Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Myth: The United States Cannot Afford to Insure Its Citizens





This started as a debate on FB with a cousin of mine about how to stimulate the economy and create jobs, then it moved to taxation and spending, and then I decided I should blog about the myths the Conservative Right wants you to believe. While doing some research, I came up on some facts about Infant and Maternal Mortality Rates, and the more I read, the more I found these statistics relevant to the discussion at hand. Here I am focused on Pre- and Postnatal Health, but there is more, and I am angry.

According to Business Pundit, the six countries with the the highest taxes in the world are these: Belgium has the highest marginal tax rate on average workers at 54%; followed by Finland, 46%; Germany, 45%; Denmark, 44.4%; Italy, 43%; and France, 40% on average wages and 50% on highest wages. 

The six countries with the lowest tax rates are Switzerland, 20%; United States, 27%; Australia, 31.5%; Canada, 31.2%; United Kingdom, 32% and Japan, 33%. Even at 33% marginal tax on average wages Japan is considered to have one of the lowest tax rates in the world, and our taxes are lower than theirs. 

Note where the US is on that list, we are in the bottom six.   Note that ALL these countries have high standards of living, and all but one offers womb to tomb benefits for its citizens. Want to bet which country doesn't?

One method used to evaluate a country's standing in the world is it's Infant Mortality Rate (IMR). It is also used as an indicator in assessing the quality and the availability of overall health care to a country's citizens. Guess where we are on THAT list? 

According to the United Nations World Population Prospects Report we are 34th in the world in infant mortalities. That is a SHAMEFUL statistic for one of the richest nations in the world; in a country whose leaders try to tell us we have the best medical care in the world; in a country where people are being told we don't need to provide health care.

Even more embarrassing is the CIA World Fact Book lists our IMR at 46th in the world here and here. Yes, That CIA.  What these figures mean to us is 6 out of every thousand children born in the United States in 2011 died before the age of 1 year. Cuba has a better survival rate than we do, as does Croatia, even in the face of genocide. 33-45 countries lose fewer babies every year than we do, depending on which report you read. This is unacceptable.

High IMR's can be directly attributed to poverty and poor pre- and postnatal care for baby and Mom. They are a direct result of poor prenatal nutrition for mothers, as are many birth defects.

So, whose babies are more likely to die? The very poor have recourse in Medicaid, free maternity clinics and other resources. The working poor, those who work full time, sometimes two jobs, make too much money to qualify for public assistance and not enough to pay for insurance or prenatal care. Rarely do their jobs offer health insurance. Mothers tend to show up on the doorsteps of the ER in full blown labor. They are delivered by doctors who have no prenatal history to rely on and have no clue of the risk factors at hand. There are sometimes some really nasty surprises for the medical team.  I've been there, done that.


The new poor are your neighbor who lost his job, and then his home. He is your co-worker whose unemployment has run out. He is one of the 15.3 million unemployed citizens of our country who cannot find a job. He has no insurance, He and his pregnant wife are not eating, so that their children can. She, too, is unlikely to receive adequate prenatal care. She, too, is likely to deliver prematurely, have an underweight baby, or a baby with a neural tube or other defect which affects the viability of the newborn. 



High rates of maternal deaths occur in the same countries that have high rates of infant mortality, reflecting generally poor nutrition and medical care. In some studies the US is ranked 39th in 181 countries, which translates into 16.6 out of 100,000 births as of 2008.

According to CNN, deaths from pregnancy and childbirth in the United States have doubled in the past 20 years. About 1.7 million women a year, one-third of pregnant women in the United States, suffer from pregnancy-related complications. Most of the deaths and complications occur among minorities and women living in poverty. Most of these tragedies are preventable. Another unacceptable fact for the United States. 

That same source quotes Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA as saying, "Good maternal care should not be considered a luxury available only to those who can access the best hospitals and the best doctors. Women should not die in the richest country on earth from preventable complications and emergencies" As a woman, a nurse, and as an American citizen, I wholeheartedly agree. (Emphases are mine) 

So, what can we do? Many of these problems can be eliminated by implementing the Universal Health Care Act. Insuring that everyone, regardless of socio-economic status, has adequate health care will benefit everyone. Sweden, Finland and Norway have the 4th, 5th, and 6th lowest IMRs in the world. They also lead in maternal health, longevity, and other health parameters. I would say theirs are the models we should be examining, not those of Canada and the UK, although their stats are still better than ours.

The next time someone tries to convince you the country cannot afford the Universal Health Care Act, think about this and tell them that we cannot afford not to implement it. Even one preventable death is one too many.

That's Miss PittyPat's truth for today.











Monday, November 28, 2011

It's STILL a Christmas Tree and the First Daughters DO Get Christmas Presants


I hate to upset my 'Conservative Right' (read Republican/Tea Party) friends, but the White House Christmas Trees are STILL Christmas trees, and there has never been, and still aren't, any plans to change the names.  There is a video showing this year's White House Christmas Tree arriving on a horse-drawn carriage complete with a carriage driver wearing a top hat.  Note it is from USA today.  The video was shown on all three major networks and, believe it or not, Faux News. 

The First Lady and Daughters are seen receiving the White House Christmas Tree in this picture that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and at least 305 other newspapers.  The sign on the side of the carriage clearly states White House Christmas Tree, 2011.

Courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor
If you are interested, you can check the facts at Snopes.com and at Factcheck.org

The President and the First Lady wished All American citizens a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in his weekly address to the nation on December 25th, 2010.

The misunderstanding seem to come from the Bush era, when Mrs. Bush began sending out ornaments to States and various other organizations and asking them to decorate the ornaments and return them to Washington to be put on the CAPITOL Christmas Tree.  In 2007, the accompanying information packet  to the organizations clearly states, and I quote:  "Ornaments with religious themes are not acceptable." In 2008, the criteria stated ♦  "Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme."

The criteria has since been changed, and religious themes are acceptable.  But, PLEASE NOTE, this criteria was in place during the BUSH administration, not the OBAMA administration.

The Grinch does not steal Christmas at the White House.  The same people who spread the above misinformation  also bring you the misinformation that the First Daughters do not receive Christmas presents.  They quote a seven page interview of the President and Mrs. Obama in People Magazine in 2008.  What the President actually said was that he leaves the gift giving to Santa.  First Daughter Malia is quoted as saying, "I know there is a Santa because there’s no way you’d buy me all that stuff.” In US Magazine, Mrs. Obama is quoted as saying she gives better Christmas presents than the President.

Then you hear that the President said we were not a Christian country.  What he actually said is that we are no longer ONLY a Christian country, and whether you like it or not, that is true.  We are a country of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and a multitude of other religions.

Our Founding Fathers had experienced the effects of government interference in religious practice and thought it important enough to make it the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Jefferson thought his greatest achievement was not the Constitution of the United States, The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson and many of the other great men of his time did not think of themselves as Christians, but rather as Deists, and believed in "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God…." I will probably blog about that at a later date, but if you research the writings of the time it becomes evident.


Finally, it does not matter what religion a President professes. He doesn't have to have a religion. He is guaranteed the right to think and believe what he chooses under the Constitution of the United States of America. Just like for any other American, it is unconstitutional to make adherence to any specific religion a condition for the job.



And THAT is Miss Pitty Pat's truth for the day.