After nine years of war, the Army attracts recruits ready for combat but inclined toward risky personal behavior — a volatile mix that led to more deaths from suicide, drug overdoses and drinking and driving than from warfare, an Army review concludes. “Simply stated, we are often more dangerous to ourselves than the enemy,” says the 15-month study, released Thursday.

 Commanders have failed to identify and monitor soldiers prone to risk-taking behavior, the report says. As a result, suicides among soldiers have soared. . . .

Many recruits join the Army knowing they will be sent to combat, so they may “even be more comfortable accepting high levels of risk and uncertainty in their lives,” the report says. . . .

Chiarelli commissioned the review 15 months ago as the Army suicide rate exceeded that for civilians. The study says poor command decisions helped contribute to a record 160 suicides by active-duty soldiers last year and an additional 146 deaths resulted from risky behavior such as drug or prescription medication abuse. Seventy-four of those deaths were overdoses.

Randall McElroy III, at The Distributed Republic, has a useful comment:

Internal investigations by government agencies always seem to turn out this way. It’s not the multiple deployments, the stress of fighting in a conflict where you can’t tell who wants to kill you until they’re doing it, the moral burden of shooting at innocent people, the vagueness of the goals of the conflict, or any of that. In other words, it’s not the essential part of what soldiers do these days.

It’s that, for some reason, without any causes, soldiers are engaging in risky behavior, and their commanders are just too darn earnest about prosecuting the war to notice.

However, I wanted to note the way drug- and alcohol-related deaths are handled in this story.

Half of all such deaths in this study, and a quarter of all “risky behavior” deaths for last year, were caused by drug overdoses. Soldiers are taking illegal drugs and dying from them, at higher rates than among civilians. Had these been civilian deaths, the narrative would have been simple: junkies OD and die. Surely far more than 74 civilians fatally ODed last year (though the per-capita rate is still lower); you don’t see many stories about this growing menace. What you certainly don’t see are civilian drug users characterized as “risk takers” or “comfortable accepting high levels of risk and uncertainty in their lives”. Convulsing to death with a crack pipe in your hand, if you’re a soldier, however, is apparently something like fastroping into a hot LZ or charging a machine-gun with a bayonet – the sort of thing those gung-ho heroes do because, you know, they just can’t help being so macho.

I wouldn’t mind this so much, if it were in any way honest. Identifying psychological factors that contribute to drug-taking, in fact, is a welcome step forward (even if slightly implausible in this case; chalking drug use up to simply being “prone to risk-taking behavior” is not only vague and one-dimensional, but even in some way circular). If the government were to take its own treatment of this issue seriously, and begin to sincerely probe the psychological and circumstantial factors that lead some people to drugs, we might be able to approach the issue of drug use in a more rational and realistic way. But of course that’s not what is being done here.

Characterizing drug-using soldiers as “risk-takers” is simply assigning a convenient euphemism to behavior, and its tragic consequences, that are relentlessly condemned in other circumstances. This is convenient in several ways: as McElroy notes, it lets the military off the hook for putting these soldiers under the stresses that, indirectly, killed them; it also preserves the unchallengeably heroic facade that the military is allowed to hide behind in all circumstances; and it gives these soldiers a pass on the judgmentalism that otherwise greets mental illness or drug use. Even outright suicide is treated as “risk-taking” – an absurd circumlocution that neatly obviates the inquiries into soldiers’ mental states, and the effect that military service has on them, that would otherwise be inevitable. In this way, behavior that would certainly be categorized as pathological, illegal, and disreputable in anyone else is folded into the military’s self-assumed and deliberately promoted ethos of heroism and rugged virtue.

Nobody is going to go on from here and say “Hey, you know, civilians also experience stress, self-medicate to deal with it, and exhibit a range of coping mechanisms influenced by their own psychology and their propensity for risk-taking. Maybe we should lighten up on the moralistic rhetoric about drugs and start recognizing the real-world factors that influence behavior, so we can respond more sympathetically and effectively. Maybe some proactive interventions with people at risk would help them out. Maybe our leaders have a responsibility to create better living conditions and offer better interventions to people at risk to help prevent self-destructive behaviors ahead of time, rather than sending millions of people to jail for being heroic, macho, rugged risk-takers.” Because the people who are painting military junkies and suicide cases as heroic, combat-ready risk-takers don’t really believe that and don’t really give a shit about people’s problems, in or especially out of the military. They certainly have no investment in being accurate, honest, realistic, or sympathetic about stress, pathology, and self-destructive behavior. Sugar-coating America’s Heroes to sweep a military-related drug problem under the rug avoids dealing with drugs realistically in any venue – which is the one thing any of our drug programs can never do.

Quelle horreur!

Coffin’s conclusions are that this is a “distortion of science”, that “language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts devoted to the care and treatment of pregnant women and their children was, in the end, nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee”, and that “Miss [sic] Kagan’s decision to override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process” – naturally she he rolls this up into the ongoing Kagan Supreme Court confirmation hearings as well. The right-wing idiotocracy is all a-Twitter, too, natch: Powerline declares this is a “smoking gun” and “shocking”; Riehl calls it “misrepresenting science” and “dishonest”; the risible Betsy, of Betsy’s Page, reads this and concludes that “there was a doctors’ opinion that said that partial birth abortion was not necessary and she, with no medical background at all, drafted a statement that said the exact opposite”. Yuval Levin, the severely bioethics-challenged former staff manager of Bush’s Presidential Council on Bioethics, declares this to be a “war on science”, “astonishing”, and “easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered”.

This sort of nonsense is particularly astounding from Levin, who was a central player in the workings of an “ethics” commission that remains a watchword for right-wing distortion and duplicity, whose major policy statements drew dissenting opinions from its own most scientifically-qualified members, and which then censored, and later fired, those same members. Levin – a political scientist and former Bush White House policy staffmember who has spent his entire career crafting right-wing bioethics policy - also castigates Kagan for her lack of medical expertise and her involvement in healthcare policymaking. You really just can’t make this stuff up.

It’s especially disingenuous for people like Levin and Coffin – political hacks whose entire career consists of trying to influence policy to fit their ideological leanings, from both inside and outside the government – to claim that there’s something untoward in political policy staff conferring with the policy-making boards of professional organizations to shape language on statements issued in clearly political and legal contexts. That sort of thing goes on all the time, and it’s appropriate for such bodies of experts to confer with political authorities to ensure that their statements are effectively written and focused. It would be inappropriate for them to turn themselves over to the political authorities as tools of policy, and to issue statements they did not believe were true, but it’s not inappropriate to get guidance on language and emphasis in order to convey an effective message. (As Coffin herself notes, ACOG already opposed the anti-choice bill. Obviously they would want their policy statement to reflect the reasons why.) To suggest that a policy expert drafting language for a policy statement endorsed by a professional body is somehow scandalous – let alone unusual – is simply stupid. And to suggest, as Coffin and others have recklessly done, that ACOG is somehow compromised or tarnished in doing so, is not merely stupid and dishonest, but libelous.

Aside from the completely manufactured, and fictional, scandal that the right-wing noise machine is busily whipping up over this, there is also the simple fact that the language Kagan suggested does not replace or contradict the language previously present. The statement that there are “no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option” is entirely compatible with the claim that it “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” (emphases added). It’s simple, really: the fact that something is never the only option in no way means that it is a bad option; the revised language not only implicitly acknowledges this but clarifies for the dim-witted (i.e., conservatives) the even more important point that it is in fact sometimes the best option. (Obviously, Intact D&X is never the only option: you can always perform an unnecessary Cesearean section or force the woman to deliver a fetus that may be dying and may possibly kill her - options that are much prefereable, for conservatives, than allowing a woman to choose the safest option on her own authority. ACOG’s point, which Kagan nudged them towards, is that there are often better  options – and that women should have the right to choose them.)

The fight over Intact D&X was particularly nasty because it encapsulates so much of right-wing misogyny, so clearly: it was not a ban on abortion, and it was not a ban on late-term abortions; in fact, it did not ban any abortions under any circumstances. It was only and entirely a ban on one particular procedure for performing abortions. It banned the procedure that was preferable in specific circumstances – leaving abortions entirely legal under those circumstances but forcing women to submit to a procedure that was less safe and more debilitating for them. It was straightforwardly an attempt to punish women by making them accept higher risks and a lower standard of care, as the price for choosing a procedure the right wing disapproved. And ACOG’s policy statement implicitly recognized this: it notes that there are always alternatives to the ID&X procedure, but that in some circumstances those alternatives are worse, and ID&X is, in those circumstances, the best or most appropriate procedure. Kagan’s contribution – appropriate, useful, and highly pro-woman – was to encourage them to clarify that distinction. (Note, again, that ACOG explicitly reiterated this policy, and the important distinction it makes, three times after Kagan supposedly “overrode” their scientific judgment in the matter by forcing them to include language that does not contradict that judgment.)

Raising this issue is simply another example of the right-wing’s reflexive insanity over sex and abortion, coupled with their inherent inability to read and comprehend basic logical statements. (Note “Betsy”‘s analysis: “there was a doctors’ opinion that said that partial birth abortion was not necessary [no, there simply wasn't] and . . . [Kagan] drafted a statement that said the exact opposite” [no, she didn't].) Honestly, the relationship between “not the only” and “sometimes the best” is really not that tricky. It’s too tricky, of course, for the average right-winger, and for people like Coffin and Levin, whose deficiencies were all too apparent back when they were writing policy for Bush, but to people of normal intelligence and reading comprehension, this entire farce is an obviously groundless, and all-too-familiar, political hackery.

The right wing is also up in arms over this because, as Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns, & Money notes:

the only point of this feeble “smoking gun” is to allow Senate Republicans to mention the phrase “partial birth abortion” a lot [and] I should note once again that for reasons Judge Posner and Justice Stevens have explained the entire issue is a farce. The distinction between D&X abortions and other abortion procedures is wholly arbitrary, and for people who have supported irrational laws making such a distinction to pretend to care about rigorous medical science is nothing but comedy of the lowest form.

Mahablog was fast out of the blocks on this, in a post I wish I’d written:

if you actually understand the issue in question — which leaves out righties, naturally — you’d know there is no “there” there. . . . Somehow, in the fevered imagination of righties, a professional organization representing 90 percent of U.S. board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists was duped by Kagan into telling a lie, or something, and because this wording came from Kagan it must not actually reflect the views of ACOG. . . . no scientific finding was “overridden,” just clarified, and ACOG must have agreed with the statement or they wouldn’t have continued to repeat it in their position papers ever after.

Lemieux gets the content issue exactly right:

There’s no contradiction between the two drafts, because D&X abortions are, in fact, not medically necessary in a majority of cases. But this fact doesn’t mean that they are never medically necessary, and indeed the original statement implies that there are cases where D&X abortions are necessary or preferable for a protecting a woman’s health. Adding a statement to clarify what was implicit in the first draft doesn’t “distort” anything, and of course if ACOG didn’t think the statement was accurate Kagan had no power to get them to change it. There’s nothing here.

UPDATE: Corrected pronouns referring to Coffin; he’s a “he”, not a “she”. My apologies to Coffin for the mistake.

UPDATE: Another right-wing website breathlessly announces that Kagan “pressured a second group” on its wording of its pro-choice policy. That group was the AMA. Their claim: “Kagan discussed with other Clinton administration officials whether the AMA could reverse its policy saying there is not an identified situation in which partial-birth abortion is the only appropriate method of abortion. The AMA also noted ethical concerns with partial-birth abortions and said that it should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary.” Note that this repeats exactly the same mistake all the other commentators made about the first memo: the two positions described are not contradictory, and there is no “reversal” in evidence! And Kagan’s particular crime: she wrote an e-mail saying “We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS) could contribute to that effort . . . . Chuck and I are meeting with the AG on Tuesday; Donna offered to send over some doctors this week”. They don’t even identify who the e-mail was sent to (obviously it was internal), or whether any such meeting ever took place, let alone had any effect. (Apparently the AMA does the bidding of any government staff lawyer who offers to “contribute” to their policy development.) Truly, the stupid knows no bounds with these people.

This book review is excerpted from a detailed forthcoming review in the American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Medicine and Philosophy, v. 10, n. 1, Fall 2010.

Jonathan D. Moreno and Sam Berger (eds.)
MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010
286 pp., with Index
Foreword by Harold Shapiro
Introduction and Afterword by Jonathan D. Moreno and Sam Berger
ISBN: 9780262134880

Bioethics addresses issues shaped by abstruse empirical fact and the technical parameters of the technologized controversies of contemporary culture. It is tempting to imagine that our philosophy must be as technologically-informed as our understanding of our lives has now become – that human flourishing must be in some ways dependent upon technological problem-solving, that the range of values and possibilities accommodated within the morally good life is wider than previously imagined, and that these observations define a particular stance, critical but welcoming, toward the prospect of aggressive engagement with the future through the tools and products of science.

Something like that is the position ascribed to “progressive bioethics” by the authors of the just-issued essay collection, Progress in Bioethics: Science, Policy, and Politics. The volume collects almost 20 essays on questions of the nature of bioethics as a field, its relationship to progressive ideology, and the ways that relationship plays out in particular issues and controversies characteristic of the field now and in the past. The authors are a roll-call of respected and influential figures in contemporary bioethics, not all of them academics, subscribing to a wide range of perspectives on progressivism and the task of progressive bioethics. The impression they give is of a fluid and open-minded community, engaged in a searching and sometimes indeterminate discourse with itself and the wider world.

The Foreword, Introduction, and essays of both Section I: “Bioethics as Politics” and Section II: “The Sociology of Political Bioethics” investigate the nature of progressivism, the issues that are or should be of interest to progressive bioethics, and the practicalities of politics and policy that bioethics is often involved in. Section III: “The Sociology of Political Bioethics”, addresses questions of the professional identity of bioethics, and how progressive ideology meshes with other personal and professional values. Section IV: “Conflicting Views of Biotechnology” contains one unabashedly pro-technology piece, and another warning against an uncritical stance on science. The concluding Section V: “Progress Beyond Politics”, offers higher-level reflections on the field of bioethics in general. In the “Afterword”, the editors remark upon the prospects for progressivism and healthcare reform in the advent of the Obama administration – a question that could not be more timely.

Necessarily, there are gaps: the definition of progressivism needs further exploration, and it remains unclear why progressivism should have any of the content suggested for it; at times the content or scope of bioethics also seem taken for granted. Even the role of science in progressive bioethics awaits further examination. These are not faults in a collection of diverse viewpoints; however, much remains to be discussed. This volume opens that discussion insightfully, searchingly, and provocatively.

Progress in Bioethics is must-reading for political progressives interested in biomedical issues, bioethicists who identify as political progressives, bioethicists in general who are interested in the conceptual landscape of contemporary biomedical policy and cultural controversy, and for those who seek to develop a humanitarian pro-science viewpoint, whether on biotechnology or other complexities of our technologized modernity.

If you voted for Obama . . .
seek Urologic care
elswhere

Changes to your healthcare
begin right now
not in four years

He apparently also fills his waiting room with anti-Obama literature, signs about what “the morons in Washington have done to your healthcare” (NB: nothing has changed about any of his patients’ healthcare; he is the only one who has done anything so far), and explicit instructions on who they should vote for.

In response to concerns that he might be politicizing his care just a tad, he argues “I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical. But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.” So of course he’s not actually doing anything to make patients feel uncomfortable by explicitly telling them to leave his practice because he disapproves of their politics; they just happen to choose to seek another doctor for reasons unrelated to his behavior or his treatment of them.

There’s been commentary over whether this infringes any laws or principles of medical ethics. His supporters claim he is justified in behaving this way because doctors, like everyone, have a right of free speech. There’s a lot to be said about that – most notably that the whole point to medical ethics is that professional practice and the professional relationship impose standards more stringent than those  incumbent on ordinary citizens. Simply having a right of free speech does not justify acting like a jerk toward your patients; the treatment relationship is one-sided, predicated upon the doctor’s commitment to service of the patients’ needs, not their approval of the patients’ politics; admission as a professional is predicated upon acceptance of those standards, and a willingness to put one’s personal inclinations aside in the professional arena.

But aside from that, what strikes me about this situation is the general attitude it reveals. Not only does this doctor fail in the face of any of the above standards, but it seems obvious he simply conceives of medical practice as something that does not in fact entail the authority of such standards or commitments. Doctoring is apparently a job, to him – something he can do if and as he chooses, and which does not impose on him any obligations he does not happen to want to meet. He is – to all appearances – essentially the doctor in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, who joins with the amoral capitalist runaways to form a free-market society founded on hard money and ethical egoism. Being a doctor does not require him to do anything for anyone if he doesn’t feel like it, and it doesn’t require him to accept as a patient – or even keep as a patient anyone he has already accepted – who does not personally agree with him on any matter of his choosing.

What I fear, but perceive, is that this attitude is becoming more widespread. Doctoring is just a job, it seems, in the minds of more and more doctors, and in the minds of the right-wingers who are so afraid that Obama is going to destroy healthcare by making it less capitalist. (As usual, facts are of no moment to the right-wing panic apparatus: it is this doctor himself who is “changing” healthcare for his patients – his own sign says so  – but he still manages to blame it on Obama. And it is this doctor who has made healthcare hostile and unwelcoming for his own patients – he is, not a death panel exactly, but a one-man jerk panel to his personal caseload – but they deserve it, he seems to think, because they voted wrong.) Whatever the consequences of Obamacare, I fear that it will be simply impossible to destroy medicine in the US because there will be no medical profession left to destroy – just a bunch of entitled, self-absorbed jobsworths whining about how much less they like their jobs now that the glamor and remuneration has started to fade and they’re left with nothing more than providing better care to more people, which is such an imposition.

Democratic Congressmember Alan Grayson, who represents that district, was notorious for (accurately) characterizing the Republicans’ healthcare policy as “Die quickly”. He notes about Dr. Cassell: “Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.’” That’s about the size of it.

Health Expenditures vs. Life Expectancy

(See link for larger version.)

The graph is a ranking of industrialized countries by per-capita healthcare expenditures. The average figure is $2,986/year; Finland and Spain come in a little below that, and Australia and Sweden are a little above. Canada spends about $1,000 more per person per year than the major-nations average; free-wheeling Switzerland is about $1,400 above average.

See that lone, single red figure wa-a-a-a-a-y up in the left-hand corner? That’s the US. Our per-capita healthcare expenditures, at $7,290/year (!), are more than 240% of the average of all those nations together (actually, more than 260% of the average of all those nations other than the US, which comes to only $2,771/year if you leave the US out of it). And note that those expenditures, in the US, are for only 85% or less of the population; for every other country on the graph except Mexico, that figure covers every permanent resident of the country without exception.

Now look on the right-hand column: the same nations are ranked by average life expectancy. This is a crude, but still useful, indicator of what we’re getting for our healthcare costs. (Crude, because simple measures like sanitation and nutrition can contribute a great deal more to life expectancy than high-tech medical care. But the whole point is that better medical care produces longer and better lives, at the margin at least, and there is good evidence that this is true. So this is not a bad way to scale things out for quick and easy comprehension.) Implicitly, this graph establishes a relationship: assuming all things are equal, average healthcare expenditures should produce average life expectancies (which you could quantify as a numerical ratio, though that would be taking the thing rather too literally). In fact, that is almost exactly what the UK achieves ($2,992/year for about 79.1 years lifespan). About two-thirds of the countries on the list do better than that: their life expectancies, relative to average, are greater than would be expected given their healthcare costs relative to average. (This is indicated by the lines sloping up to the right on the graph. The slopes are not precisely indicative, because the right-side scale range does not match the left-side scale – the ranges should have been correllated better. But a positive or negative slope indicates an above- or below-average ratio, respectively.) A relatively small number of countries do worse.

Whether above or below average, the deviations tend to fall into a small range – note that most of the lines up, and down, are roughly parallel. All except one, of course: the US, as usual, is completely alone in its breathtakingly negative ratio of cost to life-expectancy benefit. That screaming red line plunging down the graph from off-the-charts high expenses to below-average benefits has no peer among any industrialized country: nowhere in the world does any country get such an incredibly below-average relative return for its healthcare expenses (and in fact below average in absolute terms compared to all other countries). The US, with per-capita healthcare expenses 260% highher than its peers, actually averages a total life expectancy almost 1.5% lower. (Only one other country, Denmark, manages to achieve above-average expenditures and below-average life expectancy; their expenditures are still less than half ours and their life expectancy is higher).

Note finally the width of the lines, which indicates average number of doctors’ visits provided per year by each country: the fat lines are 12 or more; the medium lines are 4 to 8; the US comes in at an average number of visits per year per person that rounds off most closely to . . . zero. (Note also that of the 4 countries that average effectively 0 visits per year, two of them are the only two on the graph that do not provide universal coverage.) Not only does every other country on this list except Mexico manage to provide universal healthcare coverage at vastly lower expense than the US, not only do 2/3 of them achieve greater life expectancies than the US, not only do 2/3 of them achieve an above-average ratio between relative expenditure and relative life expectancy, but over 80% of them provide an average of at least 4, and in some cases 12 or more, covered visits per person per year for their entire populations.

Note in passing, too, that the only other nation that can’t afford to provide universal health coverage is Mexico, which spends less than 30% of the average among these nations on healthcare and is still getting a vastly greater bang for its its bucks than is the US.

The utter, abject failure of the US’s profit-sucking healthcare morass is made as stark here as it has ever been. Basically, we’re spending over $4,300 per year for every covered person for nothing whatsoever, and giving up over a year of average life expectancy as our reward – while leaving tens of millions of people with no coverage whatsoever for most or all of their needs! It would be almost impossible to have a healthcare system worse than this, other than one with even less protections for patients than the US already has.

As Ezra Klein notes:

consider this: If we spent what Canada spends per person, our deficit problem would go away entirely. And Canada’s per-person average is in a country where everybody is fully covered and so has full access to care. America’s is in a country with 47 million uninsured, and so many people skimp on needed care. So the comparison is actually unfair to Canada. . . .

This is serious pitchforks-and-torches stuff, if only people really understood it. I continue to believe, however, that the improbable size of the disparity is a barrier to understanding. People just don’t believe these numbers. America may not be the best, but we’re not supposed to be the worst by such a large margin.

Oh, yes, we are. The system is designed to suck money out and deny care. It’s working perfectly. But why do we have a system designed to do that?

UPDATE:

There are some problems with the above graph, which I somewhat glossed over in the original post. DanM alludes to them in his comment below. It’s just as well to clarify some of these points.

First, the graph is somewhat misleading because it seems to position life expectancy as a direct function of healthcare spending: a certain amount of money buys you a certain number of years of life, and the slope of the line from one axis to the other describes the mathematical relationship between them. That is the inevitable broad-brush interpretation of the data, that is true (the whole point is that there is a link between the two factors, otherwise there’d be no point graphing them – and indeed the relation is clearly non-random as even a casual inspection of the graph shows) – but the line-graph format makes it much too literal.

Second, the scales of the axes are distorted. There is most obviously the fact that neither the expenditures axis, on the left, nor the lifespan axis, on the right, start at zero. The actual spread between high and low values on both axes is thus exaggerated, especially for lifespan. Also, the data ranges shown for each bear a very different relationship to the total range for data of each type: the top and bottom entries for healthcare expenditures span about 90% of the value of the top end of the scale, or about 80% if you exclude the US; the top and bottom entries for life expectancy span only about 12% of that range. If the two axes were scaled similarly, the right-hand values would all cluster into a tight knot and the blue lines would converge from high and low on the left into that small range, diminishing the impression of a clear correlation between the two values which is created by spreading the lifespan values out so much.

In addition, setting the average values of the two scales at the same vertical level is an arbitrary decision that reinforces the implicit message that the two are correlated. (A ratio between healthcare spending and lifespan that matches the dollars/years ratio of those average values will be a horizontal line at any level on the graph – thus those countries doing better on a dollars/years basis will have lines that slope up, and others will have lines that slope down.) Again, this is not unreasonable as a way of displaying this data, but it requires as an organizing assumption that the implicit correlation illustrated by the graph is in fact true – which puts the cart before the horse.

Finally, as Dan notes, there are other factors influencing lifespan, and implying that it is a direct function of healthcare expenditure, as this graph seems to do, is much too crude.

Nate Silver, brilliant statistical interpreter at “538“, recasts the same data in this fashion (click graph for larger version):

Healthcare Expenditure vs. Life Expectancy Scatterplot

This graph is much fairer in certain ways. By removing the horizontal lines, it removes the visual implication of a direct mathematical function linking the two data sets. By graphing the data as a scatterplot on two orthogonal axes, it allows the viewer to draw their own conclusions without dictating a relationship in the design of the graph. Silver also takes the obvious steps of scaling the axes fairly and accurately, starting a zero for each.

However, this graph also supports the basic point made in the original version: there is an obvious trendline through the data set, and the US is an extreme outlier that falls insanely far below that trend. (To see how far, hold a ruler against your screen, paralleling the slope roughly marked out from the origin through the data cluster running up to the right – about where Canada falls out. Continue that line up to the right until it is directly above the red “USA” below. It should run off the graph up to somewhere in the third paragraph above the graph. That’s where the US should be, given what we spend (on only a fraction of our population). If you want it in numerical terms (and again taking the implied correlation rather too literally), US citizens who actually have access to healthcare should live more than 193 years, on average, if we were spending that money as effectively as most other countries do. From the reverse perspective, given the below-average life expectancy we get for our healthcare dollars, we could spend at least $4,000 per person per year less than we do  and still achieve our current quality outcome, if we were merely as efficient in our expenditures as, say, Denmark. That $4,000 – more than the average amount other industrialized nations spend per person in total – is the amount we are throwing away on our for-profit healthcare system, for no benefit whatsoever to ourselves.

It must be acknowledged that that correlation has not been subjected to statistical analysis, but the basic point is that the original graph, though its designers made some questionable choices, was not as bad as all that.

Hat Tip: to Andrew Gelman at Columbia, who did the original re-analysis from which Silver took his own version.

Happy Fetus

Feto Incognito

Adam Lambert Embryo

The purveyor of the site insists that “Feti is just for fun, no political statements being made here.” I’m tempted to believe that in her case, but the thing still strikes me as weird,  and indicative of a mindset that is worth noting.

The vendor suggests these are intended as gifts for expectant parents, as appropriate additions to the “Baby’s First _____” category of remembrances. (Exactly how, I’m not sure: “Baby’s First Disembodied Hanging on a Christmas Tree”?) In that vein, they play off the very common and understandable practice of many expectant parents in personifying their fetus as it develops – talking to it, playing music, naming it before it is born, and so on. They also seem to accept as a cultural commonplace the fetishizing – literally, in this case! – and personifying of the fetus that is a mainstay of anti-choice propaganda. (Anti-choicers often wear gold-plated fetal-footprint jewelry, and they are forever trying to force abortion patients to look at pictures or sonograms of the fetus.)

I don’t know if the anti-choice movement has so far succeeded in turning the fetus into a fetish object that you can now literally market them to the general public as holiday ornaments, or if the common desire to see fetuses as sort of reverse-extensions of babies simply makes this a natural marketing move, like Cabbage Patch dolls or those weird Anne Geddes photographs of babies in flower petals, and the right wing has merely piggybacked off that common emotional trope for their own purposes. The former would scare me a bit, the latter is merely infuriating. Either way, this sort of thing leaves me with a creepy feeling.

I’m happy for people to be happy about their pregnancies, and to embue their future offspring with emotional valence or even a somewhat overgrandiose sense of promise or accomplishment. In the same way that all parents think their kids are smart and talented, and I wouldn’t quarrel with that, expectant parents can and should go ga-ga over the cute little buns in their respective ovens. There is no point, in the case of people’s emotional experience of the events in their lives, to go around insisting to them “you know it has no functional higher nervous system, right?” . . . “that’s not a ‘person’ you’re carrying, in any meaningful sense of the term – just wanted to let you know” . . . “don’t get too close to it – there’s about a 1-in-12 chance you’ll lose the pregnancy”. But when it comes to law and policy-making, clear distinctions do have to be made – and at that point, the conflict between stark reality and parents’ expectations may be uncomfortable.

Regardless of parental beliefs, not all kids are smart or talented, and thus some won’t make it into selective academic or sports or art programs. And regardless of the fervent, desperately dishonest myth-making of the anti-choice right, the early fetus is not a person and does not make moral claims on a woman’s body and life sufficient to override her autonomy. It is unfortunate to have to disappoint people emotionally invested in believing otherwise, but it is far worse to make policy based on wishful thinking in defiance of the truth.

By all means, have yourself a merry little Christmas, and hang a smiling Adam Lambert Jewish punk fetus upon the highest bough. But let’s keep the “personified fetus” myth firmly in its place when we go to making important decisions about real issues in real people’s lives.

Predictably, Michael Steele, the hapless RNC head, announced less than 24 hours after the story broke that that coverage provision had been rescinded unilaterally. The usual right-wing hysteria has erupted, with demands that people be fired and angry denunciations that donors to the RNC had not been allowed to deny healthcare to its female employees as they wanted to do. As Ben Smith rightly points out, not one female employee of the RNC – the ones whose coverage has now been stripped without their consultation (and presumably without any reduction in their premium contributions) – has been quoted or consulted in this move.

I note also that pro-choice ideology within the Republican party has run at about a steady 35-38% for most of a decade (a recent poll shows it down somewhat among Republicans, but is widely regarded as an outlier). I presume the large majority of those are women. Assuming further that women are half the GOP membership, that would mean that roughly two-thirds of GOP women are pro-choice (I suspect they’re actually less than half the membership, which would push the prevalence of pro-choice ideology even higher within that smaller female group). Now, I don’t know if the RNC employee base is representative of the Republican Party generally, but if it is, that would mean that about a third of its staff, and about two-thirds of all its female staff, are in favor of abortion rights. There are other factors to be considered, for which we don’t have data (what percentage favor having abortion covered in their health plan, as opposed to its just being legal; to what degree the RNC staff skew even crazier on abortion than the rank and file; what percentage of the staff are female; and so on), but any way you slice it it seems inevitable that there is at least some considerable degree of support for abortion services among the RNC’s staff, to say nothing of the GOP generally. Yet the RNC leadership revoked their own staff’s coverage without consultation, and without the slightest apparent consideration for that staff’s wishes, needs, or rights.

The message is clear enough, and, I suppose, fair and consistent in that peculiar GOP way: for Republicans, hurting women is more important than anything else – certainly more important than providing real healthcare for an entire nation, but more important also than seeing to the needs of their own membership. The Republican National Committee – a body that exists solely to cater to the interests and welfare of registered Republicans – stripped healthcare services that had been available for almost 20 years away from Republican women employed in the service of that body and their party, without the slightest hesitation or apparently without even talking to them.  Within the highest levels of the Republican Party itself, your lack of status as a woman trumps your preferential status as a Republican.

Michael Steele could have just made it much more simple and direct:

In other words: the current disaster of a system is the one that provides the greatest possible profit potential to the insurance industry; any effort at increasing access to care is against that industry’s interests, and a robust and successful reform effort is the worst possible thing from an industry whose profits are entirely dependent on charging the highest possible premiums and delivering the least possible care.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, which Goldman’s analysts conclude is the version most likely to survive the legislative process, is described as the “base” scenario. Under that legislation (which did not include a public plan) the earnings per share for the top five insurers would grow an estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019. And yet, the “variance with current valuation” — essentially, what the value of the stock is on the market — is projected to drop four percent.

Things are much worse, Goldman estimates, for legislation that resembles what was considered and (to a certain extent) passed by the House of Representatives. This is, the firm deems, the “bear case” scenario — in which earnings per share for the top five insurers would decline an estimated one percent from 2010 through 2019 and the variance with current valuation is projected to be negative 36 percent.

What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private insurance industry’s bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.

The study’s authors advise that if no reform is passed, earnings per share would grow an estimated ten percent from 2010 through 2019, and the value of the stock would rise an estimated 59 percent during that time period.

The next best thing for the insurance industry would be if the legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee is watered down significantly.

Coincidentally, no doubt, the report arrives from Goldman Sachs – recipient of uncountable billions in public bailout dollars for their executives’ bonuses, from the Obama administration – just as the healthcare access reform plan being pursued right now by that same administration is nearing its final legislative conflict. Goldman helpfully notes in a disclaimer that the firm “does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports.”

All you have to do to see how utterly repulsive the healthcare insurance industry is is to simply watch how they talk about their own business. It is impossible to be disgusted enough by an industry that – uniquely in the industrialized world – treats people’s bodies, health, and lives as saleable commodities in a free market in misery.

The real question is whether those who are so agitated about real or imagined terrorism of other kinds (especially by Muslims), and who have been so complacently accepting of anti-woman terrorism in the US for decades, will condemn or even acknowledge an open statement of Christian religious-terrorist ideology in the case of yet another anti-choice fanatic.

Just this week we’ve seen a terrible mass murder committed by a Muslim military officer who was apparently distraught over the war in Afghanistan and his possible deployment. Literally before the bodies were cool, various right-wingers jumped in to denounce “Muslim terrorism” and to cite vague links between the suspect and Al Qaeda (he visited a mosque which was also visited by someone who knew someone who was connected with Al Qaeda); however, it is not clear that the apparent perpetrator’s motives were intended for a political end at all – as opposed to merely an outburst of personal anxiety – and there is little to suggest that it was terrorism in any reasonable sense. The murders of doctors by anti-choicers, beyond any question, are defined by the features of terrorism found in most of the commonly-used definitions: they are acts of violence committed against civilians for the purpose of inciting fear in other, third-party individuals, to promote a particular political end. We heard nothing of this at the time of Dr. Tiller’s death (nor of any of the previous murders and other acts of violence); will we hear it acknowledged now that the terrorist has so openly proclaimed his murderous religious ideology?

Anti-choice terrorism is intended to prevent women from exercising a legal and moral right involving their bodily health and autonomy, by terrorizing those women and their healthcare providers – it is violence intended not merely against its chosen (often random) targets, but to terrorize and thus paralyze a larger group, to further the religious and political ideology of the perpetrators and their vast army of supporters and admirers within the religious right. Yet it has never been acknowledged as such, and the large subculture on the right wing who have made a profession of terrorism scare-mongering have never acknowledged the persistent anti-choice terrorism ongoing in the US. (Nor has the FBI: fake anthrax attacks had been staged on almost 700 abortion clinics in the US in the days before 9/11 – not one of them resulted in an arrest, or any obvious urgency about the issue, and they were not treated as domestic terrorism. One person was charged with terrorism for fake anthrax attacks on clinics in the wake of 9/11 and the Congress anthrax mail attacks – the first and only such charge in the entire history of anti-choice terrorism. None of the anti-choice murderers, including Roeder, have been charged as terrorists.)

Now we have an admitted terrorist openly advocating further political killings to promote his religious obsessions. If Roeder were a Muslim and his targets were not women and their healthcare providers, the shrieking loons of the right would be off their heads screaming about his crime, his religious beliefs, his unrepentant stance, his advocacy and rationalization of violence, and his links to other extremists with similar religious and political beliefs. Will we see even the slightest acknowledgment of Christian anti-choice religious terrorism and its dangers in this blatant case?

The bill on offer is far from optimal. It locks in the profiteering on death and misery that the vast majority of the country is burdened with, and is needlessly complicated and limited in what it offers to the rest. It deliberately cripples its own modest offering by restricting it only to those whom the profiteers have absolutely refused to serve at any price, prohibiting the rest of the country from accessing healthcare organized on any saner and more humane basis. But worst of all, the bill is being held hostage by the insane and vicious anti-choice army that infests the right wing and has wholly captured the Republican party. And, too predictably, the omnipresent contingent of grandstanding asshole Democrats is giving them exactly what they want, as they always do.

Right now, the “Stupak amendment” is being debated: an amendment that will prohibit any person enrolling in the government-backed “healthcare exchange” – which is to say, the poorest and most desperate, who are the only ones eligibel to enroll in that plan – from being offered a full range of healthcare services in cases of unwanted pregnancy. For those people, the “public options” will be forced pregnancy, death in childbirth, or an abortion that she likely can’t afford and the right-wing terrorists have likely made unavailable anyway. The Republican House caucus has already stated explicitly that they will refuse to vote for the healthcare bill in any form. But they – with their unconscionable Democratic allies – are holding up the bill to demand the anti-choice amendment in a bill they will not support even if they get it. And enough Democrats are equally indifferent to women’s lives and women’s needs to help them do it.

Democratic women are putting up a good fight – and their male allies deserve thanks, too. The Republicans have shrunk from merely legislative misogyny to outright thuggery, as they so commonly do. Michele Bachman led crowds of right wingers through the Congressional office buildings earlier today, invading offices and screaming at people to, in her words, “scare” them away from supporting women and healthcare for all. House Republicans staged an organized disruption on the floor today, systematically interrupting Democratic women as they spoke in favor of women’s interests and full healthcare coverage. The healthcare debate is being conducted the same way the Florida recount was in 2000: in the face of Republican assaults and intimidation, and without regard for the truth or significance of the actual substantive issue.

I have little to say about the whole thing. I feel helpless – particularly frustrating in the face of an issue so central to my personal and professional concerns – and am waiting as on election night for the outcome of votes that will – with great good luck – mean so much to so many, and move American one huge step closer to the decency and commitment to humanity that has been so sadly lacking in so much of our history. I can only wait and hope, like everyone else. In the meantime, there is an organized, vicious, and relentless minority that is fiercely dedicated to their own hostility to any notion of a decent regard for others, and to the freedom of others to live their own lives unconstrained by that minority’s backward and reactionary values. They are fighting – in the most literal sense – right now to keep tens of millions of people at the mercy of any illness they may suffer, to keep hundreds of millions at the mercy of an insurance system that rivals only those reactionaries themselves in its hostility to the needs of the people they nominally serve, and to keep every woman in America at the mercy of the nasty and bitter men who despise them and their bodies.

I can’t stand watching this unfold. And I can’t say, can’t express even fractionally, how much, how gut-wrenchingly much, I hate and revile these disgusting creeps.

UPDATE: Rayne at Firedoglake reports “Stupak Amendment Passes: 64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents“. That’s exactly how I feel about it. I had already promised myself that I would contribute to the primary opponents of any misogynist Democrats; I’m saddened, and shocked, that there are so many of them. I will certainly target all that I can afford to. Read the rest of the post; it’s exactly right.

UPDATE: The final bill has passed, 220 – 215. Exactly one Republican voted in favor – 39 Democrats voted to withhold healthcare from over 40 million Americans. This is a great – but very partial – victory. There still remains the Senate bill – which will be a far tougher fight, with looser rules and a larger percentage of heartless and misogynist Democrats in the mix – followed by the conference committee and the final vote. The Republicans and reactionaries will do everything they can to destroy other people’s hopes for a decent life, and their control over their own bodies and life plans – the rioting, disruption, demagoguery and thuggery seen today are just a taste of what is coming. And this step, momentous as it is, comes bitterly. The discussion in the followup post at Firedoglake captures it perfectly; as one commenter put it: “It’s like winning a huge battle, but half of your friends were killed or wounded.”

UPDATE: I’ve added the reference to Democrats in the headline. I didn’t make it clear above that Bart Stupak, who led the charge to destroy healthcare reform for over 300 million Americans if they didn’t let him destroy autonomy for 150 million female Americans, is a Democrat. Along with 63 other misogynist traitors, he put the people’s party against 51% of the people, to indulge their personal medieval religious obsessions. Fuck him and all of them.

UPDATE: Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns, and Money gets the power dynamic exactly right: “Certainly, there are many potential criticisms of how Democratic leadership has dealt with health care, although when you actually care about expanding access to health care it’s hard to negotiate with the Stupaks of the world who don’t, but want to use other people’s progressive impulses to attack women.”