Health Care in Venezuela

[Don1]

Their Bolivarian Constitution states:
"Health is a fundamental part...of the right to life."

Damn, sounds like a slogan for us, doesn't it?

[hwmnbn]

1. No Don1, not a slogan.....

a constitutional amendment.

[Don1]

2. That would be awesome.

It would be both moral and pragmatic for the Congressional Dems to propose such an amendment right now. After the Republicans kick it down, middle and rural America will think twice about supporting them. It is also a great Congressional election year issue.

[undergroundpanther]

3. Food and shelter are rights too..

Chavez Rocks

[Don1]

8. Don't forget Social Security.

It says in their Constitution that Social Security funds cannot be used for anything else.

Damn, no wonder the neo-cons are afraid of this guy. They will not be able to steal from the Social Security trust anymore, if we implemented something like that here.

[1932]

4. People who've never before seen a doctor in their life get health care

now for free.

Incidentally, in the 90s, Venezuela had one of the three most polarized distributions of income in the world.

According to the book The Health of Nations, polarization of income is one of the biggest correlatives to poor health (the connection, although perhaps not directly causal, is stronger than the correlation between smoking and lung cancer).

So Venezuela has a difficult taks in terms of providing for the health of its citizens. However, it's on the right track on both fronts -- in terms of providing free health care AND in terms of reducing the extreme polarizations of wealth.

[Don1]

5. Tens of millions in the US are without health care.

You have to be very, very poor to get it for free. But if you are poorer than middle class but do not have a low enough income to receive it, then you are out of luck. Now, even if you do qualify for free health care, every doctor isn't going to see you. I think these two reasons probably explain why low income is correlated with poor health.

Additionally, if you are middle class then you get the health care at an expensive corporatized rate. The US spends on average 15% of income on health care while in industrialized countries health care costs are much less. Here is an example: free health care costs Finlanders on average 8% through taxation.

But getting back to the point of the op, health care is a necessity. It is not a commodity to be traded, to be kept from those who cannot afford it, or to be given better quality to the elite.

Health care is a part of the right to life.

[1932]

6. See this thread:

Finland can spend less on health care not only because health care isn't corporatized (a very significant factor) but also because there isn't a huge polarization of wealth creating an unhealthy population. And not coincidentally, it's that same system or corporatized heatlh care that is polarizing wealth in the US. It's all part of a big cycle that's spinning out of control.


1932 (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-27-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. I just read in the book The Health of Nations:

Edited on Sat Aug-27-05 05:17 PM by 1932

With only about 4% of the global population, the US spends half of all the money spent on health care around the world, yet we rank at the bottom of the 20 or so wealthiest nations in terms of just about every measure of health.

The book argues that the extreme polarization of wealth in the US is one of the biggest contributors to bad health.

So, hey, let's kill two birds with one stone. Let's progressively tax high levels of income (especially from capital gains and dividend income) and let's use that money to give everyone good health care, and not only will we help a lot of people in misery in the short term, we'll have many fewer sick people in the long term thanks to the fact that we've made more equitable the distribution of wealth.

Incidentally, the book argues that some of the big contributors to bad health caused by poverty are that people have to work longer hours to keep up with Joneses and that's cutting into people spending time being social and civic and carring about each other and looking after each other and enganging in activities that aren't physically and psychologically destructive.

They cite a study of Reseto, Pennsylvania to support this argument that is very interesting reading.

Resoto was a town populated by Italian immigrants who maintained a level of communality that was unusual. Membership in civic organizations and a bunch of other indicators of having free time, having close ties to others, etc, were much higher than anywhere else in the country. They also had much better health. As those indicators decreased, their health got worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2039747&mesg_id=2039811

[Don1]

11. Question.

You said that polarization of wealth creates an unhealthy population.

Is not an unhealthy population (such as the mentally ill) also naturally poor? So, doesn't it work in reverse, too? How much of this relationship is cause, how much which way, and how much correlation?

You also said cycle. Can you explain that cycle in more detail?

[1932]

12. My guess:

Yes it works in reverse too.

If you're interested in this issue, you should read the book:

A review of the book:

From the New England Journal of Medicine, January 2, 2003
The Health of Nations presents evidence from many disciplines that political policies that wide inequalities in income may harm a nation's health. Kawachi, an internist turned social epidemiologist, and Kennedy, an educational psychologist, examine a number of indicators of health, such as mortality rates (with respect to which the United States performs miserably in comparison with all the other rich countries), and present arguments to show that one's relative position in society is more important than absolute wealth or income, not only when it comes to general well-being, but in terms of mortality as well.

The authors contend that our "consumption cancer" has left us with huge consumer debt, limited savings, and an inequality that is posited to be the root cause of our poor health. We work longer and harder, and we have less time for our families. These factors lead our country, they argue, to higher rates of violent crime and incarceration, to the establishment of gated communities with security guards, and to the outsourcing of the care of children. With the weakening of social bonds comes a dramatic increase in the incidence of depression.

Paradoxically, they suggest, if the government were to launch an effort to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor, the poor might not even support it: although the likelihood of upward economic mobility by the poor in the United States is lower than that in other rich countries, poorer people in this country continue to dream of being among the lucky few who win the big one. Goods that were once considered luxuries in the United States, such as automobiles, telephones, television sets, and videocassette recorders, are now near-necessities, and most people have them. Kawachi and Kennedy point out that despite rising living standards, we have not become "deliriously happy," as economists had predicted. There is little correlation between increasing income and the level of happiness in industrialized countries. We end up not "getting what we want" but "wanting what they get." According to the authors, "A notable trend during the past two decades has been the contrasting difference between massive intensification of consumption wants for material goods, but the stagnation (or even decline) of expressed needs for spiritual goods, such as a fulfilling job or happy marriage." The authors also address common misperceptions of the purported benefit of inequality: that it produces increased economic growth and productivity is unquestioningly accepted as good. In a counterexample drawn from major-league baseball, the authors show that teams are more successful when players' salaries are more equitably distributed. We work harder and longer just to keep up with our 1973 standard of living. This additional work translates into 5 to 10 more weeks of work each year for members of the American labor force than for their European counterparts. Politicians preach about "family values," but how can families prosper without time for maintenance? As a result of the orientation toward individual rather than family needs, some people see children as obstacles to individual growth. The authors point out that higher rates of crime occur when the high cultural value placed on competitive achievement clashes with widespread disparities in actual living standards within a society. Inequality is harmful, and we pay the ultimate price for it with premature deaths. Why should this book be important for clinicians and biomedical researchers? To improve health in the United States or elsewhere in the world, we must address factors that affect the health of populations but have only indirect relevance for patient care. The chapter "Politics and Health" points out that, in contrast to people from healthier European countries or Japan, Americans are less inclined to expect their government to work for the common good, as indicated by the fact that the largest "political party" in this country consists of the nonvoters. The erosion of social capital -- resulting in distrust in neighbors and unwillingness to help others -- is more prevalent where income gaps are greater. In parts of the United States where there is a greater divide, voter turnout is significantly lower. Not surprisingly, mortality rates are higher in such places as well. Clearly, the political arena is the place where doctors concerned with the health of the population must work. Stephen Bezruchka, M.D., M.P.H.
Copyright © 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. The New England Journal of Medicine is a registered trademark of the MMS.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156584582X/qid=1125182040/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7409792-4883063?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[welshTerrier2]

7. it's the same in the US ...

we have that too ... well, except we add on "if you can afford it ..."

otherwise it would be socialism, or communism, or one of those left-wing "ism" things ... remember, Americans are capitalists ... we believe that if people can't afford things, they should die ...

[area51]

9. "...otherwise it would be socialism, or communism, ...."

"Funny" how nazi party members don't believe that it's communism or socialism to have a police dept., a fire dept., a military, or road maintenance, which communistically gets paid out of our taxes.

[Don1]

10. Well, the military bit

is okay as long as it is used to defend our borders. The current out-of-control spending on military is not on soldiers. It is defense (contractor) spending. And it is not for defense, but offense. Such a misnomer, eh?

But yeah, you are right. I wrote about this before. If they are for school vouchers, then okay. They can have them, if they give us war vouchers. It is not really about Americans having a choice, it is about forcing a national security state and feeding their defense contractor buddies.

Check out the stock symbol EASI. They made over $1 billion since the Iraq war started just in stock option exercises. You know what they are in charge of? Vehicle armor among other things...Meanwhile, they killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, including 50,000 children.

Yes, Nazis. Corporate fascism.