8 stories
·
0 followers

Does Having Sisters Turn Boys Into Republicans?

1 Comment

Lots of people have been looking to science to explain the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Mother Jones' Chris Mooney has published a rundown of all the brain differences suspected in the gulf between liberals and conservatives. But a new study by researchers from Loyola Marymount University and Stanford University's business school suggests another factor may play a role in forming the political brain: the gender of one's siblings. According to the study, boys with only a sister were 15 percent more likely to identify as a Republican in high school, and they were 13.5 percent more conservative in their views of women's roles than boys who only had brothers. 

The reason for this difference? Not genes or neural pathways, but something more mundane: housework. The researchers speculate that boys take their cues about women's roles from an early age, and that girls tend to be assigned more traditional chores when they have a brother. Watching their sisters do this housework "teaches" boys that washing dishes and other such drudgery is simply women's work. Boys with only brothers don't seem to have this problem because the chore load at home tends to be spread around more equally. The impact on men's gender perceptions is long term, but the stark partisanship fades somewhat as men get older, the researchers say.

Perhaps even more important than the impact sisters have on men's political views is the way sisters may influence how their brothers turn out as husbands. The study found that boys with sisters grow up to be men who don't help much around the house. The researchers' data show that middle-aged men who grew up with a sister are 17 percent more likely to say their spouses did more housework than they did compared with men who had only brothers. The study suggests this might mean men's views of gender roles are permanently affected by their childhood environment. Girls weren't affected by having brothers or sisters. 

The results seemed to surprise the researchers, who thought having a sister would have a liberalizing affect on boys. Loyola's Andrew Healy said in a press release about the study:

 "We might expect that boys would learn to support gender equity through interactions with their sisters. However, the data suggest that other forces are more important in driving men’s political attitudes, including whether the family assigned chores, such as dishwashing, according to traditional gender roles.”

Message to parents: If you want your boys to grow up to be good husbands or partners, make them wash some dishes and iron clothes when they're young!

Read the whole story
jdunning
4124 days ago
reply
Huh. Didn't seem to have affected me that way.

"According to the study, boys with only a sister were 15 percent more likely to identify as a Republican in high school, and they were 13.5 percent more conservative in their views of women's roles than boys who only had brothers."
Share this story
Delete

More Than a Hobby

1 Comment
AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

In February of 2012, as the Obama administration sought to placate the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) objections to contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act, a new wrinkle in the debate took observers by surprise. Anthony Picarello, the USCCB’s general counsel, protested that exemptions and accommodations for churches and religious charities didn’t go far enough. “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell,” Picarello said, “I’d be covered by the mandate.” 

This was the first time one of the religious objectors to the proposed regulation had raised the prospect of an exemption for for-profit, corporate entities. “We thought it was laughable at the time,” says Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has filed amicus briefs in support of the government’s position in lawsuits later brought by for-profit companies. “I’m not laughing anymore.”

Last month, in the first appellate decision in these cases, the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and its affiliated chain of Christian bookstores, Mardel. The court found that corporations have the standing to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and have free-exercise rights under the First Amendment. “A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” a majority of the court’s full en banc panel of eight judges wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.” 

Conservatives were elated. “What the Tenth Circuit did en banc is extraordinarily significant for this case and the prosecution of all the other [Health and Human Services] mandate cases,” says Kyle Duncan, counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby. The question of whether a for-profit business has a right to sue under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, said Duncan, was the “key question” in the case. “From our point of view,” he added, “it was a very, very significant win.” 

 

The Anatomy of a Legal Challenge 

Most observers agree that the legal questions raised in the Hobby Lobby case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. While it is not clear which of the 33 cases brought by businesses against the government will reach the highest court, the legal claims are the same.  Three other federal appeals courts, the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, heard oral arguments around the same time as the Hobby Lobby argument, but have not yet ruled. The Eighth and D.C. Circuits will hear cases in the fall. 

But the Hobby Lobby case has been one of the most closely watched of the 33 business lawsuits against the government. The chain, based in Oklahoma, has over 500 stores nationwide, with 13,000 full-time employees on its insurance plan. Unlike other for-profit plaintiffs, many of which are small local businesses, including heating and air-conditioning contractors, cabinet makers, and Bible publishers, Hobby Lobby is a well-known Bible belt brand. Its case has become a cause célèbre among conservative activists for its “bold stand for religious freedom,” in the words of Concerned Women for America. Last month, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition awarded the company’s president the Courage in Business Leadership Award.

Hobby Lobby’s billionaire founder and CEO, David Green, and its president, Green’s son Steve, have promoted themselves as patriotic Christians who serve God through their business endeavors. Their lawsuit speaks to religious conservatives who have been swept up in activism by politicians and clerics claiming that laws protecting women’s rights to reproductive health, or legal equality for LGBT people amount to government “persecution,” imposing “unprecedented” threats to their religious freedom—and by extension, they claim, the very survival of their businesses. Their lawsuit, and the story of their “Christian” business, is part of a narrative that religious conservatives and Republican lawmakers have pushed since Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, unwittingly made Sandra Fluke a star after excluding her testimony from a hearing on whether the Obama administration “has trampled on freedom of religion.”

The Greens, who declined to be interviewed for this article, say the success of the Hobby Lobby case is God rewarding their faithfulness. In a speech last year to the Great Commission World Summit, a group that gathers businessmen and women to raise money for global evangelizing organization International Cooperating Ministries, David Green, who now has a net worth of $4.5 billion, recounted his company’s humble beginnings. In 1970, he and his wife Barbara borrowed $600 and began making miniature picture frames in their Oklahoma City home. Two years later, they opened the first Hobby Lobby store. For the past 40 years, “we have tried to run our business in a way that would be pleasing to our savior,” Green said. In 2012, the company had $3 billion sales. “To God be the glory,” said Green. “I feel God’s anointing on my life and in my work.”

“Using business and businessmen to proliferate certain moral ‘norms’” says Darren Grem, a historian at the University of Mississippi and author of the forthcoming book, Corporate Revivals: A Business History of Born-Again America. “was vital for the construction of evangelicalism as we now know it.” In that narrative, Grem adds, “business is sacred” and the state is the “enemy” of “godly forms of consumerism: the local business or large-scale ‘Christian’ corporation.”

At issue in Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit is far more than whether its employees will have coverage for all 20 methods of birth control Department of Health and Human Services regulations require employers to cover free of co-pays and deductibles. The suit, and others like it, is asking the courts to recognize for-profit corporations as entities with religious consciences that can be, in the legal parlance of RFRA, “substantially burdened” by government regulations. 

The burden, Hobby Lobby argued, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, is that the government will impose fines of $100 per employee per day for failing to comply with the coverage requirement, potentially totaling $475 million in fines per year. That, the court found, amounted to a “Hobson’s choice,” forcing Hobby Lobby to choose between “catastrophic fines or violating its religious beliefs.” 

Duncan maintained that the notion of a corporation having religious-freedom rights was “not a novel proposition,” but admitted there were no cases “squarely on point.” The vociferous dissents in Tenth Circuit’s 168-page opinion point to the conflicting legal theories that in all likelihood will be sorted out by the Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit’s chief judge, Mary Beck Briscoe, excoriated the majority for finding that the operation of a successful for-profit corporation could be seen as a “form of evangelism,” effectively deeming them “faith-based businesses” entitled to free-exercise rights. That, Briscoe contended, “is nothing short of a radical revision of First Amendment law, as well as the law of corporations.”

Corporate plaintiffs, including Hobby Lobby, have argued that the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which recognized free-speech rights for corporations, bolstered their claim that corporations have rights under the Free Exercise Clause. But Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law School and an expert on religious-freedom issues, said that the free-speech ruling does not translate to the free exercise context. “It's not at all obvious that a for-profit corporation can be injured in that way—a corporation doesn't have a conscience, or religious obligations,” Lederman said. 

Unlike Catholic plaintiffs, which oppose covering all methods of birth control, Hobby Lobby is refusing only to cover intrauterine devices and the emergency contraceptives Ella and Plan B, which they claim are abortifacients. Hobby Lobby says that its deeply held religious conviction is that “life begins at conception.” Because, it claims (contrary to medical evidence), emergency contraception and IUDs can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, it considers these drugs and devices “abortifacients.” (Conservative activists have taken to calling the contraception coverage requirement the “abortion pill” or “abortion drug” mandate.)

Dr. Anne Davis, Consulting Medical Director to Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), which filed an amicus brief in the case, says that the “essence of their argument is that they believe that pregnancy occurs at fertilization. No major medical organization endorses that idea.” Rather, she says, a pregnancy test is not positive until implantation has occurred.

The emergency contraceptives Ella and Plan B do not interfere with implantation, but rather with ovulation, says Davis. The copper IUD can be used for conventional or emergency contraception, but “it’s spermicidal. So the sperm don’t make it past the uterus.” There is, as PRH noted in its brief, some evidence that the copper IUD may alter the endometrial lining, thus preventing implantation. But, Davis says, fertilized eggs rarely implant, for unknown reasons, so to attribute a failure to implant to the remote possibility that it was caused by the IUD misses the point.

“They’ve got people hypnotized into thinking that fertilization is pregnancy,” says Davis. “You can believe whatever you want, you can have your own beliefs about what these things mean to you,” but “these are not abortifacients.” 

The Tenth Circuit zeroed in on PRH’s statement that one of the devices in question, the copper IUD, could change conditions for implantation. “We need not wade into scientific waters here,” the court wrote in a footnote, “given the above-noted agreement that some of the challenged devices function in a manner that Hobby Lobby and Mardel find morally problematic.” 

 

“Biblical Principles”

Hobby Lobby’s overt religiosity—beyond the piety of its owners—seemed to further persuade the court of its need for legal protection. Its stores close on Sundays to allow workers time for family and church. The company pays above federally mandated minimum wage, currently $14 per hour for full-time employees and $9.50 per hour for part-time employees. Every Christmas, Easter, and Fourth of July, the company takes out newspaper advertisements proclaiming belief in Jesus Christ as lord and savior, America’s founding as a Christian nation, and evangelizing non-believers. 

But a Christian foundation for a company does not always translate to the workplace. Charity Carney, a historian who has studied mega-churches, worked at the Nacadoches, a Texas Hobby Lobby location in the summer of 2011, when she was between teaching jobs. She says that although the stores are officially closed on Sundays, “they keep employees for as long as they need to”— including on Sundays and weeknights past closing time—in order to stock shelves or ready merchandise for the next day. Carney’s employment at Hobby Lobby came to an abrupt end when she refused, after working a 12-hour day, to stay into the night to help set up Christmas ornaments. The manager “basically told me if I left I shouldn’t come back,” Carney says.

Every staff meeting, Carney says, began with a reading from the Bible and a prayer. The employee handbook, which she said was kept in the store but not distributed to employees, included biblical references. 

Despite the company’s religious bent, Carney also described an atmosphere of sexual harassment, with employees photographing women’s backsides with their cell phones and laughing about it, as well as a “culture of crude talk,” which she says management turned a “blind eye” to. 

Through a spokesperson, Hobby Lobby said, “To our knowledge, we have not received any formal complaints of this nature from this store, which would give us an opportunity to fully investigate the situation. If she would like to file a formal complaint, we will certainly address any policy violations. It is not our practice to discuss personnel issues.”

In his 2005 book, More Than A Hobby: How a $600 Start Up Became America’s Home & Craft Superstore, which Carney says was heavily marketed in her store, the elder Green paints a nostalgic picture of his down-home company that grew in part because of the dedication of its employees. 

He devotes a chapter to explaining why the company minimally uses computers, and doesn’t use barcodes and scanners for merchandise: “We insist that computers remain our servants, not our masters.” Carney said cashiers must input prices by hand, and check a list of sale items in order to give the customer the right price, a process she described as “really inefficient.” 

 

“Truth” in a Vacant Strip Mall

Beyond their stores, and beyond the elder Green’s unmatched generosity to evangelical causes, Steve Green, Hobby Lobby’s president, has launched an ambitious project to protect and preserve the Bible, biblical education, and what conservative evangelicals call a “Christian worldview.” In his 2011 book, Faith in America: The Powerful Impact of One Company Speaking Out Boldly, Green endorses the idea that there is “biblical truth” that conflicts with other ways of looking at the world. “[I]t isn’t really possible to just coexist and get along,” he writes. “Truth isn’t inclusive. It’s exclusive.”

In a speech earlier this year after receiving the National Bible Association's John M. Templeton Biblical Values Award, Green discussed his plan to develop a public-school Bible curriculum. “This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught. ... If we don't know it, our future is going to be very scary.”

Last year, through a $50 million grant from the National Christian Foundation, one of the largest donor-advised funds in the country, a non-profit formed by the Greens purchased the Washington Design Center in Washington, D.C., for a future Bible museum that will house Green’s collection of biblical artifacts and texts, which he claims is the largest private collection in the world.

Currently, part of Green’s collection is on display in a traveling exhibition called “Passages,” which is housed in a box store strip mall on a forlorn stretch of Colorado Springs, Colorado, sandwiched between a two vacant stores and a Bargain Mart. 

Inside, an array of artifacts, including several scraps of the Dead Sea Scrolls, are displayed alongside kitsch. One moment you can look through a glass case at some of the earliest editions of the King James Bible, in pristine condition. The next, you can see a talking mechanical wax figure of William Tyndale, who was executed by King Henry VIII for translating the Bible into English and distributing it to the masses. About to be burned at the stake, the figure prays that the people “read the translation of the Bible I died for.”

While claiming to be an ecumenical history of the Bible, the exhibit takes a distinctly Protestant view, focusing largely on the martyrdom of Reformation figures like Tyndale, Martin Luther, and even Anne Boleyn, a mechanical figure of whom proclaims, “As I await my fate, all I ask is to cling to my Tyndale New Testament.”

Although the exhibit does contain Jewish relics, including numerous Torah scrolls, the one room dedicated to Jewish persecution during pogroms and the Holocaust is treated as a cautionary tale for Christians. An introductory video at the start of the exhibit lists the Holocaust room as one of the five “must-sees” in the museum. That room “poses the most alarming what-if,” the narrators say, hinting at the themes of the conservative campaign for “religious liberty,” of which the contraception lawsuits are a part. “What if the biblical books and scrolls in Passages were relics of people that no longer existed?” the narrators ask. “No churches, no temples, none of the hospitals, schools, or charities they support, that promote freedom, well-being and human dignity?”  

 

Courts and Legislators Weigh In

While it’s widely thought that one of the business cases will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court to challenge the contraception coverage mandate, congressional Republicans aren’t waiting for the Court to rule. They’ve introduced the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, which would, among other things, create an exemption for any religious objector to contraception coverage, whether for-profit or non-profit. The bill was promoted last month at a forum on the “Fight to Preserve Religious Liberty” at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which featured its House co-sponsors, Representatives Joe Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Diane Black, a Republican from Tennessee; and Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey. While the bill has 180 co-sponsors in the House, its prospects in the Senate are considerably weaker.  As a result, Pitts said there that Majority Leader Eric Cantor was receptive to a plan to attach the bill to a “must-pass” piece of legislation like a continuing resolution for appropriations or raising the debt ceiling limit. 

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Tenth Circuit’s holding in Hobby Lobby’s case, or a similar one from another appeals court, “it could have significant implications for religious liberty cases and for corporate law,” Lederman said, cautioning that “it's still very uncertain how the questions will be framed if and when the Court takes on the issue.” The ACLU’s Melling said that such a ruling, along with a future passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, for example, which would bar discrimination against LGBT people, could lead to challenges that an employer’s religious beliefs should relieve them from complying with the law. 

But Chief Judge Briscoe sounded a more urgent alarm in her dissent. The majority’s “ultimate holding, which is unprecedented,” she wrote, “is sufficiently ambiguous that neither the majority nor anyone else can confidently predict where it may lead.” For Hobby Lobby, however, the path is clear. As Steve Green writes in his book, “It is time for our nation to make a decision on what direction it is going to take”: to serve God or to “turn to the other gods.”

This report was supported by a 2012 Knight Grant for Reporting on Religion and American Public Life. The Knight Grants are a program of the University of Southern California’s Knight Program in Media and Religion.

Read the whole story
jdunning
4129 days ago
reply
Oh, ffs, now corporations are not just people, but *religious* people?

"The court found that corporations have the standing to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and have free-exercise rights under the First Amendment. “A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” a majority of the court’s full en banc panel of eight judges wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”"
Share this story
Delete

In the South, the GOP Is A-OK with Being the White People Party

1 Comment

We've been talking quite a bit about the split between House Republicans—safe in their own districts and opposed to immigration reform—and elite/establishment/national Republicans, worried about how the GOP will fare if it can't reach out to growing minority voting groups. But there's another group of Republicans that hasn't gotten as much attention, one that really makes up the anchor of the party: the Republicans who control state legislatures and governorships, particularly in the South. While we in Washington have been talking about the GOP's dire straits, things are very different down there. If you're a Republican in North Carolina, for instance, you aren't spending time worrying about the GOP's standing among Latinos. You're too busy running amok, fulfilling the legislative fantasies you've had for years, because now you control the legislature and the governor's office. These are the boom times.

The other day, Thomas Esdell wrote a post talking about the decline of black power in the South that has gone along with the solidification of Republican control there. It isn't that there are fewer black legislators in the South than there were 20 years ago; actually, there are more. But whereas most of them used to be in the majority party in their legislatures, now nearly all of them—298 out of 313—are in the minority. It's little exaggeration to say that Republicans in the South would be happy if every elected Democrat in their state was a black Democrat, and they've done everything in their power to make that happen:

Republicans in control of redistricting have two goals: the defeat of white Democrats, and the creation of safe districts for Republicans. They have achieved both of these goals by increasing the number of districts likely to elect an African-American. Black voters are gerrymandered out of districts represented by whites of both parties, making the Democratic incumbent weaker and the Republican incumbent stronger...

Where possible, Republican redistricting strategists have reduced the number of blacks in white Democratic legislative districts in order to render the incumbent vulnerable to Republican challenge. In other areas of the state, where it has not been not possible to "bleach" a district, Republicans have sharply increased the percentage of blacks to over 50 percent in order to encourage a successful black challenge to the white Democratic incumbent.

In private discussions, Republicans in the South talk explicitly about their goal of turning the Democratic Party into a black party, and in many Southern states they have succeeded. African-American legislators make up the majority of state House and Senate Democratic caucuses in most of the Southern states.

This isn't equally easy in every state, but in some places in the South, the proportion of white Republicans has grown so high that once they can segregate the black voters (so to speak), it doesn't just mean they're no longer vulnerable to Democratic challengers on an individual basis, it also means their hold on power in the state as a whole is virtually assured. To give you an idea of how Republican the white vote in the South is, I've made this chart showing the white vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 (I couldn't use 2012 because exit polls were only conducted in about half the states, but the ones we have show that the white vote was very similar in both elections):

In many places, and in the nation as a whole, the idea that the GOP could become (or stick to being) a nearly completely white party is very bad for Republicans. Consider that nationally, John McCain got 55 percent of the white vote, and Mitt Romney did slightly better, getting 59 percent. It wasn't enough for either of them to win. But if you're a Republican in, say, Alabama, where nearly nine out of ten whites vote Republican, you don't need a single vote from non-whites. An all-white party is just fine with you.

As our terrific state reporter Abby Rapoport has explained, for all the talk about polarization in Congress, polarization is even more extreme at the state level. And if you want to know what happens when Republicans get control, look at North Carolina. In 2010, Republicans finally won control of both houses of the legislature for the first time since Reconstruction, and in 2012 a Republican was elected governor. In the time since they've gone on a rampage, cutting unemployment benefits, Medicaid, education funding, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and basically anything that might help poor people. Now that the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, they'll be moving to impose voter-ID requirements, as well as things like eliminating early voting on Sundays, because black churches often encourage people to go vote after church. And of course, they're trying to make it all but impossible for women to get abortions.

Those Republican legislators aren't fretting about their party's future. They're too busy with the present, which for them is a dream come true.

Read the whole story
jdunning
4134 days ago
reply
This is unsurprising, but nevertheless depressing.

"Republicans in control of redistricting have two goals: the defeat of white Democrats, and the creation of safe districts for Republicans. They have achieved both of these goals by increasing the number of districts likely to elect an African-American. Black voters are gerrymandered out of districts represented by whites of both parties, making the Democratic incumbent weaker and the Republican incumbent stronger."
Share this story
Delete

Sharknado shows how out of touch Washington really is

1 Comment and 2 Shares
SyFy

SyFy

Last night, while Syfy’s Sharknado was dominating my Twitter feed, I wondered whether the overwhelming online interest would translate into an actual ratings bump for the film. Well, the ratings are in. Sharknado was a bust:

The movie blew up on Twitter last night, giving the impression that everyone with a TV was watching it. “Omg omg OMG‪#sharknado,” Mia Farrow tweeted last night, whileWashington Postpolitical reporter Chris Cillizza joked that he was writing an article about howSharknadowould affect the 2016 elections. But were all these people actually watching? According to theLos Angeles Times,Sharknadowas watched by only1 million people, which makes it a bust, even by Syfy standards. Most Syfy originals have an average viewership of 1.5 million people, with some getting twice that.

Dave Weigel draws exactly the right lesson: “Twitter, as read by the pundit/journo class, is a skewed and friendly field of public opinion. What happens on there doesn’t necessarily happen anywhere else.”

But it’s not just Twitter. It’s political media in general, of which journo-Twitter is only a particularly virulent subvirus. Stories that obsess Washington for days often fail to leave even the slightest dent in the electorate. And that’s a bit of a problem because the reason the political press typically gives for swarming some gaffe or conflict is that it’s going to matter in the election. We need that justification. Otherwise, what are we all doing writing article after article about some poor schmo who just phrased a banal point poorly? If it’s just a misstatement, it’s not a news story. But if it’ll move votes, then it is a news story.

In theory, this kind of coverage can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: We say it will move voters, and then we give it a bunch of coverage, and so it moves voters. But actually, that doesn’t really happen. Even when we try to get the public to care about some gaffe or conflict, they mostly ignore us. Remember “I like being able to fire people”? Or “Etch a Sketch”? Or “You didn’t build that”? None of them moved the polls.

Sharknado is particularly clear example of our short reach. After all, for the public to clearly respond to our coverage of gaffes, they typically have to change opinions they already hold — some Obama voters need to flip to Romney, or vice versa. That’s a high bar to clear. But in this, all they needed to do was turn on SyFy and watch something fun. And they didn’t even do that!

As I’ve written before, the first rule of being a political junkie is to always remember that you are a very weird person, and most people are not like you.

Related, kinda:28 possible sequels to Sharknado.

Read the whole story
jdunning
4135 days ago
reply
There probably won't be a Bearnami sequel to Sharknado:

"Sharknado was watched by only 1 million people, which makes it a bust, even by Syfy standards. Most Syfy originals have an average viewership of 1.5 million people, with some getting twice that."
Share this story
Delete

Fox & Friends Host Brian Kilmeade Hit a Baby in the Face With a Basketball

1 Comment

Fox & Friends, a show featuring the three derpiest anchors in all of television on a single couch, reached a momentous new level of haplessness this morning when host Brian Kilmeade nonchalantly tossed a basketball at a baby, hitting it in the face. Deep down, we all knew it was ... More »
    


Read the whole story
jdunning
4136 days ago
reply
Oh, Fox & Friends. Will you never learn?
Share this story
Delete

28th in the World, Baby!

1 Comment

Aaron Carroll draws our attention today to a new study in JAMA that compares American health outcomes with those in other rich countries. Overall, we're now in 28th place, sandwiched in between Chile and Poland. The massive chart below shows how we do on treating specific diseases. We're 31st on diabetes, 16th on breast cancer, 32nd on COPD, and (in our best showing) 8th on colon cancer.

The usual lazy response to studies like this is to claim that Americans are just less healthy than residents of other countries because we're fat and we lead crappy lifestyles. Maybe so. But that doesn't explain why we're not just bad, we're getting worse:

Between 1990 and 2010, among the 34 countries in the OECD, the US dropped from 18th to 27th in age-standardized death rate. The US dropped from 23rd to 28th for age-standardized years of life lost. It dropped from 20th to 27th in life expectancy at birth. It dropped from 14th to 26th for healthy life expectancy. The only bit of good news was that the US only dropped from 5th to 6th in years lived with disability.

We don't have the best healthcare in the world. We just don't. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world and the best-paid doctors in the world, but that's it. On pretty much every other measure, we suck.

Read the whole story
jdunning
4136 days ago
reply
Best healthcare in the world!

"Overall, we're now in 28th place, sandwiched in between Chile and Poland."
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories