I just got off with DPVA Communications Director Danae Jones, Alexandria Mayor Bill Euille, Sen. Ralph Northam (Norfolk) and Del. Rosalyn Dance (Petersburg). The subject was John McCain opening up his Virginia campaign headquarters, and the them was that "Virginians don't need or want the third Bush term McCain is offering us."
*Danae Jones began the call by talking about the "myth" of John McCain being a "maverick" or a "moderate." Instead, McCain has rarely broken ranks with his party and has generally been in lockstep with George W. Bush. A John McCain presidency would represent Bush's 3rd term and would have an adverse impact on Virginia working families.
*Ralph Northam said that while our health care is the best in the world, our health care system is broken and getting worse by the year. Right here in Virginia, we have 1 million uninsured, including many children and people with pre-existing conditions. The average premium for a healthy family of four is $1,000 per month. Businesses can't afford health care, leading to problems like outsourcing. Access is limited and costs have skyrocketed while the Bush administration has done nothing. McCain's health care plan would do little, basically four more years of Bush. McCain has opposed SCHIP, prescription drug benefits to seniors and veterans. More broadly, the GOP is indifferent to the problems of American working families.
*Rosalyn Dance said that McCain is all about national security, not focused at all on the economy, quality of life, housing, etc. McCain only offers the "same old, same old"/"nothing new."
*Bill Euille said that John McCain will just make our budget situation worse, that the war in Iraq is costing America trillions and hurting us at home. McCain advocates continuing Bush policies which have created a mess for this nation. He has no plan to balance the budget; certainly can't do it while extending the Bush tax cuts and continuing the war in Iraq. McCain's not a friend of law enforcement either, having vote for corporate tax breaks but against the COPS program. McCain will not serve Virginia well as president.
*Danae emphasized that we are still in the middle of the nominating process, but that Democrats are well ahead of the game because of the primaries -- enthusiasm, numbers of volunteers, voters in database, etc.
Obviously what you meant was that Danae Jones started out by talking about McCain... right Lowell?
1. We have the highest infant mortality rate of industrialized nations. In the OECD, only Mexico and Turkey top us. We tie with Poland and the Slovak Republic. But this is the average mind you, and when you look at economic class and race the stats for the US get tragically worse. Our maternal mortality rate is just as bad.
2. As of 2004, we spent 15.2% of our GDP on healthcare expenditures. And we spent $6,037 per capita. In percentage of GDP and per capita expenditures, we are highest in both the world and the OECD. The next highest country in the OECD is Switzerland at 11.2% and $4,045 respectively.
I'd make more points, but a lot of this is laid out in Commonwealth Fund's report on this. Besides receiving the right care, we rate bad as compared to the other 5 countries in the survey. We're at the bottom on safety, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. We pay twice what every other country in this survey does, but we rank lower than them.
We pay the most, to get the worst care of the richest nations on Earth. Is that the best? Clearly not. And we should stop lauding our system as the best because it makes every critique of it meaningless. If it's the best, we don't need to change it.
I encourage everyone to watch Frontline's Sick Around the World. You can view it all online.
If this is a meaningful distinction, then how is our health care the best?
I did see that he said health care above. But I am at a loss as to what the comparison is and how this is a meaningful distinction. If the health outcome for our nation is not the best, what does it matter that a set of individual can access the best care? And again on comparison, best as compared to what using what metric? If I can pay less and live longer as a Japanese citizen, it sounds like the better health care is in Japan.
I'd point back to the Commonwealth Fund Report which suggests that it isn't just the system, but the care as well that needs work. I am back to my point that suggesting we do something the best minimizes anything that follows that statement. If we have the best health care, then if we change the system that provides the "best" health care will we not diminish that "best" care?