Doctors Are The 3rd Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225,000 Deaths Every Year
In July of 2000 there was a great article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , one of the best articles ever written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

This information was published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author of the article is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to medical mistakes and poor health.

DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 - unnecessary surgery (8)
7,000 - medication errors in hospitals (9)
20,000 - other errors in hospitals (10)
80,000 - infections in hospitals (10)
106,000 - non-error, negative effects of drugs



This is a total of 225,000 deaths per year from a physician's activity, manner, or therapy.

Dr. Starfield reminds us to keep the following in mind when interpreting these numbers:

1st, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
2nd, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
3rd, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.1
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are an overestimate, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:

116 million extra physician visits
77 million extra prescriptions
17 million emergency department visits
8 million hospitalizations
3 million long-term admissions
199,000 additional deaths
$77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

According to one study(2), an estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.

This situation might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,(3,4) the U. S. ranks an average of 12th (one up from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the United States on several indicators was:

13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall (14)
11th for postneonatal mortality
13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the U. S. as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.

Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the United States 's low ranking.

Among 29 countries, the United States is 2nd only to Japan in the availability of computed tomography (CT) scanners and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units per million population. (17)

Japan, however, ranks highest on health whereas the United States ranks among the lowest.

Journal American Medical Association 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5

If this information is surprising to you, you can find out more about the medical establishment in the United States and how public relations firms shape and manipulate the public's beliefs on the "Why you believe what you believe" page.

From where I stand, things could get no worst,

These pet projects or pork spending items that came out of the house should not have been included and Pelosi should have reigned in her's and other democrats wish list until this thing passed and fought republicans once they have proven to Americans that they could be trusted. But now all she has shown us and Obama that she and other democrats cannot be trusted.

It's called being irresponsible: Neither Obama or Pelosi are responsible people. Pelosi should have reigned in her's and other Democrats wish list but she didn't so Obama should have vetoed the Damn bill. Obama was harsh during his campaign about wish list but he sacrificed this Nation's future trying to be a "GREAT" president. Our children ,their children's children will pay the bill!

The bill that you are referencing was not part of the stimulus package, it is part of the budget, I "think" with the problem President Obama was having with reaching out to party members he thought the country would be better served if he signed the bill.

Obama made it clear during his campaign he would not tolerate pork filled bills,but yet he is doing exactly the opposite.

That was the campaign, now we have to deal with the reality.

That was the campaign, now we have to deal with the reality.


You're exactly right; and the reality is our children ,their children's children will be paying the debts,unnecessary debts too!

To further put my "ducks in a row," I am not arguing that Congress doesn't have the ability to do so according to the Constitution. What I am arguing is that according to the WTO, which is a binding treaty that was signed and ratified by the US Congress, the United States can not impose unfair and unequal tarrifs, taxes, or duties on the products or labor of other countries. Because the President and the Congress has signed and ratified this particular treaty, they have agreed to bide by the rulings of the WTO no matter what the Constitution says. Just because you say your car isn't totalled when it goes over a cliff doesn't mean it isn't.

I heard on the radio yesterday (while driving to work) Americans feel more confident as a whole in the economy. Why can't the republicans give him his credit. He is doing a good job!

I think it goes to show the President has very little if anything to do with the economy.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President****Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

And it's the mess that Reagan started that is now biting you in the ass - namely the deregulation, cutting taxes to the rich, tripling military spending, etc.

Unless................ It's President Carter? 30 years later.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President****Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Proves my point. Had to be a republican. Reagan brought this country back on it's feet after Carter damn nearly destroyed it.

But no one on the left seems to have a problem with Obama's record spending. And he isn't even cutting his military spending that much--but watch how the military itself gets shredded.

And there's a 4% increase in the defense budget - that doesn't strike me as much of a cut in spending there. Just not the massive increase that they're used to.

Nobody with any sense is happy about increased debt. It's just that not doing it is worse.