Suppose we imagine a nation where health care is illegal and it is equally illegal to leave the country to get care. Access ro care is equal across the population- -NONE. Is that the best system because it is fairest? Those studies seem to think so.
How many ill-educated poor immigrants do France and Switzerland take in? Do you you think a failure to do so might affect their life expectancy and infant mortality statistics? How good are those statistics then at measuring the quality of their systems when compared against a nation that takes in hordes, willingly or not?
<Health
Measured by life expectancy adjusted for the likelihood of a range of disabilities.
1. Japan: 74.5 years - a uniform population with essentially no immigration.
2. Australia: 73.2 years
3. France: 73.1 years
4. Sweden: 73.0 years
5. Spain: 72.8 years
24. United States: 70.0 years - a nation that takes in masses ot other countries refugees
Responsiveness
Judged by a nation's respect for the dignity of individuals, the confidentiality of health records, prompt attention in emergencies and choice of provider.
1. United States
2. Switzerland
3. Luxembourg
4. Denmark
5. Germany
Now the US ranks #1 there. But you know something? When I'm laying on a gurney hooked up to an EKG having a heart attack, I don't give a D*** about confidentiality. I want them to act to restore blood flow in the cardiac muscle now!
Financial fairness
Measured by the equal distribution of the health cost faced by each household.
1. Colombia
2. Luxembourg
3. Belgium
4. Djibouti
5. Denmark
54. United States
COLUMBIA? #1? Says it all.
Top ranking, not top dollar
High spending does not necessarily translate into a better health system, says the World Health Organization. Among the 15 top-rated nations, the amount spent on health care as a percentage of the overall economy and on a per-person basis varied widely.
Health spending as Per capita
percentage of GDP spending Population
------------------ ---------- ----------
1. France 9.8% $2,369 59 million
2. Italy 9.3% $1,855 57 million
3. San Marino 7.5% $2,257 26,000
4. Andorra 7.5% $1,368 75,000
5. Malta 6.3% $551 386,000
6. Singapore 3.1% $876 3.5 million
7. Spain 8.0% $1,071 39 million
8. Oman 3.9% $370 2.4 million
9. Austria 9.0% $2,277 8.2 million
10. Japan 7.1% $2,373 126 million
11. Norway 6.5% $2,283 4.4 million
12. Portugal 8.2% $845 9.8 million
13. Monaco 8.0% $1,264 33,000
14. Greece 8.0% $905 10 million
15. Iceland 7.9% $2,149 279,000
37. U.S.A. 13.7% $4,187 276 million
Highest spending per capita: United States ($4,187)
Lowest spending per capita: Afghanistan ($2); Rank: 173
Gee, maybe there could be a problem here.
The US outspent the Soviets at the end of the Cold War. Who was the last man standing?
The US outspent the Soviets in space. Who accomplished more?
That 40% uninsured figure? That number has been argued up one side and down the other. 40% is at the HIGH end of guesses, not the low or the middle. It is a number promoted by those who wish to nationalize the system.
How'd you like your doctor to treat you like TSA does? And to work as well as public housing?
IMMIGRATION:
Overview
-- UNITED STATES --
In 1998, approximately 737,000 new immigrants and refugees arrived in the US or were granted permanent residence. Of these, 604,000 entered as lawful permanent residents and another 133,000 came as refugees, asylum seekers, or others fleeing persecution.
Legal immigration
The US selection of legal immigrants is quite complex, but is related at least the following components - family, employment, and humanitarian.
* The US family immigration program admits the spouses, parents, and minor children of US citizens without numerical limits. However, US family immigration program has limited categories for the adult sons and daughter of citizens, the siblings of citizens, and the spouses and children of non-citizens.
* The employment-based categories are a quite complicated collection of preferences ranging from "priority workers" to unskilled and religious workers and investors. Through employment-based immigration, a US employer can sponsor an individual for a specific position where there is a demonstrated absence of US workers.
* The humanitarian categories include refugees and asylees.
In addition, there is a visa lottery for people from countries other than the primary sources of current immigration. The US government makes available 55,000 permanent residence visas each year through a computer-generated lottery drawing. A permanent residence visa is commonly referred to as Green Card. This visa class entitles the holder to live and work in the United States of America permanently.
Naturalization
Naturalization is the process by which eligible legal immigrants become US citizens. The process is not an easy one. It requires that immigrants live in the US for five years (three years if they are married to a US citizen), demonstrate that they understand, speak, write ordinary English and that they have a knowledge of US history and government, that they did not commit serious crimes and show that they are of "good moral character" and, finally, swear allegiance to the United States. Over time most of the immigrants become citizens.
Refugees and Asylum
Immigration to the United States based on humanitarian is related to two components: refugee resettlement and asylum.
* Refugee resettlement
A refugee is defined as a person outside his country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
A refugee applies from abroad, documenting the facts and circumstances that qualify him for refugee status, and waits until his case is rejected or approved by U.S. immigration authorities. Numerical quotas set limits (90,000 in 2000). There is actually an ongoing debate over who should qualify.
* Asylum
Thre is no numerical limit. The applicant has to be present in the USA, legally or illegally.
In 1998, the U.S. received more than 50,000 petitions for asylum; approximately 16,000 grants were awarded.
In either case, the refuge or asylee may apply for permanent residence (a "green card") after one year.
Illegal immigration
The US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that there are about 6 million illegal people living in the United States. This number increases by more than 200,000 per year.
The INS estimates that 60 % of illegal residents entered the United States by sneaking across the border, and 40 % entered legally but overstayed their visas.
USA response to illegal immigration has been increased border enforcement.
Immigration flows
Most of the legal immigrants came in 1998 from Mexico, China, India, Philippines, the Dominican Republic Vietnam, Cuba, Jamaica, El Salvador, Korea.
Most of the refugees resettled in the U.S. in 1998 came from Bosnia and Hercegovina, the Former Soviet Union, Vietnam, Somalia, Iran, Cuba, Liberia, Iraq, Sudan, Burma.
During the 1990s, the United States admitted the largest number of immigrants in its history. The immigrant flow is less varied than before, with more than 50 percent of post-1970 immigrants coming from Spanish-speaking Latin America.
Ongoing mass immigration is hindering the economic assimilation of immigrants, with immigrant wages falling behind those of natives and immigrant poverty steadily growing.
-- EUROPEAN UNION --
There are today 13 million non-EU nationals in the 15-EU member states.
At the middle of the 70's, all European countries put a term at the economic immigration of extra-community origin. From the middle of the 70's on, legal immigration related to nothing any more but a few categories of people: students, trainees, people with a very high occupational qualification, and especially - within the framework of the family regrouping - members of the family from abroad installed in the European country since a long time.
Under these conditions, for which does not concern these particular categories, the procedure of asylum became the only legal way of access.
Almost all European countries modified the procedure of asylum during the last years with the aim of limiting the number of the requests and of preventing possible diversions.
If one excludes the particular dispositions applicable to the nationals of the Member States of the European Union, immigration in Europe is primarily due to the family regrouping, the requests of asylum and the input of the clandestine immigration.
We can highlight three common points in the legislations relative to the immigration and to the right of asylum and in force in the different EU member states:
- the definition of the 'family entry and settlement'
In all EU countries, the rules of the family regrouping have been complicated and hardened since 1984. Subjected to several conditions of incomes and housing, the 'family regrouping' is in theory limited to the family unit in a strict sense.
- the modifications brought to legislations relative to the right of asylum : confronted with the flow growing of the applicants, all EU countries reformed or tried to reform their law on the right of asylum in the goal to limit the number of the requests and to accelerate their processing.
- the fight against the illegal immigration.
In Germany, as in Belgium or United Kingdom, ..., common measures were taken: the creation of new infringements relating to the irregular input; the aggravation of the preexistent sanctions; the reinforcement of the fight against clandestine work; the multiplication of the obligations imposed to the conveyors.
The bringing together of the Member States on these questions knew two legal results: Schengen Agreements signed in 1990 ( implemented in 1995) and the Treaty of Amsterdam signed in October 1997.
Schengen Agreements instituted between the EU-States a zone of freedom of movement : the Schengen Zone.
Moreover, the European institutions held partly from now the decision power in the field of immigration. Such is, indeed, the principal provision of the treaty of Amsterdam.
The (phased) introduction of the EU rules lead to a major transfer of competences of the States towards the institutions of Brussels. Thus the migratory questions are registered, more and more, from the European point of view.
SO: THese countires doing so well on health statistics take in eseentially no one in bad shape healthwise or educationally. And the US takes them in by the million.
And they're better. Right.
I thought you liberals gave a D*** about
"your tired your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me".
No? |
