I listened to Robert F. Kennedy’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, but could only bear to listen a short time, largely because what I heard revealed that the majority of the Senators and RFK appeared either to suffer from near-complete innumeracy, or were so locked into policy positions that they appeared to suffer terminal innumeracy.
The discussion over national life-expectancy data was more than a little revealing. The life-expectancy for Americans is lower than all other western industrial countries, yet the U.S. spends more than twice as much on health care per capita.
There are several reasons for these figures. First, one of the factors lowering average lifespans of a population is high infant mortality, i.e., the death of a child before his or her first birthday. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. infant mortality rate is fifty-fifth, and is at least twice as high as all other first-world nations. Add to that that the U.S. maternal death rate is close to five times that of all other major industrial countries and is continuing to rise.
The second factor lowering average lifespans is the percentage of the population lacking basic health care. In the U.S., roughly 25 million Americans lack health care insurance and over 100 million do not have a regular health care provider. Yet of those uninsured Americans, 74% have a full-time worker, and another 11% are working part-time. While 62% of uninsured American adults have health care debts, as might be expected, 44% of Americans with health insurance also reported health care debts.
When roughly a third of the U.S. population does not have a regular health care provider and almost half the population cannot afford even routine health care without going into debt, one might think these factors just possibly might contribute to a lower life expectancy for Americans, but for some reason, so far as I could tell, the only factor that was touched on was the high cost of medical care for those who can afford it, when the reason for lagging life expectancy lies in those who cannot afford or obtain adequate medical care.
In addition, there’s been no significant increase in the number of MDs graduating from U.S. medical schools over the past five years, despite an estimated population increase of nearly five percent.
So why don’t Senators and Representatives know these numbers… or is it that they don’t care?
I applaud your courage in attempting to listen to any senate finance committee hearing, let alone one involving RFK. The innumeracy that you mention is more a product of the “doublespeak” that both parties are mired in where they cherry pick their own statistics and ignore the others. It’s not a question of not knowing or caring, that’s lost in the attempts to either make positive soundbites and avoid negative ones. That’s what sucks up their attention.
I suspect that digging down into structural issues is a rabbit hole far too deep to ever believe one could do anything about it. My sense is the nibbling at the edge of issues that are evident in these hearings are those that might, might someday be addressed by some sort of legislation.
My dear wife was patient enough to listen to the entire hearings and I heard RFK railing that Americans are the most unhealthy people on planet earth (or at least hedging that way). I asked her if he got any more specific than that. Nope. I asked her if he ever once mentioned obesity. Not that she could recall. If he’s only willing to address fringe issues (yes, a double meaning there), then why bother as the health secretary.
Oh, no mention of gun deaths either I guess.
There is a Star Trek episode in which the computer is forced to lie and it results in the computer losing to Spock in 3D chess consistently. RFK Jr. is sticking to the script that means health insurers have to cover less. But he can’t say that universal health insurance/care would help. Between those two items he is going to have to say bizarre things. Aside from doing this his goal is confusion and distraction.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable sub-human who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.
– Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love (1973)
What that says about politicians is one thing; what it says about those who vote for them anyway…well…