OK, Bubba, Where did You go to Law School? Best Quality vs. Best Value is a Hot Topic : How About a Quality of Football Team Correlation?

Jennifer Pohlman at the September 2009 National Jurist has an article on their list of the top 65 “best value” law schools, reporting under the title “Best Bang! for your buck“.

Hat tip here to Debra Cassens Weiss at the ABA Journal Law News Now and her article, North Carolina Central Tops List of Best Value Law Schools, citing to Paul L. Caron’s TaxProf Blog, where the posting Best Value Law Schools compares the National Jurist “Best Value Rank” with the “US News Rank” of “Best Law Schools” in the nation.

We found it interesting to see that Big 12, SEC and Big 10 schools (traditionally the top college football conferences) dominate the “Best Value” law school rankings, suggesting an unexpected and of course speculative direct correlation between the quality of the football team and the “best value” of the law school ;-)

It is gratifying to this writer – as a strongly biased Husker undergraduate graduate – to see that the University of Nebraska (UNL) law school ranks 3rd in the “Best Value” list, which might just mean that the Cornhuskers very soon may again become a national football force to be reckoned with.

We say this as a “biglaw” Stanford Law School graduate, who also recognizes that there are significant differences between two universities like the University of Nebraska and Stanford – unless of course you are talking women’s volleyball, where team talents are comparable, but where the Husker fan base puts the Cardinal to shame.

It is true, of course, that one most keep in mind that top law schools open career doors that generally remain closed to graduates of law schools not having top national reputations – but this is part of a selection process which is based on individual school (and other) performance stretching back to elementary school.

You do the work – and you get the rewards. If you slouch, you have settle for a lower tier.

If school and test performance is thus lower and a person’s general track record is not as good as another’s – this may say nothing about slumbering talent or intellect – then that person, barring affirmative action or personal connections of some kind, is very unlikely to get into a top tier law school, and that is the way that it should be. Performance is rewarded. Slouching is not.

But this does not prohibit someone from emerging as a star later in life – which happens, more often than one thinks. Adolescents grow up, get married, have children, become responsible, and emerge from the shadow of previous slouching days. Life can be a strong motivator. In the long run, it is not where you went to school, but what you do with your life afterwards, that counts.

Advertisements

Top 100 Law Firms in the United States by Prestige According to the 2010 Vault (Vault.com) Rankings

Update: October 9, 2009. We have had a number of people trying to reach the Vault.com Top 100 Law Firm list from our pages and we are sorry that our links below no longer work. To see the Vault.com Top 100 law firms you have to go to the front Vault.com page, then click on the menu item “Industries”. On the subsequent page click “law firms” in the list. On the next page click “Top 100 Law Firms” under Vault Industry Rankings. Sorry, but our direct links below to Vault.com are no longer functional and no new direct links appear to be possible, except to the front page.

Go to Vault.com.
___________________________________

Vault.com has published its

2010 Vault (Vault.com) Law Firm Prestige Rankings

with its familiar line-up of “big law”.

Interesting – with few exceptions – is that the current recession and the substantial effect of the financial crisis on law firm hiring – and firing – practices has had as good as no effect on individual law firm prestige. We see, for example, that our former law firm in New York City, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, has retained its 13th position from last year.

Here are Vault.com’s top 25 law firms – see the full list of the top 100 and respective “scores” at Vault:

1 Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, New York, NY
2 Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY
3 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates, New York, NY
4 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY
5 Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY
6 Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY
7 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY
8 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY
9 Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC
10 Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL
11 Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC
12 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY
13 Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY
14 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA
15 Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL
16 WilmerHale, Washington, DC
17 Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA
18 Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC
19 Jones Day, Washington, DC
20 White & Case LLP, New York, NY
21 Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY
22 O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
23 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, Los Angeles, CA
24 Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA
25 Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, DC

ABA Journal launches Legal Rebels Project providing Profiles, Videos and Audio Slideshows about the Leading Innovators in the Profession of Law

We just received this announcement from the ABA Journal:

We thought you and your blawg’s readers would be interested in the ABA Journal’s Legal Rebels project, which launches today.

Over the course of the next three months, we’ll be profiling 50 of the profession’s leading innovators at http://www.legalrebels.com. The first seven profiles, along with videos and audio slideshows that illustrate the changes they’re trying to make in the practice of law, are now online. We’ll be adding at least three new profiles to the site every week until Thanksgiving.

You can also directly participate in the project:

Sign (http://www.legalrebels.com/manifesto) the Rebels Manifesto, which was written by lawyers nationwide.

Ride shotgun (http://www.legalrebels.com/tour) our two-week Rebels Tour, kicking off Sept. 14.

Stay connected (http://www.legalrebels.com/connected) to the project through your favorite social media tool.

Check out (http://www.legalrebels.com/buzz) what lawyers are saying about the Rebels.

Buy (http://www.zazzle.com/legalrebels) the Rebels T-shirt featured on our September cover, a mouse pad, or even a Rebels skateboard.

Nominate (http://www.legalrebels.com/nominate) someone you think we should profile.

We think of this project more as a journey than as a destination–a search for the future of the practice of law in America. We hope you and your readers will come along for the ride.

– Ed
________________________________

Edward A. Adams

Editor and Publisher

ABA Journal

The Natural Born Requirement of the Presidential Eligibility Clause : Preempted by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution ?

In connection with our previous posting we have been following – with bemused legal interest – the uninformed and in part duped “Birthers” false campaign against President Obama’s legitimate birth as a U.S. citizen, a “natural birth” amply demonstrated by his birth certificate:


The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have denied hearing this issue – not only because there is no serious legal question about Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency, but also – in the case of the Supremes – because the present Supreme Court would not likely have the necessary courage to correctly declare the applicable Constitutional Presidential eligibility provision to be unconstitutional, as it surely is in view of the 5th and 14th Amendments to that Constitution.

What is disturbing is that many American citizens – all of whom trace their own citizenship to what were once “foreign born” immigrants – now try to draw a class distinction between citizens who are “foreign born” and those who are “native born”, as if the place of birth would somehow better guarantee a citizen’s loyalty, which, as we know in the age of terrorism, is simply not the case. Critical is not the paperwork of birth but rather the internal allegiance.

The law recognizes no legal distinction between Americans based on natural or naturalized citizenship (naturalized means that the citizenship is the grant of a citizenship which is the equivalent to “natural born”), and all citizens – once they are citizens – are seen by the law to be “equal” before the law, without exception.

The clearly discriminatory provision of the Presidential eligibility clause is surely unconstitutional today by virtue of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which would absolutely prohibit the creation of two classes of U.S. citizens, one of which would have superior rights. Indeed, the current discussion in the USA is the direct and expectable product of the anti-American notion that there are two different classes of citizens in the USA. Such a discriminatory provision only feeds the fires of discrimination and divisiveness. We say this not only on behalf of Obama but also on behalf of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who should not be denied the opportunity to be U.S. President by an anachronistic law.

The applicable Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. ” [emphasis added]

As discussed at the Wikipedia:

“The requirements for citizenship, and its very definition in American statute law, have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” To date, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has been the only U.S. law explicitly conferring statutory “natural born” citizenship. In 1795, Congress removed the words “natural born” from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, under sections 301–309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401–1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” The phrase “natural born citizen,” however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.

The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or more U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time. Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as “citizens at birth,” including (for example) all persons “born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s].”

The definition of the “United States”, for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands. Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of “outlying possessions of the United States” (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. “nationality” but not U.S. “citizenship”) is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department’s Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the “United States”? This does not affect citizenship via jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship. The State Department also asserts that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents. Ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision to settle the matter once an American citizen born abroad runs for and wins the presidency.

Here is our own discussion of this topic as posted previously at LawPundit:

“The Presidential Eligibility clause ….

The Yale Law Journal has picked up on this issue at its online Pocket Part companion, citing to
Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988) writing:

Last week, the usually obscure Natural-Born Citizen Clause of Article II of the Constitution became the subject of newfound media attention. As the New York Times reported, the candidacy of Sen. John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone, has revived a “musty debate”: Is a person born abroad of American parents a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president? As noted in the article, Jill Pryor, writing in the Yale Law Journal twenty years ago, examined this very issue.

What interests us there is her Footnote 11, where she writes:

11. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and , subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”)., .
The natural-born citizen clause and the naturalization powers clause come together in section one of the Fourteenth Amendment since the Amendment both distinguishes native-born and naturalized citizens (“born [in] or naturalized”) and equalizes them (both are guaranteed the same rights under the Amendment). See infra Section II-B.“[emphasis added]

Hence, no State should be able deny ANY citizen from running for the office of President of the United States, for all citizens have the same rights and there is no difference between them in the eyes of the law.

However, the 14th Amendment applies to the States and not to the Federal Government:

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V ….”

In other words, the same rule applies to the Federal Government through the 5th Amendment:

[I]n Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954), the Supreme Court averred that it was absurd that the Constitution could deny the states the power to abridge equal protection of the laws, yet permit that power to the Congress. “[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive,” reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court thus interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence.

What this means in terms of the development of modern Constitutional Law and Human Rights is that the Presidential Eligibility requirements are no longer valid law. If “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens” are both guaranteed the same rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, then it can not be that they have different rights as to their eligibility to be elected President of the United States, so that the original language of the Presidential Eligibility clause is clearly preempted by those same 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.“

Socio-Economic Data and Demographics in the USA by Country, State, County and Neighborhood : Education : Occupation : Income : Housing : Religion

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants and their progeny, and this is particularly true in the current era, although the current recession may be slowing immigration for the time being. People go where opportunity knocks.

In better days, before the current recession and the discussion about “natural born” citizens, one used to talk about 1st-Generation Americans as opposed to e.g. 2nd-Generation Americans. Recently, the country has gone nutty on this topic, and we have thus been examining the facts.

The New York Times at “Remade in America” in its Immigration Explorer features an interactive nationwide map from SocialExplorer.com which shows the distribution of foreign-born inhabitants in the United States by county (clickable). Immigration has been the trademark and lifeblood of America for centuries, so that this is not surprising, but what has changed is the origin of “where” – the countries from which the immigrants are coming – and that is the core of the problem., with the balance of immigration having shifted from Europe to immigration from 3rd-world countries.

Social Explorer – by the way – is not only a useful subscription-based website for information found in socio-economic maps, but it also provides free access to U.S. Census data maps for the years 1790 to 2000 for the U.S.A., broken down by States, particular counties, or even exact streets and neighborhoods – for the following parameters:

Population, Age, Sex, Race, Income, Family Structure, Marital Status, Group Quarters, Unmarried Partners, Education, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Sector, Industry, Occupation, Occupation by Sex, Unemployment, Poverty, Travel time to Work, Transportation, Residence, Veterans, Foreign Born, Foreign Born Place of Birth, Ancestry, Asian and Hispanic Groups, Asian and Hispanic Groups (%), Ancestry Place of Birth (%), Foreign Born Place of Birth (%)

These maps show clearly the changing nature of population demographics in America and the new challenges that the citizens of the United States face in the coming years.

World Bank Group issues Business Rankings relating to the Ease of Doing Business in Any Country : Startups, Taxes, Property, Contracts

How conducive in any country is the regulatory environment for starting a business and for doing business? How about taxes, property, and contracts?

The World Bank Group gives us a guide to answer such questions through their newly released Doing Business Economy Rankings, where, for example, the United States ranks 3rd overall in the world and Germany 25th.

The rankings can also be customized in output by region, population and income.

Hat tip to Dr. Marlena Corcoran for her comment about these rankings at the German American ExecuNet at LinkedIn.

The United States Lags Far Behind Many World Countries in Medical Care : It is a Disgrace : A National Health Care System Should Be Inevitable

We posted previously about this topic at LawPundit but add a bit more here, as we just received an email from David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to the President of the United States, about the new White House Reality Check on Health Insurance Reform. Check it out.

Axelrod writes (we have added some additional formatting to enable easier reading):

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that’s actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we’ve just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM: REALITY CHECK

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

  • Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
  • Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
  • Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
  • Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
  • Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
  • Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
  • Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
  • Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

  • Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a “government takeover” of health care or lead to “rationing.” To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
  • We can’t afford reform: It’s the status quo we can’t afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
  • Reform would encourage “euthanasia”: It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
  • Vets’ health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans’ access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President’s budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
  • Reform will benefit small business – not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
  • Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare “doughnut” hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
  • You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
  • No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

  • Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
  • Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
  • Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
  • Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
  • Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
  • The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
  • Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people – one in every three Americans under the age of 65 – were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
  • The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance – projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Our LawPundit take on this topic:

One of the areas in which the United States is unquestionably behind the rest of the civilized world is in medical health care. Already in the year 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the US health care system a comparatively disastrous 37th in the world, just behind Costa Rica.

A British Medical Journal report ranked America 16th in the world in terms of health care.

As the New York Times wrote subsequently in 2007, things have gotten worse since then:

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have ‘the best health care system in the world,’ … the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care….

More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund … ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it….

Insurance Coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage….

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens….

Healthy Lives. … We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care.

Life and Death. … In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema.

Top-of-the-line care. … The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally.”

Let us then turn to 2008 and some of the most up-to-date figures in the freely downloadable 2008 America’s Health Rankings (TM) – ©2008 United Health Foundation. All Rights Reserved – a joint effort of United Health Foundation, the American Public Health Association and the Partnership for Prevention. The Rankings report was funded entirely by United Health Foundation based on the following sources: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Medical Association, The Dartmouth Atlas Project, Trust for America’s Health, and the World Health Organization. Project by Arundel Street Consulting, Inc., St. Paul, Minn. and Design by Aldrich Design, St. Paul, Minn.

The Findings of those Rankings point to a core American health care problem:

“… despite spending more than any other country on health care, the United States continues to slip further behind other countries…

while the U.S. is spending more on total health care when compared to other countries, the country is getting less access, patient safety, efficiency and equity.”

One of the biggest problems in modernizing American health care is that the taxpayers who have health care are screaming that they are going to have to pay for the medical care of those who do not have health insurance currently.

This is a seemingly reasonable argument made from the point of view that everyone who “pays” for his or her health costs or health insurance pays the full price for medicial treatments and services, but that argument fails, for the following reasons.

All of the health products and services to which anyone in society is entitled by virtue of money in their pockets are blessings that have been in creation over millennia by all of human society, created by countless individual efforts as well as by the various institutions that man has developed over millennia. The community of man has created them – we are ALL the freeloading benefactors of all of the technologies that our predecessors have created for us.

For example, antibiotics that can save the life of a rich man or woman cost a pittance as compared to their life-saving worth. How much would you pay for antibiotics if we measured them at their actual full value – how about, say, one-half of a patient’s net worth, would that be a fair price to save your life?

The costs of innovation and of the development of numerous medications have in the course of years been spread out over the mass of citizens and institutions and that is the only reason that medications are as relatively cheap as they are, when compared to the benefit that many of them produce. The same applies to all of the medical wonders that are available to anyone today, not to mention the education and training of doctors and medical personnel, etc., as well as medical research, a lot of which is publicly financed, funded or supported, also by the very same working taxpayers who themselves may not be able to afford adequate health insurance coverage.

No one pays the “full value” of the medical services from which they benefit. Full payment would involve reimbursement of everyone in history and in the country who has contributed to put present medical health care at the level at which it is now found. Impossible.

Those who scream that they are subsidizing the health care costs of others forget that their own health care has been vastly subsidized by the societal system as a whole and that they are the selfish beneficiaries of the work of countless other humans who they can not and never will properly reimburse.

More than that, everyone living in a free nation such as the United States has countless other millions to thank, who founded the country and made it grow, who, when needed, fought in wars of liberty to create the free system from which every citizen prospers, or who otherwise contributed to the building of a great nation and to the creation of its working infrastructure.

Anyone crying that he now has to help others by giving some of his wealth to the common weal does not understand his historical debt to the past and to humanity in general. It is selfishness and ingratitude at the highest level. YOU did not make America’s wealth but America made YOUR wealth.

America, the fact that there is no national provision of basic health care for all of our citizens is a disgrace.