The vitriolic assaults on Democrats by Republicans are as alarming as they are disgusting. (Let us not be “bipartisan” on this: 99 % of the vitriol comes from the right, not the left.) Republicans and conservatives, in and out of office, have implicitly adopted (or adapted) Nancy Reagan’s slogan, “just say no,” originally directed at drugs, and later at premarital sex, and applied it to anything emanating from the White House or Democratic policy makers. The nastiness and brutishness of this partisanship is symbolized by the empty tables in the private dining room where members of both parties used to eat. The Congressional Quarterly confirms what our eyes and ears tell us, calling 2009 the most partisan year ever, at least since it began this kind of analysis in 1953.
The acrimony goes far beyond ordinary politics. The Tea Party “patriots” denounce President Obama as soft on, if not sympathetic to, terrorism, an illegal President born in Indonesia and demand his impeachment (without there being any misconduct that is usually a prerequisite for this extreme procedure). We appear to have the beginnings of a genuine, but dangerous “conservative” and “populist” movement, out to oust Republican moderates as well as Democrats. In the 23rd Congressional District of New York, a far right candidate not only caused the moderate Republican, Dede Scozzafava, to drop out of the race, but led her to support the Democrat, who eventually won, becoming the first Democrat to represent this area east and north of Syracuse in more than a century. That effort backfired, but Tea Party hero, Marco Rubio, is attempting in Florida to wrest the Republican Senate primary from Governor Charlie Crist and he may well succeed. Crist’s crimes: he appeared on stage with President Obama and he supported his stimulus plan. Horrors.
How are we to understand this rise of right wing fanaticism? I would posit that the roots of modern political ugliness, and extreme partisanship, was touched off by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by Lyndon Johnson, who is purported to have said to an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation,” an understatement (alas). Before 1965, it was much harder for the solid but conservative Democratic South to attack liberals in the North, since both were in the same party. An almost solid Republican South (Obama’s victories in Virginia and North Carolina notwithstanding) makes it easier for conservatives to be more partisan since they now they all sit on the same side of the aisle. By 1993, every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against President Bill Clinton’s tax increase, designed to reduce the deficit and lower interest rates. It passed the senate only with Vice-President Al Gore’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate and squeaked by in the House, 218 to 216.
But ultimately it is the failings of the economy that have probably made Tea Party feelings so strong. In their fear and rage, the Tea Baggers (and others like them) long, it would seem, not only for prosperity but for the America they once felt at home with, in which blacks (and, for some, women) knew their place and gays were in the closet. To these persons, a black President is symbolic of everything that has gone wrong.
The precipitating cause of Tea Bagging seems to be the severe economic decline of the last few years, known by many as The Great Recession, and the fact that an eloquent President has not been able to snap his fingers and restore our prosperity, his blackness increasing their wrath. Their seething may also reflect the fact that many Americans cannot face the fact that our country is no longer “beautiful” and unique, but flawed like all others. But the long term cause is probably the continued economic weakness that has plagued America ever since the early 1970's. For example, male income, adjusted for inflation, is about what it was three and a half decades ago, in 1974–a blip upwards during the late 1990's, due to the dot-com bubble, followed by a decline since then. Real wages–wages adjusted for inflation–are lower now than what they were in 1972.
Income inequality is increasing by leaps and bounds. Berkeley Professor, Emmanuel Saez--2009 winner of the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, given every other year to that economist under 40 who has made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge–calculated that in 1928 the top 1/100th of one percent of American earners took home 5% of total income. This was a peak that in the earlier post-war years seemed freakishly out of line. That is, from about 1943 to 1978, this group earned “only” 1 % of the total, not the 5% it garnered just before the Great Depression. But by 2007, the earnings of this group rose to an even higher level, 6 % of the total–an all-time high.
And many are even unable to earn any income at all, or very little. Unemployment, measured by the publicized figure is about 10 %. But this gauge excludes those who have given up looking for jobs and those working part time who would like to work full time. “Real” unemployment is almost twice that of the figure given in the headlines. In essence, we have a nation in which a substantial proportion of our society is living as many lived in the Great Depression of the 1930's. Nor is there any end in sight. No wonder there are Tea Parties and extreme expressions of frustration, with covert racism and loony but dangerous ideas rising rapidly to the surface.
The economic origins of the present crisis is reminiscent of the movie, Network. It might be said to be a fictionalized version of the Tea Party movement, without its political partisanship. In it the newscaster, Howard Beale, induces untold numbers to go to their windows and shout, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take this anymore.” (Glenn Beck, the conservative talk-show host, has, on more than one occasion, compared himself to Howard Beale.) The film itself (which appeared in 1976) points to the reasons why Beale’s harangue was so appealing: the high unemployment associated with the severe downturn in 1974-75, the high inflation associated with OPEC’s pushing up the price of oil and the humiliating defeat of America in Vietnam.
Tea Party ferment varies. “It is an amorphous, factionalized uprising with no clear leadership and no centralized structure,” to cite David Barstow, whose two and a half page article in the New York Times (2/16/10) is probably the best account we have of what the Tea Party is all about. It includes libertarians who, following Ron Paul, would like to abolish the Federal Reserve; anti-immigration advocates; those who believe people who warn of global warming are frauds in the pockets of elitists; Ayn Randists, John Birchers and Lyndon Larouchers; secessionists; subtle or not so subtle racists such as birthers; militia groups who not only oppose gun controls, but flagrantly display guns at meetings; anti-government types who opposed the stimulus and oppose Social Security and Medicare; and on and on–patriots all, of course. Some Tea Partiers wear T-shirts, on which are written “Proud To Be A Right Wing Extremist.”
Those inclined to allay our fears argue that there have always been fascistic fringes that gain a degree of prominence, and point to McCarthyism or George Wallace, or reaching back to the 1930's, Huey Long and Father Coughlin. These movements, it is argued, flare up but invariably recede and disappear. But there are differences that should be cause for deep concern. Most of these movements had a central figure at the helm, and while there are Tea Party and right wing figures of national prominence–Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Dick Armey, and Rick Perry (governor of Texas)–to name a few, the movement is not solidified around a Savior. It exists independently of any one individual and is thus likely to have greater durability as it is not subject to the mistakes and idiosyncrasies of a leader that often cause a political “Crusade” to unravel. On the other hand, leaderless it may (hopefully) only remain a powerful thorn, unable to take power, but capable of great social pain.
But more important, what brought to a close previous periods of American “Poujadism” were the elements that helped create these movements in the first place. In the thirties, it was the relative success of Roosevelt, in lowering unemployment, and the complete restoration of prosperity that came with World War II. McCarthyism ends partly because its leader over-reached, and attacked the army, but its premise that our government was controlled by traitors–linking “Acheson, Hiss, and Truman”–could hardly be maintained once Eisenhower took power and appointed a known and conservative anti-Communist, John Foster Dulles, to be his Secretary of State. Nor could the Wallace movement continue–not only because he was shot–but based on overt racism, it was mostly sectional and simply out of fashion.
But the current mass movement of the right, which ultimately stems from the failures of the economy (and partly, perhaps, from the continuing remembrance of our humiliation in Vietnam and even more important our evident inability to impose our will on the world, by force, and stop terrorism or “insults” by Iran, China and others), can only disappear if our economy rights itself.
Unfortunately, no saving grace–no prosperity–is on the horizon. To the contrary, most indicators suggest that not only will our recovery be weak, but that we are in the early stages of an endless stagnation, a precedent being the “lost decade” in Japan. Even worse, it may last longer than a decade (apart from temporary bubbles). For years, we have been importing far more than we export, with no signs of correction. Our manufacturing, as a percentage of our GDP has dropped to incredibly low levels (about 10 %, compared to Germany’s 20 %) and no hint that technological prowess in services can take up the slack. What needs to done politically–a 2nd stimulus; infrastructure appropriations; Federal aid to developing “greenness,” distributed in a way that the jobs created are created here, not overseas; implementation of technological advances that use American workers (not Chinese workers); fundamental repair of pre-college education; and other “salvations”–appear unattainable, as gradually Federal ungovernability grows, just as it already exists in states like California.
If genuine prosperity continues to elude us, the political dangers are obvious. Can we, in such a world, maintain our democracy? How, in such a world, can we contain the Glenn Beck’s and Howard Beale’s, and the Sarah Palin’s and Rush Limbaugh’s, and all who seek to transform our society in unknown but clearly frightening ways?
Friday, February 19, 2010
DAVID
What’s with my name, David?
I realize, of course, that saying anything about a name means that one’s mind immediately tacks to The Bard. Is it possible that a rose might not smell as sweet if it were called a glup? Sometimes our minds play dirty tricks on us.
My purpose, though, is not to challenge the unchallengeable. Rather it’s to ask why so many who have been introduced to me, or even people who have known me over the years, change David to Dave. Some name-shortening is, sort of, natural: Thomas is changed to Tom, but the first syllable of the full name is pronounced the same as the shortened name. Many examples exist: Rob for Robert; Joe for Joseph; Lee for Leatrice (to change genders); Pat for Patrick or Patricia (to use both genders); and so on.
Historical aside: David, of course, was originally King David, of Israel, the one who slew Goliath. He was the only David in the Bible. He was a shepherd, musician, poet, soldier, prophet and king, everything which I am not.
Back to the topic: The interesting part of the David to Dave change is that almost always the change is made by men, but rarely by women. Women almost always call me David. But many men do the Dave. So the question is why.
One reason might be that men are trying to show their friendliness. Women might not do this because, deep down, the “friendliness” might be misinterpreted. But I think there is another reason, possibly more important. David (which of course in Hebrew means “beloved”) may have, for women, a euphoniousness that men, clueless as they are, don’t hear.
How do I feel? I grudgingly accept it when men shorten the two-syllabled David to Dave, say nothing, but don’t like it. Dave doesn’t sound as sweet, although maybe both David and Dave don’t smell as sweet because they don’t shower as frequently as they should.
I realize, of course, that saying anything about a name means that one’s mind immediately tacks to The Bard. Is it possible that a rose might not smell as sweet if it were called a glup? Sometimes our minds play dirty tricks on us.
My purpose, though, is not to challenge the unchallengeable. Rather it’s to ask why so many who have been introduced to me, or even people who have known me over the years, change David to Dave. Some name-shortening is, sort of, natural: Thomas is changed to Tom, but the first syllable of the full name is pronounced the same as the shortened name. Many examples exist: Rob for Robert; Joe for Joseph; Lee for Leatrice (to change genders); Pat for Patrick or Patricia (to use both genders); and so on.
Historical aside: David, of course, was originally King David, of Israel, the one who slew Goliath. He was the only David in the Bible. He was a shepherd, musician, poet, soldier, prophet and king, everything which I am not.
Back to the topic: The interesting part of the David to Dave change is that almost always the change is made by men, but rarely by women. Women almost always call me David. But many men do the Dave. So the question is why.
One reason might be that men are trying to show their friendliness. Women might not do this because, deep down, the “friendliness” might be misinterpreted. But I think there is another reason, possibly more important. David (which of course in Hebrew means “beloved”) may have, for women, a euphoniousness that men, clueless as they are, don’t hear.
How do I feel? I grudgingly accept it when men shorten the two-syllabled David to Dave, say nothing, but don’t like it. Dave doesn’t sound as sweet, although maybe both David and Dave don’t smell as sweet because they don’t shower as frequently as they should.
QUICK TAKES
1. On deficits and stimulus spending. Alas, politically speaking, a meaningful 2nd stimulus is not possible. But if it were, I think most savvy economists, like Krugman and Stiglitz (the liberal Nobelists), would argue that current benefits would outweigh future costs (higher future interest payments). It is even possible that a meaningful 2nd stimulus would “grow” the economy, and with it governmental revenues, such that, over time, total interest payments would be lower.
2. As for inflation, it is a problem one should not be so fearful of, as the Federal Reserve will raise rates and slow down the economy once it appears. The increase in the discount rate, yesterday, 2/18, suggests that the Fed may act, sooner than needed, to prevent any significant rise in prices. We are not in a
1970's situation, where out of nowhere, so to speak, inflation soared because of OPEC. Any inflation that may appear these days will likely come gradually since so many are unemployed. Or, worst case, and a realistic possibility, inflation starts, even with high unemployment, because the dollar weakens. If this is happening, the Fed will raise rates, favoring, as it almost always does, policies to lower inflation rather than policies to reduce unemployment. But barring an unexpected and disastrous overnight collapse of the dollar, inflation is not around the corner. And there are many economists who believe small increases in inflation are good, in that they will be appearing because more demand exists–i.e., more jobs and less unemployment.
3. Social Security, as I have previously written, is in good shape. During the campaign, Obama argued that the small shortage that will appear in 2040–I don’t think he mentioned the date or even explained the shortage–can be overcome by taxing all income at 6.2 %, matched by the employer, instead of stopping at an income that increases over time, because it is adjusted for inflation, but is now about
$105,000. Incomes over this amount are not taxed at all, in contrast to Medicare, in which incomes are taxed at 1 1 /2 percent, on all incomes, with no upper limit.
Social Security will run short in 30 years, but not that short. It will be able to pay about 70% of what it owes people, assuming that the US Treasury pays the Social Security Administration what it owes it. (SS was required to invest its surpluses in Treasury bonds and these holdings now add up to trillions.) Being paid 70 % of what it owes, in 2040, will probably be a higher amount than what people are getting now, unless wage rates fall and delayed retirement doesn’t offset this fall. [See my Pearl Harbor Day article (12/7/09) on why this is so, but basically it is because SS is an income retrieval system and 30 years for now people will presumably be earning more than they do today, although maybe not as much as some people predict.]
But Obama’s campaign argument--6.2 on all income--would probably avoid any cuts for a 75 year period, if passed within the next 10 years, and if not, the retirement age could be raised to 68 or 69, or the 6.2 % can be raised to about 7 %.
4. Most economists, I think–whether liberal or conservative–believe that after a difficult and stagnant period that might last for years, GDP growth will return to the rates that used to exist or, if not quite that, to rates that are smaller but respectable. But I fear that what is likely is that we will have very low rates for an indefinite period. Behind this fear is our large and seemingly irreversible trade deficit, our declining manufacturing and the fact that we live in a world where a huge country–China–is determined to grow and has wage rates that are a small fraction of what ours are. Unless we learn from the Germans--see reference below--our jobs will continue "to move" to China.
5. In 2008, Germany had a per-capita GDP of $44,600, within hailing distance of ours, which was $47,500. But we work longer. In 2008, the typical American worked 1,792 hours, while our German counterpart put in just 1,432 hours. Depending on how one evaluates leisure, Germany probably has a higher living standard. Dividing the per-capita GDP by the hours worked gives, I think, an average wage per hour. Ours is $26.5, while theirs is $31.1. For more, read “Germany’s Economic Engine” in the March issue (2010) of The American Prospect.
2. As for inflation, it is a problem one should not be so fearful of, as the Federal Reserve will raise rates and slow down the economy once it appears. The increase in the discount rate, yesterday, 2/18, suggests that the Fed may act, sooner than needed, to prevent any significant rise in prices. We are not in a
1970's situation, where out of nowhere, so to speak, inflation soared because of OPEC. Any inflation that may appear these days will likely come gradually since so many are unemployed. Or, worst case, and a realistic possibility, inflation starts, even with high unemployment, because the dollar weakens. If this is happening, the Fed will raise rates, favoring, as it almost always does, policies to lower inflation rather than policies to reduce unemployment. But barring an unexpected and disastrous overnight collapse of the dollar, inflation is not around the corner. And there are many economists who believe small increases in inflation are good, in that they will be appearing because more demand exists–i.e., more jobs and less unemployment.
3. Social Security, as I have previously written, is in good shape. During the campaign, Obama argued that the small shortage that will appear in 2040–I don’t think he mentioned the date or even explained the shortage–can be overcome by taxing all income at 6.2 %, matched by the employer, instead of stopping at an income that increases over time, because it is adjusted for inflation, but is now about
$105,000. Incomes over this amount are not taxed at all, in contrast to Medicare, in which incomes are taxed at 1 1 /2 percent, on all incomes, with no upper limit.
Social Security will run short in 30 years, but not that short. It will be able to pay about 70% of what it owes people, assuming that the US Treasury pays the Social Security Administration what it owes it. (SS was required to invest its surpluses in Treasury bonds and these holdings now add up to trillions.) Being paid 70 % of what it owes, in 2040, will probably be a higher amount than what people are getting now, unless wage rates fall and delayed retirement doesn’t offset this fall. [See my Pearl Harbor Day article (12/7/09) on why this is so, but basically it is because SS is an income retrieval system and 30 years for now people will presumably be earning more than they do today, although maybe not as much as some people predict.]
But Obama’s campaign argument--6.2 on all income--would probably avoid any cuts for a 75 year period, if passed within the next 10 years, and if not, the retirement age could be raised to 68 or 69, or the 6.2 % can be raised to about 7 %.
4. Most economists, I think–whether liberal or conservative–believe that after a difficult and stagnant period that might last for years, GDP growth will return to the rates that used to exist or, if not quite that, to rates that are smaller but respectable. But I fear that what is likely is that we will have very low rates for an indefinite period. Behind this fear is our large and seemingly irreversible trade deficit, our declining manufacturing and the fact that we live in a world where a huge country–China–is determined to grow and has wage rates that are a small fraction of what ours are. Unless we learn from the Germans--see reference below--our jobs will continue "to move" to China.
5. In 2008, Germany had a per-capita GDP of $44,600, within hailing distance of ours, which was $47,500. But we work longer. In 2008, the typical American worked 1,792 hours, while our German counterpart put in just 1,432 hours. Depending on how one evaluates leisure, Germany probably has a higher living standard. Dividing the per-capita GDP by the hours worked gives, I think, an average wage per hour. Ours is $26.5, while theirs is $31.1. For more, read “Germany’s Economic Engine” in the March issue (2010) of The American Prospect.
Life Expectancy
Source: CIA (The WORLD FACTBOOK)
Country Comparison :: Life expectancy at birth (mostly for 2009)
This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future.
Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
1 Macau 84.36
2 Andorra 82.51
3 Japan 82.12
4 Singapore 82.98
5 Hong Kong 81.86
6 Australia 81.63
7 Canada 81.23
8 France 80.98
9 Sweden 80.86
10 Switzerland 80.85
11 San Marino 80.81
12 Israel 80.73
13 Iceland 80.67
14 Anguilla 80.65
15 Cayman Islands 80.44
16 Bermuda 80.43
17 New Zealand 80.36
18 Italy 80.20
19 Monaco 80.09
20 Liechtenstein 80.06
21 Spain 80.05
22 Guernsey 80.00
23 Norway 79.95
24 Jordan 79.85
25 Jersey 79.75
26 Greece 79.66
27 Austria 79.50
28 Faroe Islands 79.44
29 Malta 79.44
30 Netherlands 79.40
31 Luxembourg 79.33
32 Germany 79.26
33 Belgium 79.22
34 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 79.08
35 Virgin Islands 79.05
36 United Kingdom 79.01
37 Finland 78.97
38 Isle of Man 78.82
39 Gibraltar 78.79
40 Korea, South 78.72
41 European Union 78.52
42 Puerto Rico 78.52
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.50
44 Saint Helena, Ascension. 78.44
and Tristan da Cunha
45 Denmark 78.30
46 Ireland 78.21
47 Portugal 78.21
48 Wallis and Futuna 78.11
49 United States 78.11
50 Albania 77.96
Brief comments:
1. Thank God we are ahead of Albania!
2. Number 48, Wallis and Futuna (which I had never heard of) are French territories in the South Pacific, between Fiji and Samoa. Their population is about 14,000.
3. In all of the listings, there were six numbers past the dot. But never was the third number past the dot over four. Therefore, I never had to round off upwards–that is, change a 79.578 to 79.58. That makes me suspicious of the data. But it’s the CIA, after all.
4. Another source–The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation–dated in 2007, puts us as 42, based on residents born in 2004. The figure given was 77.9 and the article indicated that our life expectancy reached its highest level ever.
Country Comparison :: Life expectancy at birth (mostly for 2009)
This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future.
Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
1 Macau 84.36
2 Andorra 82.51
3 Japan 82.12
4 Singapore 82.98
5 Hong Kong 81.86
6 Australia 81.63
7 Canada 81.23
8 France 80.98
9 Sweden 80.86
10 Switzerland 80.85
11 San Marino 80.81
12 Israel 80.73
13 Iceland 80.67
14 Anguilla 80.65
15 Cayman Islands 80.44
16 Bermuda 80.43
17 New Zealand 80.36
18 Italy 80.20
19 Monaco 80.09
20 Liechtenstein 80.06
21 Spain 80.05
22 Guernsey 80.00
23 Norway 79.95
24 Jordan 79.85
25 Jersey 79.75
26 Greece 79.66
27 Austria 79.50
28 Faroe Islands 79.44
29 Malta 79.44
30 Netherlands 79.40
31 Luxembourg 79.33
32 Germany 79.26
33 Belgium 79.22
34 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 79.08
35 Virgin Islands 79.05
36 United Kingdom 79.01
37 Finland 78.97
38 Isle of Man 78.82
39 Gibraltar 78.79
40 Korea, South 78.72
41 European Union 78.52
42 Puerto Rico 78.52
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.50
44 Saint Helena, Ascension. 78.44
and Tristan da Cunha
45 Denmark 78.30
46 Ireland 78.21
47 Portugal 78.21
48 Wallis and Futuna 78.11
49 United States 78.11
50 Albania 77.96
Brief comments:
1. Thank God we are ahead of Albania!
2. Number 48, Wallis and Futuna (which I had never heard of) are French territories in the South Pacific, between Fiji and Samoa. Their population is about 14,000.
3. In all of the listings, there were six numbers past the dot. But never was the third number past the dot over four. Therefore, I never had to round off upwards–that is, change a 79.578 to 79.58. That makes me suspicious of the data. But it’s the CIA, after all.
4. Another source–The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation–dated in 2007, puts us as 42, based on residents born in 2004. The figure given was 77.9 and the article indicated that our life expectancy reached its highest level ever.
Health Information
Health Data and Information–which Tea Baggers should take seriously, as well as those in the House and Senate.
The Kaiser Daily Health Report (put out by the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation) of August 13, 2007 referred to a New York Times editorial (apparently) from the day before, in which it was stated that "a growing body of evidence" indicates that the U.S. is not a "leader in providing good medical care" but a "laggard."
According to the editorial, a comparison of the U.S. and other industrialized nations in several important areas of health care finds that:
"All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage" -- most with "comprehensive benefit packages with no cost sharing by the patients" -- but the U.S. "to its shame" has 45 million uninsured residents and millions of residents with inadequate coverage;
U.S. residents receive "prompter attention" than those in most other nations, but "even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room";
The U.S. "ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity," with the "greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens";
The U.S. ranks "near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60" and 15th among 19 nations in deaths that would not have resulted "if treated with timely and effective care";
The U.S. ranks "first in providing the 'right care' for a given condition" and high for preventive care but performs "poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients and in meeting their needs and preferences";
The U.S. in a recent comparison of five nations "had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer";
U.S. residents "hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system," and "American attitudes stand out as the most negative" in a recent comparison of five nations; and
The U.S. health care system -- despite "our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet" -- is "still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls," with many U.S. physicians "years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically."
The editorial states, "With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has 'the best health care system in the world' and turn instead to fixing its very real defects," adding, "The world's most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best" (New York Times, 8/12).
**************
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (Source:Frontline)
1. Percentage of Gross Domestic Production Spent on Health Care:
Japan 8 United Kingdom 8.3 Germany 10.7 Switzerland 11.6
United States 15.3
2. Life Expectancy at Birth
Japan 82.1 United Kingdom 79 Germany 79 Switzerland 81.3
United States 77
3. Infant Mortality (Deaths per 1000 Live Births)
Japan 2.8 United Kingdom 5.1 Germany 3.9 Switzerland 4.2
United States 6.8
***********
AVERAGE HAPPINESS IN 148 NATIONS (Source:R.Veenhoven (10/09) on Internet
(How much people enjoy their life-as-a-whole on scale 0 to 10)
Top Range > 7.9: Costa Rica, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Canada–all between 8.0 and 8.5
Middle Range +/- 6.0: France, China, Iran, India, Phillippines–all between 5.5 and 6.6
Bottom < 4.3: Benin, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Togo, Tanzania–all between 2.6 and 3.0
UNITED STATES 7.4
We’re ranked 20th. But I think this was an average based on the years from 2000 to 2009, meaning that, for the most part, this is calculated before the full impact of the Great Recession. Given the rage expressed at Tea Parties, it’s hard to believe our ranking hasn’t fallen, unless rage makes you happy.
The Kaiser Daily Health Report (put out by the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation) of August 13, 2007 referred to a New York Times editorial (apparently) from the day before, in which it was stated that "a growing body of evidence" indicates that the U.S. is not a "leader in providing good medical care" but a "laggard."
According to the editorial, a comparison of the U.S. and other industrialized nations in several important areas of health care finds that:
"All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage" -- most with "comprehensive benefit packages with no cost sharing by the patients" -- but the U.S. "to its shame" has 45 million uninsured residents and millions of residents with inadequate coverage;
U.S. residents receive "prompter attention" than those in most other nations, but "even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room";
The U.S. "ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity," with the "greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens";
The U.S. ranks "near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60" and 15th among 19 nations in deaths that would not have resulted "if treated with timely and effective care";
The U.S. ranks "first in providing the 'right care' for a given condition" and high for preventive care but performs "poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients and in meeting their needs and preferences";
The U.S. in a recent comparison of five nations "had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer";
U.S. residents "hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system," and "American attitudes stand out as the most negative" in a recent comparison of five nations; and
The U.S. health care system -- despite "our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet" -- is "still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls," with many U.S. physicians "years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically."
The editorial states, "With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has 'the best health care system in the world' and turn instead to fixing its very real defects," adding, "The world's most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best" (New York Times, 8/12).
**************
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (Source:Frontline)
1. Percentage of Gross Domestic Production Spent on Health Care:
Japan 8 United Kingdom 8.3 Germany 10.7 Switzerland 11.6
United States 15.3
2. Life Expectancy at Birth
Japan 82.1 United Kingdom 79 Germany 79 Switzerland 81.3
United States 77
3. Infant Mortality (Deaths per 1000 Live Births)
Japan 2.8 United Kingdom 5.1 Germany 3.9 Switzerland 4.2
United States 6.8
***********
AVERAGE HAPPINESS IN 148 NATIONS (Source:R.Veenhoven (10/09) on Internet
(How much people enjoy their life-as-a-whole on scale 0 to 10)
Top Range > 7.9: Costa Rica, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Canada–all between 8.0 and 8.5
Middle Range +/- 6.0: France, China, Iran, India, Phillippines–all between 5.5 and 6.6
Bottom < 4.3: Benin, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Togo, Tanzania–all between 2.6 and 3.0
UNITED STATES 7.4
We’re ranked 20th. But I think this was an average based on the years from 2000 to 2009, meaning that, for the most part, this is calculated before the full impact of the Great Recession. Given the rage expressed at Tea Parties, it’s hard to believe our ranking hasn’t fallen, unless rage makes you happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
