Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data From the January-March 2007 National Health Interview Survey

In my opinion, we have a lot of reflection to do as a nation when it comes to a far healthier America.


It is completely inexcusable to exclude any child from health insurance.


It's an outrage to consider.


There needs to be a mandate to correct the path of self-destruction this country now finds itself. That mandate will not come from a Republican. There are no private insurance carriers proven to provide the quality of health care this country deserves.


When it comes to 'quality control' in health insurance there is only one way of providing it to all Americans and that is through Universal Health Insurance.


The next election we set the priorities straight for the USA. Peace, prosperity and wellness for all Americans.


I just don't see it any other way.

The overall 'general wellness' of Americans is declining.

Excellant to Very Good general health escapes most Americans over 18 years of age.


Everybody get out of the chairs and from behind the steering wheels and WALK ! Do it as a family. Create good habits with your children.


From the survey:


In early 2007, the percentage of persons who had excellent or very good health was 65.9% (95% confidence interval = 64.47–67.27%), which was the same as the 2006 estimate of 65.9%.


From 1997 through 2001, the percentage of persons who had excellent or very good health remained similar at about 69.0%. The estimates generally decreased from 2001 to early 2007 (65.9%).



In Figure 11.1, since the year 2002, there is a steady decline in the overall wellness of the people of the United States of America. In Figure 11.2 it is clear there is over 35% of Americans with ONLY "Good to Poor" health. Among the rest of the nation, ONLY 35% are in excellant health with females in that catagory less in number than men. In every other category females rank slightly higher than males, be it Very Good or Poor.



Figure 11.3 shows a very bad trend in the USA. The majority of Americans ranking in Excellant to Very Good health are the young below age 18. It's a darn shame there are such low percentages of age 18-64 (which is a very wide spread for this category) with high levels of wellness. It is undertandable the populous age 65 or greater would have the lowest percentage in this category, but, I still have to wonder why. It would seem to me, given age related changes, the optimal health for older Americans should be just as good as any other segment of the population.



In Figure 11.4, CONSISTENTLY, there is disparity in minority Americans compared to their White counterparts. This has to be directly related to the availability of health insurance to access the health care system. When I looked through these national statistics, it was very clear to me there is a level of neglect of so many minority members of America there is no turning away from that reality. Statistic after statistic, the minority American is at far greater risk due to lack of access to health insurance than any White member could be.

Alcohol consumption is level over the ten years, however, the highest users in excess are our young Americans.

Blurred realities are a status symbol to some, but, in all honesty isn't an excess of alcohol consumption a poor reality for 'status' to young Americans?



Figures 9.1 shows a level 'market share' to alcohol in the past ten years. In Figure 9.2, when considering the 95% confidence level in the survey, there are a lot of young men ages 18 - 24 in trouble here. Alcohol consumption can cause accidents, death and compromised social judgements frequently regretted later. If that isn't enough to realize inebriation is a bad idea, realize AGAIN, this is a socio-economic issue. In Figure 9.3, White Folks are imbibing more than their Hispanic or Black counterparts. Here again, it's related to income. So much for the stereotype of the 'drunk Black man' as a social blight. It would seem it's the White guys with the least will power when it comes to maintaining a social demeanor without the liquor.

Thanks to the Attorney Generals of every state in the nation, the Ameican culture is recovering from the Tobacco Industry's assault !

We can still do better ! It is amazing how American's quality of life improves when the right administration heads up the state governments. Figure 8.1 proves the victory.

From the survey:


The prevalence of current smoking among U.S. adults declined from 24.7% in 1997 to 18.6% in early 2007.


In early 2007, 18.6% (95% confidence interval = 17.24–19.96%) of adults aged 18 years and over were current smokers, which was lower than the 2006 estimate of 20.8%. The prevalence of current smoking among U.S. adults declined from 24.7% in 1997 to 18.6% in early 2007.

Figure 8.2 proves shows the Non-Smoking populous of the USA. It's impressive. The former status of 'smoker' is wonderful and the current smoker status shows more male smokers than female.

The most troubling of the 'smoker' statistics is the high level of young smokers. There are proportionally the same number in the age groups 18 to 44 as there are 45 - 64. There remains more men smoking in these age groups than females, but, the 'idea' that even with the reduction in advertising there 'maintains' a significant population in young adults is troubling. We should be seeing a movement away from these statistics, but, in recent years there has been permission through movie venues and old movies on television that still encourage a 'social status' to young Americans.

Figure 8.4 is even more interesting. There are more White Smokers than any other ethnic group. Here again the cost of a 'habit' is unaffordable to minorities. Also, when considering the social isolation of segregation, it would seem to me it is still an issue. If all these ethnicities were living comparable lifestyles we would be seeing a level demographic. That is not the reailty however.

Affordability of this nasty habit would seem to be a barrier to protecting the health of some minority Americans.

On one of those FOX media radio broadcasts I heard a Liberatarian segment go like this:

"Publix is running walk in clinics. They are also hosting free antibiotics to anyone that needs them. Now why is it Democrats just can't see how private industry can solve the problems of the nation?"

Now, to begin with, I don't like a chain store to be singled out as an example to Right Wing Rhetoric. Publix is a national chain store offering free clinics as a means to fend off the mood in the nation regarding the poor performance of health insurance companies. As a means to bring a favorite light to their stores, they simply have instituted free clinics and antibiotics to keep folks coming in rather than being ridiculed as a profiteering enterprise.

And anyone would be lucky to have a Publix free clinic available, because, I don't even have a Publix anywhere within driving distance.

THAT, does not translate into a resolution to a national health insurance crisis. THAT, it just a PR campaign to keep bad opinion away from their stores. I can appreciate that.

BUT

What the Right Wing Rhetoric did was to present this as a concrete example of how private enterprise can SOLVE all American's problems. It can't. Does Publix have an emergency room? Do they offer free surgery when it comes to Coronary Artery By-Pass?

The entire focus of the Right Wing, be it Libertarian or Republican, is to take miniscule examples of generosity by private enterprise and magnify it into a national health insurance strategy.

They are ludicrous, "W"rong and willing to endanger the lives of anyone in order to maintain their stock portfolios. The Right Wing opinions that exist these days have absolutely no basis in any fact and care even less today about Americans than ten years ago.

Who can afford a golf game? Who can afford clubs? Especially after paying for health insurance.

From the survey:


The percentages of adults aged 18 years and over who engaged in regular leisure-time physical activity increased from 29.8% in 1998 to 32.1% in 2001, did not change significantly from 2001 to 2003, decreased from 2003 to 2004, and remained stable from 2004 to early 2007.


Figure 7.1 illustrates a few things. Women enjoy less leisure activities than men for every year except 2005. It also shows a topping out of those Americans that enjoy leisure activity. In recent years it even shows a decrease in those that enjoy leisure activities.


My guess is less disposable income. It would be interesting to realize if any particular sport such as bowling remains easily within the reach of most Americans. Social interaction, exercise and staying away from unhealthy food and beverage all contributes to Americans quality of life. I can't help but wonder what the decrease in momentum is and if it's expected to continue in that direction.


Figure 7.2 clearly show a decrease in the activity level of Americans as they age. It should be just the opposite. Granted some aging into inactivity when met with disability is inevitable. But this survey does NOT discern the difference in inactivity caused by disability opposed to 'choice' OR inaccessibility.



The decline in activity with age is across the board greater in women than men. Some of that is generational for women raised to be removed from what is considered male related activity such as sports. But, for the younger generations, there is no excuse, EXCEPT, there is little exposure to Physical Education in school anymore as budget cutbacks prevent widespread education in health and gym.



Figure 7.3 is obviously socio-economically related. Those with the most disposable incomes have the highest activity. White Americans dominate the leisure activity venues. That is an outrage. They have the most access to health insurance and the most consideration of leisure activity.



THEREFORE


It is easy to say, that the people in America with 'knowledge' as to activity and how it relates to health are doing something about staying limber, physically agile and well. To NOT provide this type of opportunity for all Americans is a hugely immoral issue. If doctors can instill the necessity, on a personal level, for Americans to be active and well then we all need to realize how important Universal Health Care is and how the nation's children will benefit, for themselves and a healthy family, too.

There is no consumer protection in the USA anymore. No Sweds complaining there is too much fat in the McDonald's menu.

Anyone for drive thru? Obesity mixed with inactivity complicated by smoking is a formula for heart disease leading to lung disease and early death.

End of discussion.

Anyone want to guess what the cholesterol level of someone without an interest in their well being is? It would be a good guess, because, I guarantee you they could not tell you. Has this man seen a doctor recently?

Has he had a check up?

Does he have the health insurance to guarantee HALF-A-SHOT at living as long as someone in a different socio-economic group?

Speaking of which, there is one question very infrequently asked: "Does obesity PROHIBIT people from improving their social status?" In other words, is this man 'locked into' his economic and social depression because of the obesity that has him trapped there?

From the survey:


The annual prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults aged 20 years and over has increased over time from 19.4% in 1997 to 26.4% in 2006. The estimate in 2003 was lower than, but not significantly different from, the estimates in 2002 and 2004.


Figures 6.1 shows a significant amount of obesity in the USA. It has steadily risen over the past ten years. March of 2007 ALREADY shows a trend that will break the record of 2006.


Hello, America? There is no common sense in our lives anymore. There are indulgences to 'weakened will' here. Why is that?


In Figure 6.2, the prevalency is highest in middle age. Indifference. "I am what I am and there is no changing it now." That is a shame. This age group is at risk for cardiac complications, adult onset diabetes and a sedentary lifestyle with 'just enough' income to indulge it.


The demographics among the 40 - 59 year olds are about equal for males and females. Each gender is equally as guilty in the LACK OF EXERCISE they seek on a regular basis. I have to wonder if these folks are also working more than enjoying life. Collapsing at home after working a second job it's what I would call "The American Way."


Food is comfort and I can't help but wonder why Americans are seeking 'activity' as comfort when realizing the increase in health compromise they are facing and a shorter longevity.


Figure 6.3 the greatest obesity risk is with Black females. Black males are higher than any other ethnic group males, too. This group also has high levels of cardiac disease, hypertension and diabetes. Generally, Black men have the shortest life spans of any American noted here.

I found this on a 'tourist' blog. It's just very disturbing. The title to the blog was "American Poverty for Tourists"

You turn a corner heading home and there's a small party,playing the last song of the night

And this is very much Old Economy. Looks like pictoresque Latin American poverty for tourists.

...unattended to medical/surgical treatment. Do you what that means? It means there are diseases in the population of the USA that go unchecked !

From the Survey:

From 1998 to 2006, there was generally an increasing trend in the annual percentage of persons who experienced this lack of access to medical care (4.2% in 1998 to 5.8% in 2006).

Figure 3.1 shows an increasing number of Americans that CHOOSE to neglect their wellness because they don't have money to cover the cost. That is dangerous to the nation at large. There are plenty of immunizations children need before entering school.

Additionally, anyone with an illness that goes untreated could cause a greater social problem to the country in that they could breed more disease to others.

If that isn't enough, realize this: "Super bugs become super bugs because citizens only take enough medication to 'feel better' rather than vanquish the bacterial infection or virus that plagues them. Now realize that pharmacies can provide a person with a partial fill of a perscription. What would you do if you had to choose between buying a partial perscription to get well enough to go to work the next day OR paying the entire cost?

And when it comes to age group, it is the 18-64 year olds making those decisions. The Working Class. Those that work for a living in underpaid jobs with no health insurance that cannot afford to be out of work one day on one of their three jobs.

The breakdown according to gender is the same. It is more women than men making these decisions.

In this category, oddly enough, there are about equal distribution across the ethnicities with higher levels in Hispanic citizens. So, it would seem when it comes to neglecting their health completely the same demographic applies to all these Americans.

If I am not mistaken, it would probably be the same folks working about the same jobs with the same income. Lower Middle Class with extremely difficult decisions to make daily, with high stress levels and few choices to change their outcomes or the outcomes of their children.

I can't imagine making that decision. It is grossly unethical and highly immoral to ask any Ameican to make those decisions.

The good news is that people with health insurance have a usual place to go for that health coverage.

From the survey:
The annual percentage of persons who had a usual place to go for medical care generally decreased from 87.9% in 2003 to 86.3% in 2006.

The statistics here bear out a mirror image to the statistics that represent those that have health insurance.

Figure 2.1 reflects DIRECTLY the 14% in the nation without health insurance. Every year from 1997 through March 2007 there is consistently a segment of the USA populous that do NOT have a place to go for health care.

There is a small inconsistency of perhaps 1 percent in these statistics relating to EXACTLY to those presented as uninsured. That small percentage are those Americans that 'pay as they go.'

The demographics of those folks aren't clearly spelled on in any of the statistics of this study. However, anyone can guess the 'identity' of who they might be; the wealthy or independant business person that somewhat 'gambles' they are young enough to escape severe health issues.

In Figure 2.2, the demographics again are by age group; also included are gender differences. Royal Blue for total numbers of people in that age group, pale blue for males and pink for females. I find that outrageous. I left my pink blanket in the bassinet a long time ago. The color scheme reflected in ANY government report should be gender neutral. It is like enforcing sexism. Absolutely, under any definition. The Bush White House is enforcing gender discrimination in it's reporting of facts in government documents.


But to get beyond that, there is a disproportionate number of women without health insurance in EVERY age group. The age groups in child bearing years are at least 20% higher in women than men for the ages 18-24 and 25-44.


When considering the 'confidence interval' at the top of each bar of each graph, the statistics regarding women of child bearing and rearing age far exceeds that of men, especially in the 18-24 age group.




These demographics are not clearly stated as to profession, but, in a service economy one can easily estimate these women are either waitress or cooks or cashiers or sales personnel with more than likely several part time incomes to make ends meet.


We know for a fact, the percentage of babies born in the United States of America today to single parent females households is approximately 60%. Therefore, the statistics that represent women are a clear and percise indifference to the infants these women are carrying and the health care of the child after birth.


These women are more than likely able to support their households with necessary requirements in life with an income above poverty level. They probably are unable to attend school because the "Pell Grant System" of student grants ends at the top of the poverty level. So there they are, impoverished with children to raise and no hope of changing their outcomes in life as all 'good paying' jobs are outsourced.


These women probably have high school diplomas, but, no chance of a good paying job UNLESS they leave their families with parents or friends to go fight in Iraq and receive health insurance for themselves and their children with a chance to meet someone to marry. This is a national shame for more reasons that one !




If I was in that income bracket and faced with still another pregnancy because I could not afford birth control, I would definately consider Plan B or an abortion. Definately. I would have more children than I could afford to raise already to a life better than I had and I would not bring still another hungry mouth into this world. Absolutely would not because life never treated me very well anyway.




Those are not my circumstances, but, the law HAS to provide for the safety of women faced with such dire circumstances. Has to ! I, as a voter in the United States of America WILL NOT vote for a candidate that removes the protection of women's lives through draconian Anti-Abortion Laws.



The Right Wing DOES NOT apply 'quality of life' standards to all Americans, but, only those that are complete and absolute victims to a negligent government and seeks to make them a further victim by removing their safety net financially while NOT providing for the well being of women, their pregnancies or their live children when their incomes rise above poverty level.



The same is true for men when faced with supporting a family on a margin income. The quality of their lives are horrible and NO ONE that represents "Right Wing Extremism" cares !

Figure 2.3 reflects the same ethnic disparity of Hispanics over any other group in the USA.

The Right Wing of the country will pay for "Uninsured Motorist" but NOT "Uninsured Health of Americans."

On a conservative talk radio show it was stated:

"I am an independant business man and I do not have health insurance, neither does my wife. We have done fine with a "Pay as you Go" need for health care."

In other words, then they came down with a bacterial infection they went to the doctor, paid for their visit and paid for their antibiotics. Reasonably healthy people with little risk of injury in their business don't carry health insurance because "...it would cost me $8000 per year...."

Also stated was that in thinking about the purchase of health insurance, as they were aging now, they were thinking about a stop smoking medication to help bring down the premiums.

Really?

When a health insurance company looks at the cost to smokers it looks at Pack Per Year of smoking, not just whether or not someone has recently quit. I was pleased to hear there was an incentive to stop smoking but at the same time will these people go back to smoking when they realize their insurance premiums will not significantly change?

Then the rationalizing continued, in that, "...if I stop smoking, the entire nation could stop smoking and then where would the Democrats get the monies to pay for their SCHIP?"

I don't believe that is realistic to believe, but, IF the entire nation of the USA stopped smoking which might happen with a tax increase on cigarettes, the 'savings' on health related bills ALONE due to improved national wellness would more than pay for any cost for insuring the youngest members of our country.

Then there was the 'ultimate' arguement. Taxes. Stated, "If I could have all my taxes refunded to me, all $12,000 per year I could easily afford the $8000 I would have to pay for health care."

Yeah, but, who would pay for the military in Iraq that these people believe is so vital to their party? Who would pay for the salaries for their favorite president? Who would pay for the Republican Pork Barrel Projects passed when there was a majority Republican Party in the House and Senate.

Basically, when it comes to having a Republican do the 'right' thing, it has to be legisltated. They'll pay for "Uninsured Motorist" but they won't pay for the "Uninsured Health of Americans."

For the past ten years the uninsured rate in the USA is basically consistent. In other words, IT IS A KNOWN COMMODITY.

The annual percentage uninsured at the time of interview was:

15.4% in 1997

14.6% in 1998

14.2% in 1999

14.9% in 2000

The estimate increased from:

14.3% in 2001 to 15.2% in 2003

decreased to 14.2% in 2005

increased to 14.8% in 2006.

Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data From the 2007 National Health Interview Survey

If the uninsured is a level amount of people year after year after year. Then what is the issue? Why haven't the needs of these people been addressed? In the years 1997 to 2000, the 'idea' of a National Health Insurance was banished from any agenda by the Gingrich "Contract with America" Republicans. They knowingly left approximately 15% of this country uninsured and unprovided for the ENTIRE TIME.

THAT...

IS...

WHAT...

I...

CALL...

NEGLECT OF GOVERNMENT !!!!!

In Figure 1.2 the demographics of the age with the highest number of citizens WITHOUT health insurance are 18-24 years of age, followed by 25-34 years of age. These are ages when people start families. There are a large number of children uninsured in this country and parents at risk for poor decision making regarding their health due to the demands of raising those children. In families with young children that don't have health insurance, they are more interested in providing a roof over their heads, clothes on their back and food on the table as well as paper and pencils for school than even beginning to address the need for health insurance.

Now, have you got that? The families at greatest risk for poor health care are those of 'Child Bearing and Rearing' ages.

Let me get this right. The Right Wing states, "No Abortion" but they also state, "No Universal Health Care" either to people of child bearing and rearing age groups.

Sorry, folks but there is something very "W"rong with this picture !

In figure 1.3, the demographics clearly show, the largest 'ethnic' group without health insurance are Hispanics. Really? But, yet, the Bush White House touted their 'pro-minority' venue with nominations to the USA Presidential Cabinet with people like Former Attorney General Gonzalez and the current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Yet, the very ethnic groups these people belong are grossly under represented in having adequate health care. Now, what do you call that?

No cherry picking the statistics. A perspective we can all be proud of and live with across the board.

This is the survey used in the statistics reflected in the country's concern for it's healthcare infrastructure. Health insurance. Is it delivering what is promised? Is it saving American lives? What is the performance of 'any' health insurance, be it goverment or otherwise?

These vital questions were not asked on this survey.

The 'demographics' of health care is the focus to the government statistical results. Quite frankly, the 'facts' presented in "SiCKO" haven't been compiled by the USA government.

Is health insurance in the USA delivering what is promised?

Is the health insurance in the USA saving American lives?

Is the health insurance in the USA actually killing people when it could be performing in a life saving manner?

What is the performance appraisals of any and all insurance in the USA?

These questions aren't being asked by our government.

AND.

They haven't been asked for more than the last ten years !

Below is question number one in the survey and the entire survey can be found at the link to the title of this entry.


FHI.070
What kind of health insurance or health care coverage {do/does} {you/subject
name} have?

INCLUDE those that pay for only one type of service (nursing
home care, accidents, or dental care), exclude private plans that only provide
extra cash while hospitalized.
Field Representative: PLEASE REFER TO FLASHCARDS F12 AND F13 FOR
YOUR STATE.
(01) Private health insurance
(02) Medicare
(03) Medi-Gap
(04) Medicaid
(05) SCHIP (CHIP/Children’s Health Insurance Program)
(06) Military health care (TRICARE/VA/CHAMP-VA)
(07) Indian Health Service
(08) State-sponsored health plan
(09) Other government program
(10) Single service plan (e.g. dental, vision, prescriptions)
(11) No coverage of any type
(97) Refused
(99) Don’t know

Basically, there is no quality control of health insurance at any level in the USA. There is no cost analysis per capita spent IN RETURN for the outcomes of Americans. In other words, the Conservative complainers be they politicians or media representatives have no basis for their point of view except the dollar return that results in a bottom line on corporate health care.

The question is this:

For every dollar a consumer pays for their health insurance, be it employer provided or not (including the premiums employers pay), is the return of wellness to the country optimal?

I state no. It's real simple. The current health insurance industry in the USA is laden with middle management that rejects claims and causes damage to the optimal wellness of the USA. Therefore, any cost analysis of the current insurance structure is mute.

The results of this survey is more than interesting, anyway.

It's Sunday Night

I've Still Got My Health by Bette Midler

I'm always a flop at a top-notch affair,
but I've still got my health, so what do I care?
My best ring, alas, is a glass solitaire,
but I still got my health, so what do I care?

By fashion and foppery, I'm never discussed.
Attending the opry, my box would be a bust.
I never shall have that Park Avenue aire,
but I'm in such health, why should I care?

The hip that I shake doesn't make people stare,
but I got such health, what do I care?
The sight of my props never stops a thoroughfare,
but I still got my health, so what do I care?

Your face is your fortune, so some wise men spoke.
My face is my fortune, that's why I'm totally broke.
My ship ain't come in, but I grin while I bear,
'cause I got my vitamins:
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
I still have my.
Got no diamonds, got no wealth.
I got no men, but I got my health.