In a country where being the best is drilled into our heads, especially by the most patriotic citizens (with the greatest number of flag pins in their lapels), it must come as a terrible shock to learn that, althouhgh we might be #1 in nuclear weapons or number of people in jail, we're slightly below that in other, less important areas.
We should have gotten a hint in the World Health Organization's report of 2000, in which we were compared with every other nation on earth in terms of health care for its citizens.
Back then, when George W. was preparing to take over and we hadn't spent three trillion bucks on unfunded wars, the WHO studied responsiveness, fairness in financial contribution, life expectancy, infant mortality and overall care. Countries from Afghanistan (#173) to Zimbabwe (#155) were carefully studied and ranked. The United States ranked #1 in only one area - the amount of money we spend. A far as what we get, we didn't do quite as well. We ranked thirty-seventh.
You're kidding!!!! The greatest country in the world? The nation that leads the world in urging equal rights for all its citizens? How could this be? Worse, how come we stand still for it?
Well, from reading the papers, it has something to do with socialism. To a certain segment of our population, it's a betrayal of our country to try evening out the right to life by (gasp!) taking anything away from the wealthiest so that the non-productive poor can live longer. After all, since we pay the most for health care, we must be getting the best for everybody, right?
The argument against single-payer health care stresses the rights of the rich to hang on to their wealth - and few argue that those who create jobs deserve to keep most of what they earn. But how about the parasites? Do the idle rich, who contribute so little, deserve to edge out the needy poor? Of course, say the Rightists. To which the Lefties reply, "Hell no!"
So we're 37th = or at least we were in 2000. But how about now? The WHO discontinued the rankings, but some still are working on them. Forbes, Inc., a publication that's pretty tuned into the top 1%, gives the U.S. an improved #11. However, it's instructive to note that Iceland, Sweden and Finland are in the top spots and others that fared well include Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Denmark, Canada, Austria and the Netherlands.
More interesting is a note in the Forbes article: ""Historically, these countries had an ethic of having more of a nationalized health care system," says Kate Schecter, a program officer for the American International Health Alliance, a nonprofit that works to advance global health by helping nations with limited resources build sustainable infrastructure. "There's this mentality that health care should be a given right for citizens."
What? Health care a given right? Here I always thought it was a commodity, like corn flakes, that can be bought and sold. It seems odd that those who say they believe in life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness don't yell more about refusing to put in place the means to achieve them.
think it's time for a national dialogue. Not about abortion, but about health care. AFter all, if you believe in the right to life, shouldn't it be for everybody?