Addicting Info – U.S. Maternal Death Rate Now Highest In The Western World, Thanks To GOP War On Women

via Addicting Info – U.S. Maternal Death Rate Now Highest In The Western World, Thanks To GOP War On Women.

AUTHOR: RANDA MORRIS – JUNE 8, 2015

Worldwide, fewer and fewer women are dying during pregnancy or from complications related to childbirth. In fact, women living almost anywhere in the developed world are safer today, than they were in the year 2000. Here in the United States, however,women are twice as likely to die during or after pregnancy, than they were 15 years ago. Thanks to the regressive party, otherwise known as the GOP, the United States is moving backwards, not forwards, when it comes to women’s health.

According to the latest State of the World’s Mothers report, released in May, 2015, the U.S. has the highest rate of maternal deathin any western nation. Women in the U.S. are ten times more likely to die from pregnancy as women living in Poland or Norway. Compared to women living in Belarus, the country with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, women in the U.S. are twenty times more likely to die before, during, or immediately after childbirth.

Globally, the rate of maternal deaths has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Around the world, the rate of maternal deaths has been reduced by 45 percent since the mid-1990’s. Meanwhile, a woman’s risk of death from pregnancy in the U.S. today is double what it was a decade and a half ago.

It gets worse, though. The rate of maternal deaths in the United States is calculated according to the number of deaths reported annually. According to a report published by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, at least 38 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are not reported as such in the United States. Research also estimates that at least half of all maternal deaths are not listed as “maternal deaths” on the death certificate in cases where the fetus was not delivered, when a woman died more than a week after delivery, or in cases where a woman died from a condition that existed before pregnancy, which was worsened because of pregnancy.

Disturbingly, there is no federal law that requires U.S. hospitals to keep records regarding maternal deaths. So while we know that the maternal death is climbing in the U.S., we don’t really know how many women are dying as a result of a pregnancy.

What we do know is that in spite of all the advances in medicine and technology, the risk of pregnancy-related death in the US is going up every year, not down.

The State of the World’s Mothers report, which is published yearly by the nonprofit Save The Children Foundation, ranks 179 nations on ‘the Mother’s Index,’ illustrating where in the world “women and children fare best.” The U.S. has been steadily falling in rank, since the year 2000, when the study first began.

In 2000 the U.S. ranked among the top ten countries in the world for women’s health and well-being. It was listed as the 4th best country on earth for mothers’ health on the Mother’s Index. Only Norway, Canada and Australia ranked higher.

In the 15 years since the first State of the World’s Mothers report was published, the U.S. has dropped to number 33 on theMother’s Index. America now ranks 61 in maternal health, falling behind every other Western nation when it comes to protecting the health of pregnant women. In the year 2000, a US woman’s risk of death from pregnancy-related causes was 1 in 3500. Today that risk has risen to 1 in 1800, according to this year’s annual report.

The republican War on Women is not just a catchphrase used by the left. Every war has casualties, and this one is no different. Government restrictions on reproductive rights have a direct impact on women’s health and well-being. While national statistics can be informational, it’s also important to understand that not all states are equal, when it comes to maternal deaths.

A 2014 report by the Center for Reproductive Rights shows that states that have the highest number of abortion restrictions, score lowest on women’s overall health. On the contrary, states with the least amount of restrictions on abortion are doing a much better job of protecting women’s health.

This chart shows how abortion restrictions impact women’s health in the states:

The state of Vermont, which does not place any restrictions on abortion, has the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the country, with just 2.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. At the other end of the spectrum, the rate of maternal deaths in Oklahoma, a state with 14 laws designed to restrict a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health, ranks 48th in the country. Oklahoma has a maternal death rate that is almost ten times higher than Vermont, at 20.1.

The state of Maine also places very few restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. As of January of 2015, the Guttenmacher Institute reports that the only restrictions in the state are in regards to the use of public funding to pay for abortion services. Maine has the distinction of being the state with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, at 1.2 per 100,000 live births.

In contrast, states that undermine women’s rights, including their right to decide when or if they will have a child, have maternal death rates that are as much as 20 times higher than those in Maine. Mississippi, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to women’s reproductive health, has a maternal death rate of 19.0. Other states with 11 or more restrictions on abortion access also have alarmingly high maternal death rates. Those states include Michigan, which has amaternal death rate of 21.0 per 100,000 live births, the highest among the 50 states. Georgia’s maternal death rate is 20.9. In Louisiana, the maternal death rate is 17.9.  Arkansas and Idaho have maternal death rates of 16.0 and 15.0, respectively, according to the most recent report on maternal deaths by state.

According to the research from the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have six or fewer laws regarding abortion access rank highest in the country for women’s health, overall. States that have 11 or more laws restricting a woman’s right to control her own body, rank at the bottom of the country, when it comes to women’s health and well-being.

This data tells us that, while the maternal death rate is climbing in the United States, not all states are equally responsible for the increase. As a nation it’s time for us to come together to ensure that the health and well being of all women is protected, no matter where in the United States they choose to live.

The United States also needs to catch up to the rest of the civilized world when it comes to collecting complete and accurate information on maternal deaths. More than a decade ago, the United States set a goal of reducing the maternal death rate to 3.3 per 100,000, by 2010. If this had actually been a priority for state and federal representatives, then accurate data collection would also have been a priority. But that never happened.

The reality is that saving women’s lives is not a priority for too many U.S. representatives. Religious fanatics elected to office view women as baby-makers, nothing more, nothing less. The life a woman matters to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with a man’s right to procreate by using her body. That becomes all too clear when Republican politicians go to great lengths to protect rapistsand child molesters, or when they advocate for laws that would allow men to sue women for not giving birth to their fertilized sperm. In their warped minds, a woman’s body is not her own. A woman’s body only exists to be used by men, in an act of procreation. If the woman does not want to be impregnated, if she doesn’t want to birth a kid, as far as republicans are concerned, she can go ahead and die.

While the rest of the civilized world is working to protect women from the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, regressive US republicans are working to ensure that women birth those babies, or die trying. As a nation we cannot accept these horrifying statistics. We can not accept Republican policies that fail to protect the lives of the women we love because of their religious devotion to the idea that someone that was never born is just as important as someone who is obviously born.

*Featured image credit: freefoto.com, creative commons license 3.0

 

The Cost-Cutting Power of Medicare – Bloomberg View

via The Cost-Cutting Power of Medicare – Bloomberg View.

JAN 26, 2015

By Peter R. Orszag

The Department of Health and Human Services’ action today to set a timetable for moving Medicare away from fee-for-service payments is commendable and timely. Secretary Sylvia Burwell’s goals are nice and specific, too: Thirty percent of Medicare’s payments are to be value-based by the end of 2016, and 50 percent by the end of 2018.

Why is this important? Because after years of slow cost growth, health care is reaching a crucial tipping point. In fiscal year 2014, inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary actually declinedcompared with the previous year. Yet the next year or two will determine whether the recent era of slow cost growth becomes the new normal, or instead is reversed.

The consequences are enormous, for everything from the nation’s debt to workers’ take-home pay, and the risk of reverting back to faster cost growth is rising. While Medicare spending itself appears to remain subdued, spending outside Medicare may be going up, anecdotal evidence suggests. This isn’t shocking: In commercial insurance, the weak economy played a big part in the slowdown, and as the economy picks up, we should expect Americans to spend more on health care.

The largest hospital system in the nation, for example, reports that admissions are ticking up. Employment growth in the sector has also risen, and that’s a useful indicator because labor accounts for such a large part of health-care costs. In 2007 and again in 2008, health-care jobs increased by 2.7 percent. From 2009 to the first half of 2014, they grew just 1.7 percent per year. But in the past three months, the increase jumped back up to 2.8 percent.

Containing these pressures requires sending a strong signal to health-care executives that the era of fee-for-service payment really is over. After all, when we pay for quantity, that’s what we get. And Medicare, the gorilla of health care, is the place to send that message; it’s large enough to set norms throughout the sector.

The Barack Obama administration (of which I was once a part) therefore needs to make the shift toward value-based paymentpermanent by setting a clear timetable with specific goals within Medicare.

The administration has now set those targets. If the U.S. is where Secretary Burwell wants it to be by 2016 and 2018, then by 2020, at least 75 percent of Medicare payments may be assessed in some way other than fee-for-service. This is the ultimate goal that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, my former colleague Ezekiel Emanuel and I have called for.

To be sure, more needs to be done: The targets have to be hit. And that will require action. Today’s announcement provided no details about the specific steps ahead. Will Medicare move more toward bundled payments for specific episodes of care, or toward accountable-care organizations, through which hospitals and other providers receive one payment for all the care a patient needs during a year? Such details are crucial.

The first step in any worthy project, though, is to set clear goals. We desperately needed them for payment reform. With today’s announcement, the administration has raised the odds that the era of slower growth in health costs will continue.

To contact the author on this story:
Peter Orszag at porszag3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor on this story:
Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net

On Martin Luther King, Jr. day, we remember his courageous resistance to oppression and lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity…plannedparenthood:

via plannedparenthood: On Martin Luther King, Jr…..

Red State reckoning

via Red State reckoning. – Liberals Are Cool.

FDA may allow gay men to donate blood | MNN – Mother Nature Network

via FDA may allow gay men to donate blood | MNN – Mother Nature Network.

Lawmakers and LGBT community members have called the 31-year-old policy banning gay men from donating blood discriminatory and unscientific.

Tue, Dec 02, 2014

One study found that allowing gay men to donate blood could increase the supply of blood by more than 615,000 pints per year. (Photo: TAEWAFEEL/Shutterstock)

 

 

For the past 30 years, the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA) has prevented gay men from donating blood. But all of that may soon change as advisors meet this week to review the policy.

In 1983, the FDA banned gay men from donating blood due to concerns about the transmission of HIV and other blood-borne diseases. Although HIV can be transmitted by both men and women, gay and straight, the policy was enacted at a time when AIDS was just beginning to emerge in the U.S. and was found to be more prevalent among gay men and men who had sexual contact with other men.

The disease is better understood today, but still the policy has remained in place, despite criticisms from the LGBT community, some lawmakers and groups that call it discriminatory and question its scientific validity.

This week, for the first time in 31 years, an FDA advisory panel will meet to discuss whether or not gay men should now be allowed to donate blood. If the Blood Products Advisory Committee decides it is best to lift the ban, it is likely that the FDA will follow this recommendation, reversing the decades-old prohibition.

The result could be a lifesaver for millions around the country.

One study conducted by the researchers from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law at the University of California, Los Angeles found that allowing gay men to donate blood would increase the supply of blood by over 615,000 pints per year — enough to save the lives of 1.8 million people.

Related on MNN:

• 5 blood donation sips for newbies and old pros
• 84-year-old man donates 100 gallons of blood
• What your blood type says about you

 

Divine Incorporation?

The Satanic Capitalist | Divine Incorporation? April 26, 2013 Sabina….

April 26, 2013

Sabina Khan

Move To Amend

 

An arts and craft chain by the name of Hobby Lobby is suing the Federal government for the right to force employees to abide by the owners’ religious beliefs. The Green family ownership claims that the right to exercise their religion has been violated by recent legislation.

Hobby Lobby is now the largest corporation to claim religious freedom as a “person” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). A major flaw with the Green’s claim is that articles of incorporation make Hobby Lobby a separate entity from its owner. This legal separation cannot be eliminated in order for the Hobby Lobby’s owners to impose their personal religious beliefs on its employees. When the owners of a company incorporate, their personal wealth is protected in case of bankruptcy or litigation. At the very least it is hypocritical for the owners to then expect their personal beliefs to trump those of their employees.

Special statutory provisions do exist for religious organizations to deny their employees certain protections of federal law. Hobby Lobby, however, is a for-profit secular corporation and not a religious organization. It is not affiliated with any religious entity such as a church and neither does any religious organization play a role in Hobby Lobby’s management. It has 500 stores in 41 States and employs more than 13,000 people and, per their own hiring policy, “Hobby Lobby welcomes employees of all faiths or no faith”.

The CEO, David Green and his family oppose providing insurance coverage for the FDA approved contraceptive methods citing that it is against his religion. However, the employees are not hired based on their religious beliefs and neither was the company formed for a religious purpose. Covering contraceptives under the health insurance is not trampling on any religious rights of the corporation. Ironically, these pieces of the law all happen to be created to protect women’s rights.

Hobby Lobby takes in $2.6 Billion in sales annually and women form a majority of its employees. If the CEO has his way, they will all be denied basic health care services such as co-pay free birth control pills that other women will continue to have access to while working for other corporations. So far the government has been clear that they are not asking Hobby Lobby to advocate anything contrary to their religion. The employer’s only role here is to provide health coverage for their employees, and it is up to their employees to decide how to use it.

The Affordable Care regulations went into effect on January 1, 2013. By not adhering to the new law, Hobby Law is facing a $1.3 million a day fine since the beginning of the new year. For the moment, Hobby Lobby has found a loophole to delay incurring fines by shifting their health plan dates.

Meanwhile, they continue to pursue their case through the lower courts after failing to convince the Federal Supreme Court to grant an emergency appeal. By following due process, there is still the potential for the arguments to find their way to the High Court. Keep in mind that this is the same Supreme Court that upheld the Affordable Health Care Act last summer yet also ruled previously that corporations have the same first amendment right to free speech as human beings. There is a real possibility that they could see fit to extend religious beliefs to corporations as well. Granting a corporation the ability to force their spiritual beliefs upon employees would be a dangerous precedent to set for a country built upon a separation of church and state.

If you are concerned with the growing trend of corporate personhood, you can contact your Legislators and voice concerns directly, but many people are joining together to boost their collective voice. The Move to Amend Coalition is working to pass a Constitutional amendment make clear that constitutional rights only apply to human beings. Join the movement at http:// www.movetoamend.org.

Sabina Khan is a Communications Intern with Move to Amend. She is Master’s graduate in Conflict Resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and tweets @ksabina

Join the fight against Corporate Personhood and all of its crazy implications that threaten our democracy. If you’re not already involved, please become an active member of Move to Amend:

• Sign up to volunteer! Move to Amend is a grassroots organization, made up of thousands of volunteers. Join our team!
• Sign the Move to Amend petition. Already did that? Spread the word! Email the link to your friends and family – or share it on Facebook or Twitter!

• Host a Houseparty! Get your friends involved and help spread the word.
• Donate to the cause! Don’t have time to spare? Make a donation to support the work of others.
• Join our Facebook Page or follow us on Twitter to stay in touch and connect with others who are passionate about this issue.

https://movetoamend.org/divine-incorporation

Pure organized crime

via The Utopian Encyclopedia | Pure organized crime. Now with forced extortion….

Pure organized crime. Now with forced extortion mandated by law punishable by $2000 a year, or jail. All completely unnecessary. Single payer only! End medical slavery or ransom for your life. Oh do they feast on us, and how!

 

Great News: 2 Million People Liberated by the ACA

Everywhere Once

We understand that our point of view on many things is, shall we say, somewhat out of the mainstream. And we understand that this is particularly true when it comes to issues of life / work balance. But that understanding didn’t stop us from being a bit bemused to read all the recent handwringing and teeth gnashing over some unabashedly good news.

“Health Care Law Projected to Cut Labor Force,” cried the New York Times

“CBO: Obamacare Is A Tax On Work, May Cut Full-Time Workforce By 2.5 Million,” yells Forbes

That certainly sounds bad. So why are we so happy?

View original post 336 more words

Three million Greeks without health cover: NGO …

via HUELGA — Three million Greeks without health cover: NGO ….

In the UK the government is guilty of whipping up xenophobic and europhobic hysteria about so-called benefit tourism.  If that were the case, sure we’d have been overrun by Greeks seeking relief from the disaster which has overtaken their country…

More than a quarter of Greeks are unable to afford health cover, a medical aid group said Monday, warning that children and pregnant women were at risk.

Doctors of the World (MDM) said more than three million people, or 27.2 percent of the population, cannot pay their contributions to social security and are therefore barred from free healthcare.

“We are very worried by the number of people who have lost access to social insurance,” Anna Maili, head of MDM’s Greek branch, told a news conference.

“This has grave consequences for the health of children and pregnant women,” she said, explaining that many families no longer had infants vaccinated.

The cost of immunisation over a child’s first six years is between 1,400 and 1,800 euros ($1,900-2,500).

“Every day we see children aged two or three who have not been vaccinated,” Maili said.

“Over the last nine months we examined 10,633 children of whom 6,580 had to be vaccinated,” she said.

Government cuts to health spending owing to an austerity regime imposed in 2010 in return for EU-IMF bailout loans was having a broader effect on the Greek birth rate, MDM said.

Between 2008 and 2011, the number of stillborn babies increased by 21%, the organisation said, adding that in coming years a growing number of women will be inclined to having fewer children.

Unemployment in Greece, estimated at over 27%, is particularly harsh on women.

“On average, three women out of 10 between the ages of 25 and 44 are out of work,” said Panos Mouzalas, a gynaecologist and MDM member.

Also last Monday, the country’s leading union GSEE warned that Greece’s pensions system would need reviewing in 2015, as a low birth rate starts to take its toll, leaving fewer active workers to support more and more retirees.

 

Sky-high medical costs in a dysfunctional…system

via Sky-high medical costs in a dysfunctional….

Sky-high medical costs in a dysfunctional for-profit ‘healthcare system’ are the biggest single cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA, and even having health insurance doesn’t protect consumers against serious financial hardship .. (here)

(Source: cagle.com)