Americans stopped growing in the 1950s, and with the tremendous rise in obesity, we're fatter, too. What's stunting our growth? Could it be junk food? Hmm ... Ray Kroc did open his first McDonald's in 1955. Now we're a fast food nation.

John Komlos, an economics professor at the University of Munich in Germany, has extensively studied the historical growth patterns of nations around the world. His 2004 paper, "From the Tallest to (One of) the Fattest: The Enigmatic Fate of the American Population in the 20th Century" revealed while America's growth halted in the 1950s, the developed nations of Europe had a huge growth spurt. Here are a few nuggets to ponder:

• At the end of World War II, the average Dutch male was 5 foot 7, about 3 inches shorter than the average American male. Fast forward to today and Dutch males are the tallest people in the world, standing at an average height of 6 foot 1 inch.
• Scandinavian males are just behind the Dutch, in second place for height.
• Genetics determine an individual's height in relation to the national norm, but external factors determine a population's height.
• Komlos points the finger at two external culprits for America's more recent growth stall -- a widening divide between rich and poor in the U.S., along with a lack of universal health care. Komlos' research has not established a definitive causal link on these points, but he has shown that the weath and health care in countries such as the Netherlands and Scandinavian nations is more evenly distributed. Worldwide, U.S. ranks near the bottom on even distribution of wealth, and politically, universal health care is a dirty word.
• Komlos believes shorter U.S. heights may be connected with our widening waistlines.
• Analysis of recent height data indicates Americans may be growing again, but this trend is bypassing black females.

Source

In our community, we have a volunteer clinic run by local doctors to serve the uninsured. They do not take Medicare or Medicaid patients, nor will they serve patients with insurance. Instead, their goal is to get health care to those in the middle who have too much of an income to qualify for Medicaid, but who can't afford health insurance. The need is so great, however, that patients start lining up early in the morning before the clinic opens and often wait long hours to be seen.

Oregon has a similar, state-run idea. They put aside money in 1995 for this same group of people, but closed enrollment a few years ago. Now, however, there are a few thousand openings and the state is holding a lottery for new applicants. So far, 80,000 people have applied.

The program covers basic health care and prescriptions, as well as some limited dental and vision. Applicants will find out over the course of the next few months if they qualify.

Source

Now that health care has become the proverbial obesity sufferer eating at the economy while politicians prepare for an election year, the issue is finally grabbing the attention it's deserved for quite some time. Money and emergencies tend to motivate.

As Brian White pointed out in a recent post , Clinton finally trotted out her plan on the heels of Obama and Edwards while the Republican candidates continue to talk about terror.

The plans have differences. But basically, they give hope for the 40-some million uninsured and aim to put tax credits in the pockets of others who are thankfully insured, but shelling out thousands per year in premiums, deductibles and co-pays to keep their families healthy. You know, the lucky ones, paying dearly to live and work in the richest country in the world.

Clinton has scored many reviewers' points for pragmatism. Obama claims his plan is similar to Clinton's but better. Edwards said the same, but goes a step further in the fine print. His proposal, which offers more detail than the other candidates', includes cutting off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009 if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then. I've marked my calendar. But, of course, Election Day comes first.

Source

In the health care debate, many point to the high cost of the universal care favored by many European countries. However, new research shows that, the United States actually spends more to treat its citizens, and obesity may be to blame.

The US has almost double the number of obese adults as the average European country. Subsequently, Americans have significantly higher instances of obesity-related diseases like cancer and diabetes. Because of this, the country spends an additional $100 billion to $150 billion on treatment.

There are also more current or former smokers in the US -- about half, compared with only 43 percent of Europeans. This, coupled with the obesity numbers, means the US population is generally sicker than their European counterparts.

These factors, combined with the higher prices the US pays for medical treatment, mean that 16 percent of the gross domestic product (about $2 trillion annually) is spent on treating the population -- more per capita than any country in Europe.

Source

With the race for the 2008 White House about to get underway in a big way, so are the largest issues facing candidates and the public. Front and center is the debate over the poor excuse of a health care system in the richest country in the world.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is readying his proposal for a type of universal health care and plans to unveil a plan to set up universal health care in the U.S. by 2012, which will be paid for by employers and tax increases on the wealthy.

While I'm not sure taxing the wealthy to subsidize medical care for the poor is the best answer (this is a capitalist country, by the way), Obama's plan has its highs and lows. The need to have all citizens (note: documented citizens) covered under some kind of health care plan is paramount. The road to the solution, though, will be a biggie until November of 2008.

Source

Although America is the richest nation on the planet, we cannot give health care away to all citizens like other countries (mostly in Europe). Why is this? Because we're a capitalist republic, not a democratic socialist state.

Will that change, and should it? Should citizens in the U.S. have access to leading health care for free and at any time instead of over 40 million not even having any type of health insurance?

Who will pay for the subsidization of health care for all? Those are all tough questions, and some of the current U.S. Presidential hopefuls have ideas. One thing seems clear: even if you are an ardent Republican who believes in the individualism of people's personal responsibility, is it not the right thing to do in guaranteeing health care to every citizen in the U.S.?

What do you think? If you're uninsured, I'd like to hear from you. Small employers, please speak up.

Source

It's rare to see Republicans and Democrats agree almost across all lines on anything these days, but there is one rather large health issue right now that seems to have banded the parties together in rare form: the health insurance of children.

As I posted on a few days ago, the federally funded program known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) -- one that provides health insurance to six million U.S. children -- is under assault from the latest budget figures from the current Presidential administration.

As a result, many powerful politicians from both sides of the fence are jumping in to support more funding and support for the program. Said Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, "Justice cannot abide nine million children with no health insurance ... this is my top priority, as far as domestic issues, and I believe it's the top priority of Democratic senators as well."

Source

With President Bush strongly supporting his plan to assist U.S. citizens pay for their own health insurance using private health-care initiatives and tax breaks, the Governors of several states still have a few issues that need resolution before they all back the president with full (or partial) support.

The "group of Governors" want an increase funding for a health-care program that insures millions of children of the working poor, although they have said words of partial compromise have indeed come from the current Presidential administration.

The problem, as always, is money. The stake? Health care coverage for six million people -- most of whom are children. A second qualm is what t do about insuring those citizens that remain uninsured.

Source

With political groups and possible U.S. Presidential candidates all chiming in on what needs to be done to fix the American health care system, a group of hospitals has put forth its plan to tackle the issue of covering the nation's 47 million uninsured.

The proposal from the Federation of American hospitals includes mandatory coverage for all and subsidies for the working poor. Although the group only covers about 20% of the hospital industry, its latest proposal stands in line with all the other suggestions that range from privately-funded health care accounts to free health care for all.

This latest proposal would increase federal spending by $115 billion and would actually build on -- not replace -- the employer-based health system where most Americans already receive health coverage.

Source

What is the solution to universal health care here in the U.S.? Some politicians side with the angle of taxing the well to-do to pay for the health care of less fortunate citizens.

Yet other politicians want to privatize health care and take a large part of the burden of responsibility from companies -- which provide tens of millions with health insurance -- and place individual responsibility squarely on the shoulders of citizens.

Where is your vote going? If it's with the first group, then you may like Sen. John Edwards plan -- and one he most likely will trumpet as he runs for President later this year heading to the 2008 Presidential elections. Edwards wants to roll back the recent tax cuts given by President Bush to families making more than $200,000 to help pay for universal health care.

What is your take? Whatever it is, one fact can't be denied -- tens of millions of American citizens are without medical coverage today.

Source

With the presidential hopefuls now beginning to throw their hats into the ring for the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections, one thing that will be at the top of everyone's campaign platform will be health care, and re-vamping the system here in the U.S. to tray and take care of the 40+ million citizens who don't have health insurance -- and thus, little access to health care.

John Edwards -- the 2004 Presidential running mate of candidate and U.S. Senator John Kerry -- will be running for president in 2008 -- and many eyes and ears will be wondering if he'll trot out a same-old incremental plan to help make health insurance more affordable.

Will Edwards put forth a plan that covers every U.S. citizen this time, unlike his previous plan? If so, I'll be very interested in hearing the details as they come out of his campaign. Read link - subscription required for full access.

Source

While watching President Bush's State of the Union address last night, I was wondering when Bush would get more specific on his proposed health care plan for U.S. citizens.

Of course, these types of speeches are not meant to be specific, but are just intended to give a general overview. When all else fails, I wanted to see exactly what he proposed.

More of a "private insurance plan" than anything, Bush's plan would be to give a tax deduction for privately-funded health care benefits, at a government cost of $30 billion to $40 billion annually.

Bush's plan would start in 2009 and be revenue neutral over its first 10 years. Is this better news than the current state of the Iraq war? You make that call :-)

Source