Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 25 2016, @12:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the can't-be-good-at-everything dept.

Every study ranking nations by health or living standards invariably offers Scandinavian social democracies a chance to show their quiet dominance. A new analysis published this week—perhaps the most comprehensive ever—is no different. But what it does reveal are the broad shortcomings of sustainable development efforts, the new shorthand for not killing ourselves or the planet, as well as the specific afflictions of a certain North American country.

Iceland and Sweden share the top slot with Singapore as world leaders when it comes to health goals set by the United Nations, according to a report published in the Lancet . Using the UN's sustainable development goals as guideposts, which measure the obvious (poverty, clean water, education) and less obvious (societal inequality, industry innovation), more than 1,870 researchers in 124 countries compiled data on 33 different indicators of progress toward the UN goals related to health.

The massive study emerged from a decade-long collaboration focused on the worldwide distribution of disease. About a year and a half ago, the researchers involved decided their data might help measure progress on what may be the single most ambitious undertaking humans have ever committed themselves to: survival. In doing so, they came up with some disturbing findings, including that the country with the biggest economy (not to mention, if we're talking about health, multibillion-dollar health-food and fitness industries) ranks No. 28 overall, between Japan and Estonia.

[...]

The voluminous work that went into the paper may make measuring the UN goals on health seem even more daunting: The researchers were able so far to evaluate just 70 percent of the health-related indicators called for by the UN.

It may not be pretty, but "we have no chance of success if we can't agree on what's critical," said Linda Fried, dean of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @12:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @12:47AM (#406459)

    > Can you name something specific in which she participated that benefited you or where you thought what she did was the proper thing to do?

    Hello, McFly? National healthcare was her baby decades before Obamacare.

    As secretary of state she more than doubled the amount of aids drugs distributed by PEPFAR for the same cost. [politifact.com]

    During that same time the clinton foundation was a key part of getting cheap aids drugs to 9 million+ patients. [politifact.com]

    If your standard for her actions is perfection, then she's a failure. As is everyone else on the planet.

    > A reminder that both the Greens and the Libertarians are on the ballot in enough states to hypothetically get 270 votes in the Electoral College.

    If you don't live in a swing state, vote for any of those.
    But if you do live in a swing state, then any vote not for clinton is a vote for trump.
    As bernie sanders said, this is not the time for a protest vote. [cbsnews.com] Unless you care more about protest than actual governance.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @02:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @02:08AM (#406498)

    National healthcare

    That one was a fumble back in the 1990s.
    Not even partial credit from me.
    What I would have liked to have seen was a simple lowering of the Medicare eligibility age by 5 years.
    Repeat for each new congressional term (every 2 years) or even each presidential term (every 4 years).
    Just think where we'd be now.
    Yeah, dreaming. I know.

    in a swing state

    Oh, yeah. I did forget to mention that part.
    ...then again, when you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get evil.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @02:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @02:39AM (#406509)

      > That one was a fumble back in the 1990s.
      > Not even partial credit from me.

      Just because she didn't succeed against overwhelming odds, she doesn't even get credit for trying?
      That is the fucked up reasoning of the "she's a bitch" brigade.

      > What I would have liked to have seen was a simple lowering of the Medicare eligibility age by 5 years.

      Nobody asked you what you wanted to see. This is about her, not you.

      > ...then again, when you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get evil.

      That's a cliched mindless trope. There is no pure good. If you think any candidate is pure good, you just haven't looked at them closely enough. Either that or your standards are those of a simpleton.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @07:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @07:00PM (#406719)

        I've looked at who's running.
        The stated platform (for the second time) of the candidate I have picked (as well as her life's actions) is much, Much, MUCH better than the record of the one you like.
        ...regardless of how your person tried (and failed).

        ...and I recognize that my choices (in a reliably Blue state) are not binary.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]