A new report has found high rates of premature births is the main reason for the United State's higher infant mortality rate. The U.S. infant morality rate is higher than other similar industrialized nations. For every 1,000 births in the United States, 6.9 infants die before they turn one. Whereas in Sweden the number is 2.4. More than 540,000 babies are born prematurely each year, and that drives up infant morality. In 2005, 12.4% of the births in the United States were premature. In Sweden it's 6.3%. The report found that if the U.S. could match Sweden's prematurity rate, nearly 8,000 infant deaths could be averted each year and the infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.
The high levels of prematurity in the U.S. have multiple causes. For one, "the smallest, earliest, and most fragile" babies are often born to poor and minority women who lack health care and social support. The highest rates of infant mortality in the U.S. occur for African-American, Native American, Alaska Native, and Puerto Rican women. Another factor is infertility treatments. This increases the odds of twins or higher multiples, which have a higher risk of being born prematurely. Because most U.S. insurance doesn't cover infertility treatments, some patients choose to transfer multiple eggs in hopes of increasing their chances of getting pregnant without having to take part in numerous expensive procedures. In European countries there's less of a need for transferring a large number of embryos because of national health insurance and people don't have to pay out of pocket. Another factor is the increased use of C-sections and labor-inducing drugs to deliver the babies earlier. Doctors are declaring a medical need for these procedures more quickly than they did in the past. There's more of a tendency to take the baby out early if there's any question at all, instead of waiting it out. This is the fastest growing sub-group of premature babies. (Full Story)
"Dr. Alan R. Fleischman, medical director for the March of Dimes, said the new report was 'an indictment of the U.S. health care system' and the poor job it had done in taking care of women and children." To prevent the number of premature births, more needs to be done to provide pregnant women with health care and social support (and well, everyone, for that matter; not just pregnant women). For example, a state program in Kentucky provided home visits by nurses to poor women during their pregnancy and this resulted in decreased pre-term births.
Republicans have finally come up with a health care bill of their own (definitely too little, too late). They promise to lower health care costs and expand insurance coverage, while not raising taxes, nor cutting Medicare benefits, nor adding to the national deficit. Their plan is that they will not require people to obtain insurance, will not require employers to offer insurance, will not expand Medicaid, will not offer federal subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance, and they will not explicitly prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to people based on pre-existing conditions. (Full Story)
So...what are you doing? You're not cutting any money from programs and you're not raising any more revenue and yet somehow you're going to have the funding to increase insurance coverage? And you're going to increase coverage even though you won't give people any help in getting that coverage? It sounds to me like you're just keeping the status quo. 'Our plan is just to say no to everything in your plan.'
Actually, they are in fact doing something that deviates from the status quo -- they would prohibit insurance companies from imposing annual and lifetime limits on spending for covered benefits. Which might sound familiar, because it's part of the Democratic health plan.
Other parts of their plan include offering federal incentive payments over the next ten years to states that reduce the cost of health insurance or the proportion of residents that are uninsured (which is pretty half-ass -- dangling some money in front of states doesn't really set a structure in place for achieving actual change. Let alone large-scale change). They would also make it easier for insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines (helping the insurance companies). Republicans also say they will offer $15 billion to states to establish high-risk pools for people that can't obtain insurance, as well as reinsurance programs in which the state pays a large share of the cost if claims exceed some threshold (and what's that threshold?). These high-risk pools are for people that are "uninsurable" through private health insurance (you know, because of policies that allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with conditions such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease). These people are able to purchase a state-sponsored insurance health plan (government involved insurance?!?!). However these plans are usually expensive and have higher costs. The premiums can be double the national average. That's because these are "high risk" individuals. If everyone had insurance, and you have a large pool of people that are insured, the "low risk" individuals can absorb a lot of the costs of the "high risk" individuals. "Low risk" people don't produce much costs, "high risk" people do. It evens out. But when you stick all the "high risk" people together, it doesn't spread out the costs and it can be quite expensive. What a great plan. They can't get private insurance because of their conditions, so you pool them together with other "high risk" individuals and be so kind as to let them have insurance, but it's usually quite expensive. Furthermore, there are millions of people that don't have insurance and it's not just because they're "uninsurable" because of health conditions. What is the Republican plan going to do about the many people that simply cannot afford insurance? Apparently, nothing.
This "plan" is not really effective in instigating health care reform. We need a change in the system, and this is not it. This plan mostly continues the status quo; and at the very most it takes minor, minor steps towards change.
China has approved a Disneyland theme park in Shanghai. Efforts to bring a Disney theme park to China has been going on for about twenty years. Most suspect that it was approved for financial reasons. This investment can be profitable and will bring lots of jobs. It will be interesting to see the cultural implications this will have. China is very guarded and has tried to shield its culture from Westernization. Only 20 non-Chinese movies are allowed to be shown in theatres in each year, and they're often edited. It will be interesting to see how an American franchise -- complete with mass marketing of Disney characters, movies, and music -- will effect Chinese culture. (Full Story)
Funny tidbit: The article also mentioned how the French people were really hesitant of Disneyland Paris. French farmers with pitchforks protested Disney. But Disney eventually became more flexible and incorporated local customs -- "the decision to serve alcohol at Disneyland Paris helped turn that resort into a financial success." Oh, those Parisians! They're not even attempting to quash the stereotype that you can get them to do anything for a bottle of wine.
No comments:
Post a Comment