That broken health-care system keeps lengthening lives
posted at 10:12 am on August 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
We keep hearing how broken our health care delivery system is in the US, and how we need reform to make us healthy once again — as well as to protect us from Tonsil Vultures and Foot Rustlers. How badly is that system and how unhealthy are Americans? According to the CDC, we keep extending our life expectancy to all-time highs and keep reducing disease in the US:
U.S. life expectancy reached nearly 78 years (77.9), and the age-adjusted death rate dropped to 760.3 deaths per 100,000 population, both records, according to the latest mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. …
The 2007 increase in life expectancy – up from 77.7 in 2006 — represents a continuation of a trend. Over a decade, life expectancy has increased 1.4 years from 76.5 years in 1997 to 77.9 in 2007.
Surely this is some kind of fluke, right? After all, with all of those Tonsil Vultures and Foot Rustlers stealing body parts for fun and profit, how could our lives get extended and more healthy? The CDC data shows it’s no fluke:
– Record high life expectancy was recorded for both males and females (75.3 years and 80.4 years, respectively). While the gap between male and female life expectancy has narrowed since the peak gap of 7.8 years in 1979, the 5.1 year difference in 2007 is the same as in 2006.
– For the first time, life expectancy for black males reached 70 years.
– The U.S. mortality rate fell for the eighth straight year to an all-time low of 760.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2007 — 2.1 percent lower than the 2006 rate of 776.5. The 2007 mortality rate is half of what it was 60 years ago (1532 per 100,000 in 1947.) …
– Between 2006 and 2007, mortality rates declined significantly for eight of the 15 leading causes of death. Declines were observed for influenza and pneumonia (8.4 percent), homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent), heart disease (4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent), hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent).
Diabetes? Isn’t that the disease highlighted by Obama in his Foot Rustlers argument, saying that we hadn’t done enough to treat and prevent diabetes? Looks like the American health-care system has actually made good progress on a wide range of diseases, including diabetes. We can also include HIV/AIDS on that list; mortality rates dropped 10%, the biggest decline since the CDC began tracking the disease.
When people tell us that the health-care system in this country is broken, they’re either ignorant or lying. Every year we increase life expectancy, every year we decrease mortality rates, and every year we improve our record on a wide range of diseases. I’d rather stick with that system than go with the same people who bring us the Indian Health Service and who think that the Post Office makes a great example of government-run programs.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
From my standpoint, this is great information. But it’s time for the Congressional GOP to step forward with a unified alternative that, first, identifies the problems most people believe need to be solved; second, offers understandable solutions; third, explains how EVERY SOLUTION in the alternative functions to solve the identified problems; and, finally, explains how parts of the Democratic alternatives fail to solve the identified problems and, indeed, creates all kinds of harms.
Personally, I like the term “death panels” because it rivets attention to an objectionable part of one of the Democratic bills. Indeed, the outrage resulted in getting it dropped. The Dems can whine all they want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Dems got exposed as ghouls, so they backed away.
But beyond that, the Congressional GOP needs to get a handful of smart, presentable leaders to come forward to announce the GOP alternative. Coburn, DeMint, and Kyl in the Senate; Pence, Ryan, and others in the House. I’m sure that there are others.
Step forward with an alternative that the voters can believe. It’s not enough to introduce some Mickey Mouse bill, and it’s not enough to “kill the bill.”
The liberals are playing a game of “ring around the rosy” in which they are already occupying the chairs of their game. The Blue Dogs are feeling the heat of townhalls, but if they jump in with some watered-down liberal solutions, they can appear that they did something for voters. The GOP needs to set up a new game and try to steal away the Bull Dogs to a system that will actually do something rather than feed Democratic interests.
BuckeyeSam on August 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM
How is the argument against reform NOT saying its ok for a family to lose everything over a medical concern? The status quo doesn’t fix it, and yet here we are hearing how great the status quo is…
Anyway, the idea that basic services need to be offered, and that those in need are entitled to some assistance, is not new. We’ve already crossed those bridges, and accepted that society has a minimum responsibility for certain basics. All homes have to have connections to local utilities, that are subsidized to provide a basic level of service to just about anyone. We secondarily subsidize those who cannot meet that bare minimum, and since im not hearing anyone argue that all welfare spending should be immediately abolished, ill assume we’ve crossed that bridge.
Now, im willing to concede that cancer treatment may not fall into that category for everyone…but the prenatal care seems like a no-brainer. We already make “other people pay” for children. We take them away from parents who are unfit, we pay taxes to educate them whether we enroll in public schools or not, we pay to have them incarcerated in juvie halls that cost more than prisons, etc etc…It doesnt seem out of the question that we should see that we dont lead the world in life expectancy and infant mortality and look for a solution…rather than lauding our mediocre status quo with regards to these statistics.
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Don’t give Obama any ideas.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM
How many times do we have to go over the infant mortality argument? Our infant mortality is abysmal compared to what? WHO reporting from other countries, right? WRONG!
According to AARP, less than 1% of families go bankrupt from medical costs. And, it is almost always not just medical costs that cause bankruptcy. They have other issues as well. So lets scrap the best system for 310 million people to stop 1.7 million from going bankrupt? STUPID!
JAM on August 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM
So the job of govt is to ensure that no matter what happens to us, we won’t suffer from it?
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM
What amazes me is how everyone still thinks that the government move of a healthcare takeover has ANYTHING to do with healthcare…It is the biggest, fast track way to socialization and they know it.
GET ‘HEALTHCARE’ FOR EVERYONE–>OPEN THE BORDERS–>OWN THE COUNTRY FOREVER…
GET IT????
Ltlgeneral64 on August 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I’m actually looking forward to having government documentation of gay people. The gay tax should be coming next. Gay lifestyle is as hazardous to your health as smoking.
Of course I wasn’t saying that the government should get involved in making people live healthy lifestyles. I was making the point that if people did live healthy, they’d live even longer within our current system.
I have no idea why they can’t force kids to exercise during school for at least an hour every day. I know they are afraid of lawsuits if kids get hurt, but getting kids to ‘play’ for an hour of physical exercise in public school should be a minimum to attack childhood obesity.
Didn’t they take out gym so that fat people wouldn’t get their feelings hurt? Or maybe that they didn’t want self esteem to suffer when there is a winner and a loser like in real life.
ThackerAgency on August 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM
But while we’re on the subject, life expectancy has risen, but we remain low…and infant mortality in this country remains atrocious…primarily due to the fact that prenatal care is not guaranteed. If we’re ok with laws that are written in the interest of the child (think child protective services), why should we be ok with american babies born without modern pre/post natal care as a guarantee…regardless of ones ability to pay for it?ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM
We’ve been over that lie of yours many times already.
The US infant mortality numbers are low because we count every baby that draws a breath, as being born alive. In other countries, babies that are born pre-maturely, don’t get counted until they pass their due date, so that premies who die, don’t count. In other countries, unless the baby lives a day or two, it is counted as a live birth, so that it doesn’t count against either life expectancy or infant mortality.
Unless you normalize the numbers so that they are all calculated using the same method, they are meaningless.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Liberals, for the most part, don’t even donate to charity under the behest of govt.
Liberals pass laws so that other people, not themselves, have to pay taxes.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM
AAaaarggghhh. This doesn’t fit the template, it doesn’t fit THE TEMPLATE..!
Well. They didn’t show the dramatic rise in the greenhouse gases due to all the trees being cut down to make more wooden legs for all of the peeps who suffered under those greedy foot rustlers. The environmental impact of the loss of one, lovely, beautiful and majestic tree just makes me weep with compassion–for trees feel….. pain…. too. *sniff*
Those big drug and insurance companies must manipulate that data somehow just because they’re racists and want to see the president fail. Those statistics don’t show that peeps in the UK and Canada are healthier because they’re…. greener and recycle more and eat less meat than those stinking red staters do….
Ohh HOW CAN THIS BE>>>?
/sarc
ted c on August 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Did you ignore what i wrote before that? That i dont care how they do it…single payer, co-ops, some portability/tax break scheme, mandates, what have you…im not beholden to one solution. I just see the main problem with our system being two fold
a) we dont lead in life expectancy and infant mortality (point about how we count duly noted by the way) when the amount we pay for healthcare suggests we should. (i dont think we’d be ok with 2nd best army given how much more we spend than the rest of the world…)
b) we have too many bankruptcies due to medical costs, i cant find any citation for that 1% number. a check of the health affairs journal shows a 2001 study with the following abstract:
ABSTRACT:
And again, if there were bills that could address these issues without ‘scrapping the best system’, i wouldnt oppose it out of hand in favor of a more universal model…id just prefer a policy answer over an ideological one.
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
mark the great: excellent rebuttal and right on the mark
ted c on August 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM
And when you do normalize the numbers, we still dont lead…although we begin to even out with some of the rest that we’ve been counting as far past the US in that regard. But when we spend the most, why settle for 2nd best?
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Remember that old liberal meme back in the 60′s or70′s…if it serves to save one life? [Of course, they weren't the ones paying for any of it.]
If every liberal would stop, take out their wallet, and identify one person, one family in their neighborhood, who was in true need…and handed them the cash they needed, for their immediate needs (not wants), offered them a job, helped them daily to find a job, helped them pass a GED, or showed them how to manage a budget, took the time to counsel them about drug or alcohol abuse, or walked them into a clinic for the same, then, perhaps I’d be a bit more sympathetic to liberals telling me how to work my random acts of kindness and tithing.
But, this liberal principle…”let government do it”…shows what they are.
And they dare call Conservatives heartless.
coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 11:33 AM
how could all of those diseases decrease between 2006 and 2007? That is simply impossible because, back then, we didn’t know what “worked” and “didn’t work” and there has got to be at least $500 billion more to wring out of that inefficient system….
Moreover, I don’t think blue and red pills existed back then either.
ted c on August 20, 2009 at 11:34 AM
NoLeftTurn on August 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM
You only have to have insurance for your car if you are driving on publicly owned roads. If you keep you car on your property, you don’t need a license or insurance.
The govt doesn’t own me, and has no right to demand that I buy insurance for myself.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Or they are using different metrics to assess if it is broken or not, or because they are comparing this system to other systems or simply because they are trying to make it better and see broken parts that need to be fixed.
Even if your car can go fast from 0-60 doesn’t mean the windshield or the A/C isn’t broken.
mycowardice on August 20, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Search the NY Times archives for a op-ed by Nick Kristoff from December 2008 (I think it was the 22nd). Liberal columnist, citing recent book, breaks the news to liberals–their conservative counterparts are notably more charitable in terms of money donations and time volunteered.
Liberals are generous with other people’s money. And they love “volunteering” their time for protest activities and extortion activities [read ACORN], but they volunteer for little that has anything to do with actually helping others.
Kristof’s article is worth downloading and having at the ready for whenever this canard of “liberal generosity” raises its head.
BuckeyeSam on August 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM
If people want it, it can be done at the state level, like most of the examples you cite. If done there, you can have many different systems that can experiment and learn best practices from each other. Also, individual voters will have relatively more say in how a particular state’s system is set up and run. Federal government should be reserved for things that really need to be done on the Federal level, like national defense.
DarkCurrent on August 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Schools have cut back on physical education hours because of increasing demand for instructional time to meet state educational standards, not because of playground lawsuits. It’s a real problem, especially for young boys who really need daily physical activity. I think the school day should be extended so that all kids get at least a half-hour a day of exercise, even high school kids.
As long ago as the mid-70s, though, I went all the way through junior and senior high school without a single day of PE. I was able to fulfill my high school PE requirement by taking it in summer school, and we did sports like bowling and miniature golf – very little strenuous physical activity. And I was 25 pounds overweight until my junior year of college.
The consolidation of schools into large mega-schools also means fewer and fewer kids can walk or bike to school.
rockmom on August 20, 2009 at 11:38 AM
And id be fine with that. I suppose one could even pull a reagan and use something like highway funds to encourage compliance with the goals that most americans seem to be in line with, those being expanding coverage, not necessarily cutting costs or services in the interest of lessening healthcare spending.
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM
So you admit that you were being dishonest in your first post. We’re making progress.
After normalizing for differences in the way statistics are gathered, you then have to normalize for lifestyle choices.
For example, the US leads the world in teenagers giving birth. The number of infant deaths in teenagers is higher than it is for more mature women. Regardless of the amount of care given. The same is true for single mothers, regardless of age.
The US is one of the world leaders in assistance for those with problems getting pregnant. This results in an increased number of multiple births, which results in more infants dieing.
If you look at the list given, you will see that factors 2 and 3 are homicides and acidents. The US has more of both than many other countries. Neither is the result of health care.
Quit being so dishonest in your attempts to justify the inexcusable.
Secondly, we don’t spend the most, not even close. You have to normalize those numbers as well.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I think the general problem is that as health care quality increases, a larger percent of the population becomes uninsured. This is the trend that is being shown and it will become a huge problem as unemployment rises with the amount of uninsured. Bad combination.
The Calibur on August 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM
So what nation spends more on healthcare than the US?
And as for the infant mortality, i was pointed in the direction of an article that refuted my claim, so i admitted it…so no need to be so hasty about justifying ‘the inexcusable’
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM
When I say leave it up to the States, I mean leave it up to the States. Highway funds and such should be used for what they’re intended, not as bribes to encourage them to bend to Federal will.
DarkCurrent on August 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM
If it was good enough for Reagan… ;-)
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Policy would be all the ideas that have been laid out here time and again. Purchase insurance across state lines. Stop the fraud and waste in Medicare & Medicaid. Tort reform,etc. These are ideologically driven! Liberals thing Govt. is the answer. Conservatives don’t. I think many govt.-run programs have shown that it is the most inefficient way to “help” people. I am firmly in the camp that something can be done to make sure everyone receives the best care that is available. It can be done thru the private sector though, and I see no reason for this “healthcare overhaul”. I only support the status quo in comparison to what is being proposed. Period. The democrats are NOT serious about healthcare reform, or they would have tort reform as their first priority as it immediately adds 10% to the cost of any medical visit/procedure.
JAM on August 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Reagan was certainly the best in recent memory by far, but not quite perfect. I’m going to stand back and watch the troll killers eat you now…
DarkCurrent on August 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM
The common thread I’ve heard from a Pro-Obamacare person is the following statistic:
22,000 die each year without health care.
Given the CDC stats above, I did the math:
23,117,608 die each year with healthcare (760 per 1000 population CDC statistics)
or 0.095 percent of people die each year without health care.
Which also goes to the Health Care isn’t broken point.
jstueve on August 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I’ve got to agree with you there. That they never open with that argument shows that there’s more to their motives…but then again, there ALWAYS more to a politician’s motives. Its not an entirely democrat phenomenon, but its a pretty lousy state of affairs…
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM
We may very well spend the most, but we want more care, the latest procedure/drug/technolgy, etc. I don’t see why that is a bad thing? From the article – Dr. Bernadine Healy
JAM on August 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
that article was linked earlier, first i saw it. forced me to tailor my argument, but isnt that why the internet is so glorious?
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Errr, pardon me but, while this is good news, it’s not exactly hard proof that the health-care system isn’t broken. Anyone can see that medicine has continued to advance and will continue to advance, with or without reform. Rather, isn’t it a question of whether reform could produce better results? It doesn’t seem quite logical to say “Things have improved some under this current system, therefore we should keep everything the way it is.”
zoax on August 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I have been a nurse for 16 years. It is entirely untrue to say that doctors haven’t done enough for prevention. If Obama wants to use diabetes as an example -well then – my experience over my nursing career is that doctors do everything they can to educate people and treat their diabetes. The reason so many end up with complications from this disease is from THEIR LACK OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Many are noncompliant in their medications, diet and exercise. I would venture to say with a lot of confidence that lack of personal responsibility is the reason for millions of dollars spent by our government.
AusTex girl on August 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Really? That would come as a major surprise to all of us who don’t have a single connection to any local utility.
The only thing worse that being foolish ernesto is opening your mouth and letting the world know you are foolish.
chemman on August 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
well yeah, i suppose there are you outlier ultra-rural types that live off the grid…but if you live in some unincorporated stretch of land in the middle of nowhere, most if not all of the demand for any services at all must seem silly.
ernesto on August 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Yeah, I linked it. I just thought it needed to be said again. I don’t always clink on links myself…the internet is glorious! Keeping bookmarks is the greatest thing ever!
JAM on August 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM
What a difference a decade makes. I graduated from High School in 1969. From the first day of Junior High School to the last day of High School I had to take a P.E. Class. The only way you could take it in summer school was if you failed it the previous year.
chemman on August 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Another thing the left ignores is that the U.S. medical community makes all kinds of innovative discoveries daily. They add to our quality of life, but not to ours only. They are often exported or copied in other countries of the world, thus raising the life-expectancy of every country. I don’t have stats but I would bet that the U.S. medical community is largely responsible for the rising life expectancy worldwide. Kill this system and you lower future life expectancy potential all over the world.
Christian Conservative on August 20, 2009 at 12:30 PM
The only silly person is you. Such hubris in thinking that you actually know what any of us “ultra-rural” types believe.
chemman on August 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM
The measurement for infant mortality is inconsistent country to country. Some do not include those born before 28 weeks in their data and others omit or also omit those born under 500g. Very low birth weight, adjusted or non-adjusted for gestational age is a sure sequale of other factors that can lead to death – such as respiratory distress, cardiac failures etc. Very low birth rate mortality is somewhere around 400 per 1000 live births. Can you see where omitting that group of infants would skew your data?
Congenital abnormalities is the second leading cause of infant mortality – a good deal of countries omit infant deaths due to congenital deformities so the IMR is also skewed. Further, the US has a lower rate of neo-eugenics than other developed countries, in other words – we abort less. This fact also skews the data as we are more likely than other countries to bring to term a “less than perfect” infant.
Without any adjustments our mortality rate is around 6.5% – and you feel this is “atrocious”. Yet again you fail to recognise that our health care system has more safety measures and systems in place to try to ensure a successful pregnancy. Pre-natal and post-natal care in this country is superior and easily found. No it’s not “guaranteed” but your lack of acknowledgment of it’s availability and affordablity (often free) is disingenuous.
I hope these facts help you understand and re-examine the false and misleading data you have been fed.
batterup on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Infant mortality strongly affects overall life expectancy.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM
ernesto,
you have to add back in the health cares costs that other countries hide in non-health care portions of their budgets.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM
In my high school, summer school PE was almost exclusively the realm of the football player. They treated it as a kind of under the table pre-season workout.
MarkTheGreat on August 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Here’s a plan that might work:
fred5678 on August 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
You want government health care or free market health care?
Startling comparison in a single country.
Oh, and check the rates and availability for Lasik in the USA.
fred5678 on August 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Lasik – typically single (Patient) payer (= informed shopper), versus private or government insurance go-between bureaucracy.
fred5678 on August 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Well, we all know the government only makes things better! Why, this must mean that with socialized medicine we’d all live to at least 100! Maybe 200! It’d be like the old testament!
Blacklake on August 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM
My first post here, so please be kind, guys. :)
As a mom of an almost-2-year-old born at home with the help of midwives (and using my HSA to pay for it), I’ve studied a lot about the infant mortality rate. As usual, many problems can be traced back to liberal actions. It’s been stated that part of the high infant mortality rate is due to prematurity. Well, here’s my angle on why there’s so much prematurity: ambulance chasers like John Edwards and Obama’s trial lawyer buddies who fight tort reform tooth and nail and make doctors overly vulnerable to being sued.
Doctors (especially obstetricians) often practice defensive medicine, in which at the first sign of trouble, the baby is induced or cut out of the womb via c-section. Both induction and c-section are more inherently dangerous and produce more deaths for mother and baby than natural birth do. The WHO, despite its flaws, is correct that the best overall rate of c-section is from 10 to 15%. That is the point at which the benefits of c-sections outweigh the higher risk of infection, blood loss, and as stated above, prematurity.
Also, often babies are predicted through ultrasound to be much larger than they really are, which prompts more pressure for inductions, which raises the c-section rate because the baby wasn’t ready to be born.
The current rate of c-section in the US is one in three, double to triple what it should be, and causing many more babies to be born prematurely. Thanks, John Edwards and trial lawyers!
Since I am a conservative and have ideas for solutions and not just complaints about problems, I think tort reform is in order, because sometimes things just go wrong. If it can be proven the doctor truly messed up or was negligent, ok. But some babies are just going to be unlucky, just as some people are unlucky and are born with congenital defects.
Also, midwifery care should be encouraged in addition to out-of-hospital birth for healthy moms and babies. If you look at the stats, home birth is actually SAFER than hospital birth because of the low intervention rate. Yes, hospitals and surgeons are needed for some births, but not most. And home birth with midwives is MUCH, MUCH cheaper! Going to midwifery care as a first option and only using OB’s when needed would save billions upon billions right there.
ericalh on August 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2