poverty means many things to a growing number of people but two factors are obvious: bad nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Indeed, every step down the economic ladder worsens overall health.
There is yet another factor. The latest research leads to the conclusion that the mere fact of inequality increases mortality rates. This is an increase having nothing to do with nutrition or living conditions. It is a matter of inequality in and of itself.
Some of these conclusions may be found in two studies published by the British Medical Journal. The conclusion is impossible for conservatives and Social Darwinists to refute: The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. There is the possibility, of course, that America's privileged elite, Bush's base, doesn't really care about the health of society. As they might say in London's East End: Oi'm awlroight, Jack!
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
- Peter Montague, Economic Inequality and Health
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American ...
Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military | By Aaron Blake | June 28, 2007
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
...
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. ...
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
...
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. ...
walked into the only abortion clinic in Mississippi ... only state in the country where abortion is limited to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Pregnant and poor in Mississippi | By Sharon Lerner
Mississippi law limits abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. But for poor women short on time and money, that can be an impossible deadline.
July 2, 2007 | The other day, a quiet 17-year-old, let's call her Angie, walked into the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. A wiry teen with coffee-colored skin and delicate features, Angie had recently screwed up the courage to tell her mother she was pregnant. The pregnancy had blindsided her. (Sure, she had been nauseated and had thrown up a few times, but she figured it was just the stomach bug going around.)
But the real shock hit her inside the unassuming stucco clinic in Jackson. An ultrasound revealed that Angie was not eight or 10 weeks along, as she and her mother had assumed, but 14 weeks into her pregnancy. Then, as they were absorbing the news, a staff member informed them that at that stage of pregnancy, Angie wouldn't be able to get an abortion anywhere in the state.
One year ago, Mississippi became the only state in the country where abortion is limited to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If the lone doctor, Joseph Booker, at the lone Mississippi clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, were to perform any abortions after the first day of that week, he could face jail time. Angie and her mother aren't the only ones in the dark about the change, though; most patients who come to the clinic have no idea of the 12-week cutoff -- fully four weeks earlier than the 16-week limit the clinic had observed for the previous decade and at least 10 weeks earlier than federal law allows. Several other states have also shortened the window in which abortions are available, though not as drastically. In South Carolina, Indiana, Alaska and South Dakota, for instance, abortions are only available up to the 6th day of the 13th week of pregnancy. ...
Mississippi law limits abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. But for poor women short on time and money, that can be an impossible deadline.
July 2, 2007 | The other day, a quiet 17-year-old, let's call her Angie, walked into the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. A wiry teen with coffee-colored skin and delicate features, Angie had recently screwed up the courage to tell her mother she was pregnant. The pregnancy had blindsided her. (Sure, she had been nauseated and had thrown up a few times, but she figured it was just the stomach bug going around.)
But the real shock hit her inside the unassuming stucco clinic in Jackson. An ultrasound revealed that Angie was not eight or 10 weeks along, as she and her mother had assumed, but 14 weeks into her pregnancy. Then, as they were absorbing the news, a staff member informed them that at that stage of pregnancy, Angie wouldn't be able to get an abortion anywhere in the state.
One year ago, Mississippi became the only state in the country where abortion is limited to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If the lone doctor, Joseph Booker, at the lone Mississippi clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, were to perform any abortions after the first day of that week, he could face jail time. Angie and her mother aren't the only ones in the dark about the change, though; most patients who come to the clinic have no idea of the 12-week cutoff -- fully four weeks earlier than the 16-week limit the clinic had observed for the previous decade and at least 10 weeks earlier than federal law allows. Several other states have also shortened the window in which abortions are available, though not as drastically. In South Carolina, Indiana, Alaska and South Dakota, for instance, abortions are only available up to the 6th day of the 13th week of pregnancy. ...
Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time. ... less than 5% spent on prevention
U.S. Presidential Candidates' Prescriptions for a Healthier Future: A Side-By-Side Comparison | Posted July 9, 2007 | 03:18 PM (EST) | By Susan J. Blumenthal, M.D., Jessica B. Rubin, Michelle E. Treseler, Jefferson Lin, and David Mattos*
The next president of the United States will confront major health policy decisions that will affect the lives of all Americans. With the first of the presidential caucuses and primaries only six months away, the pressure is on for the candidates to provide Americans with their plans to improve the nation's health care system -- and rightfully so. Despite spending over $2 trillion a year on health care -- 18% of the U.S. GDP and twice as much as any other nation -- the United States ranks only 45th in life expectancy and 37th in a World Health Organization study on the performance of national health systems. 1,2 The U.S. federal government currently spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined, the next most expensive items, but Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time.3 Expenditures on health care in the United States -- already the highest per person in the world -- are predicted to nearly double by 2016, to $4.1 trillion, or 20% of GDP. That means, if this trajectory is not altered, in less than a decade, 20 cents out of every dollar produced in America will be spent on health care. Currently, more than 75% of health care dollars are spent on patients with chronic diseases, yet an estimated 80% of all chronic diseases are caused by preventable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity.4,5 But despite these statistics, less than 5 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
A recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found health care to be the second most mentioned issue that Americans would like to hear presidential candidates discuss and for the government to address.6 Iraq remains the foremost concern, yet it is important to note that health care tops the list of Americans' domestic priorities. This means that no presidential hopeful can effectively meet the needs of the American people without addressing the essential issues of access, affordability, efficiency, and quality of our nation's health care system. ...
The next president of the United States will confront major health policy decisions that will affect the lives of all Americans. With the first of the presidential caucuses and primaries only six months away, the pressure is on for the candidates to provide Americans with their plans to improve the nation's health care system -- and rightfully so. Despite spending over $2 trillion a year on health care -- 18% of the U.S. GDP and twice as much as any other nation -- the United States ranks only 45th in life expectancy and 37th in a World Health Organization study on the performance of national health systems. 1,2 The U.S. federal government currently spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined, the next most expensive items, but Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time.3 Expenditures on health care in the United States -- already the highest per person in the world -- are predicted to nearly double by 2016, to $4.1 trillion, or 20% of GDP. That means, if this trajectory is not altered, in less than a decade, 20 cents out of every dollar produced in America will be spent on health care. Currently, more than 75% of health care dollars are spent on patients with chronic diseases, yet an estimated 80% of all chronic diseases are caused by preventable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity.4,5 But despite these statistics, less than 5 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
A recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found health care to be the second most mentioned issue that Americans would like to hear presidential candidates discuss and for the government to address.6 Iraq remains the foremost concern, yet it is important to note that health care tops the list of Americans' domestic priorities. This means that no presidential hopeful can effectively meet the needs of the American people without addressing the essential issues of access, affordability, efficiency, and quality of our nation's health care system. ...
The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper,
Fixing Health Care: Not Government vs. Market | By Dean Baker | t r u t h o u t | Columnist | Tuesday 10 July 2007
With "SiCKO" rallying popular support for universal health care coverage, defenders of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are shifting into high gear with their scare tactics. The key to their efforts is to frighten people about the prospect of the government managing their health care.
Whether or not this sounds scary, the reality is that the government already structures the way in which we receive health care. However, the current pattern of government intervention ensures high profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries; it is not designed to provide adequate health care.
Starting with a very simple but important form of government intervention, insurance contracts are enforced in a very different way than most other types of contracts. When a person fails to disclose information on an insurance contract, it is grounds for voiding the contract. This means, as shown in "SiCKO," if a person did not report a pre-existing condition, even if it seemed trivial and irrelevant at the time, an insurance company can treat this fact as grounds for voiding a policy and not paying claims.
By contrast, most contracts have a buyer-beware structure. If I buy a house and didn't bother to notice that the roof was falling in, that's my problem.
...
It can be argued that if the government restructured the law on insurance contracts that the private insurance market would disappear. Given the incredible inefficiency of the private market (administrative costs in the United States are approximately 10 times as high as in Canada), it is not clear why we would want a government intervention that makes the market less efficient.
Similarly, patent monopolies are one way in which the government can promote innovation. It is almost certainly not the best mechanism. We need a real discussion of the alternatives to patent monopolies.
...
But, if we are ever going to think seriously about how best to restructure health care, we will have to clearly understand how the system works now. The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper, and that tens of millions of people go without access to care.
With "SiCKO" rallying popular support for universal health care coverage, defenders of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are shifting into high gear with their scare tactics. The key to their efforts is to frighten people about the prospect of the government managing their health care.
Whether or not this sounds scary, the reality is that the government already structures the way in which we receive health care. However, the current pattern of government intervention ensures high profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries; it is not designed to provide adequate health care.
Starting with a very simple but important form of government intervention, insurance contracts are enforced in a very different way than most other types of contracts. When a person fails to disclose information on an insurance contract, it is grounds for voiding the contract. This means, as shown in "SiCKO," if a person did not report a pre-existing condition, even if it seemed trivial and irrelevant at the time, an insurance company can treat this fact as grounds for voiding a policy and not paying claims.
By contrast, most contracts have a buyer-beware structure. If I buy a house and didn't bother to notice that the roof was falling in, that's my problem.
...
It can be argued that if the government restructured the law on insurance contracts that the private insurance market would disappear. Given the incredible inefficiency of the private market (administrative costs in the United States are approximately 10 times as high as in Canada), it is not clear why we would want a government intervention that makes the market less efficient.
Similarly, patent monopolies are one way in which the government can promote innovation. It is almost certainly not the best mechanism. We need a real discussion of the alternatives to patent monopolies.
...
But, if we are ever going to think seriously about how best to restructure health care, we will have to clearly understand how the system works now. The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper, and that tens of millions of people go without access to care.
Monday, July 9, 2007
direct link has been made between treatment for gum disease and ... heart attack and stroke [but dental coverage is even lower than medical coverage]
Source: University College London Date: March 4, 2007 Treatment For Gum Disease Could Also Help The Heart
...
There is already established scientific evidence linking inflammation, the body's natural response to infection or injury, with the arterial changes that underlie stroke and heart attack. However, this is the first clinical trial to demonstrate that relief of inflammation in the mouth, through intensive treatment of periodontitis, results in improved function of the arteries.
Dr Francesco D'Aiuto, project leader and therapist, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, explained the method behind the research: "Middle-aged subjects with severe periodontitis, but no evidence of cardiovascular disease, were randomly allocated to dental treatments of two levels of intensity. After six months, those who received the more intensive periodontitis treatment, which resulted in a marked improvement in their gum disease, also demonstrated a significant restoration of blood vessel function.
"The intensive treatment involved removal of plaque through scaling and root planning techniques, as well as extraction of teeth that could not be saved. This initially resulted in some inflammation and dysfunction of the blood vessels and arteries. However, that was short-lived and six months later the treatment led to an improvement in both oral health and arterial function."
Professor John Deanfield, senior author, UCL Institute of Child Health, added: "Previous studies have shown an association between periodontitis and blood vessel dysfunction, heart attack and stroke. However, a clinical trial was required to test whether these links could be causal. This is the first time that a direct link has been made between treatment for gum disease and improved circulatory function, which is relevant to some of the UK's biggest killers: heart attack and stroke."
...
Professor Deanfield concluded: "This finding therefore has potential implications for public health, but further studies are now required to determine whether the treatment of severe periodontitis could directly contribute to the prevention of disease of the arteries (atherosclerosis), stroke and heart attacks."
..............................................
Columbia study suggests brushing your teeth may reduce risk of stroke and heart attack
"This is the most direct evidence yet that gum disease may lead to stroke or cardiovascular disease," said Moïse Desvarieux, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center’s Mailman School of Public Health and lead author of the paper. "And because gum infections are preventable and treatable, taking care of your oral health could very well have a significant impact on your cardiovascular health."
...
There is already established scientific evidence linking inflammation, the body's natural response to infection or injury, with the arterial changes that underlie stroke and heart attack. However, this is the first clinical trial to demonstrate that relief of inflammation in the mouth, through intensive treatment of periodontitis, results in improved function of the arteries.
Dr Francesco D'Aiuto, project leader and therapist, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, explained the method behind the research: "Middle-aged subjects with severe periodontitis, but no evidence of cardiovascular disease, were randomly allocated to dental treatments of two levels of intensity. After six months, those who received the more intensive periodontitis treatment, which resulted in a marked improvement in their gum disease, also demonstrated a significant restoration of blood vessel function.
"The intensive treatment involved removal of plaque through scaling and root planning techniques, as well as extraction of teeth that could not be saved. This initially resulted in some inflammation and dysfunction of the blood vessels and arteries. However, that was short-lived and six months later the treatment led to an improvement in both oral health and arterial function."
Professor John Deanfield, senior author, UCL Institute of Child Health, added: "Previous studies have shown an association between periodontitis and blood vessel dysfunction, heart attack and stroke. However, a clinical trial was required to test whether these links could be causal. This is the first time that a direct link has been made between treatment for gum disease and improved circulatory function, which is relevant to some of the UK's biggest killers: heart attack and stroke."
...
Professor Deanfield concluded: "This finding therefore has potential implications for public health, but further studies are now required to determine whether the treatment of severe periodontitis could directly contribute to the prevention of disease of the arteries (atherosclerosis), stroke and heart attacks."
..............................................
Columbia study suggests brushing your teeth may reduce risk of stroke and heart attack
"This is the most direct evidence yet that gum disease may lead to stroke or cardiovascular disease," said Moïse Desvarieux, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center’s Mailman School of Public Health and lead author of the paper. "And because gum infections are preventable and treatable, taking care of your oral health could very well have a significant impact on your cardiovascular health."
"Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these [9] countries was explained by lead."
Research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal Activity Data May Undermine Giuliani's Claims By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 8, 2007; Page A02
...
"I began with the city that was the crime capital of America," Giuliani, now a candidate for president, recently told Fox's Chris Wallace. "When I left, it was the safest large city in America. I reduced homicides by 67 percent. I reduced overall crime by 57 percent."
... Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani's tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Giuliani's presidential campaign declined to address Nevin's contention that the mayor merely was at the right place at the right time. ...
...
"I began with the city that was the crime capital of America," Giuliani, now a candidate for president, recently told Fox's Chris Wallace. "When I left, it was the safest large city in America. I reduced homicides by 67 percent. I reduced overall crime by 57 percent."
... Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani's tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Giuliani's presidential campaign declined to address Nevin's contention that the mayor merely was at the right place at the right time. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)