- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The United States has scored poorly on a campaign group's list of the best countries in which to be a mother, managing only 28th place, and bettered by many smaller and poorer countries.
One factor that dragged the US ranking down was its maternal mortality rate, which at one in 4,800 is one of the highest in the developed world, said the report.
It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.
Only 61 percent of children were enrolled in preschool, which on this indicator made it the seventh-lowest country in the developed world, it said.
Now that we've passed healthcare reform, I wish we could deny it to every rabid neo-con that fought tooth and nail to defeat it. Let those imbeciles be the ones that die of preventable diseases.
While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:
Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.
everything has failed, really? pshaw.While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:
Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.
why is that stupid?Some of those things are stupid, like enrolled in preschool.
Why would that make any difference?
why is that stupid?
While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:
Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.
So you'd consider our highway system and military to be failures? Because they're the best in the world. Our post office runs efficiently as hell, do you know any private companies that will take a letter 2000 miles and deliver it by hand for less than a buck?
Health care? Every country that has adopted UHC has found it to be less expensive with better outcomes. Every time. If that's not good evidence, I don't know what is. There are countries with UHC that deliver their medicine entirely through private insurance and private practitioners and still do better than we do. There are others that go full-fledged socialized medicine, and they do better too. Then there are lots of countries with a system that is in between. They do better than we do.
To not see the trend is to be blind.
So you'd consider our highway system and military to be failures? Because they're the best in the world. Our post office runs efficiently as hell, do you know any private companies that will take a letter 2000 miles and deliver it by hand for less than a buck?
Health care? Every country that has adopted UHC has found it to be less expensive with better outcomes. Every time. If that's not good evidence, I don't know what is. There are countries with UHC that deliver their medicine entirely through private insurance and private practitioners and still do better than we do. There are others that go full-fledged socialized medicine, and they do better too. Then there are lots of countries with a system that is in between. They do better than we do.
To not see the trend is to be blind.
It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.
Very true, rivvrat.
Another statistic not accounted for but might tell a different story are the # of births that our advances in technology and medicine have allowed to carry further into the pregnancy/birth - even if the infant didn't survive infancy or childhood.
It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.
See, this is such BS. No other country counts pre-mature births as births. If an infant is born pre-maturely in most other countries and dies, it isn't counted in the infant mortality rate. But in the US, we take heroic measures for such infants and we DO count them in our live births/infant mortality rates, which inflates our numbers of infant mortality.
The US *accurately* reports the live births and deaths. Most other countries do not.
See, this is such BS. No other country counts pre-mature births as births. If an infant is born pre-maturely in most other countries and dies, it isn't counted in the infant mortality rate. But in the US, we take heroic measures for such infants and we DO count them in our live births/infant mortality rates, which inflates our numbers of infant mortality.
The US *accurately* reports the live births and deaths. Most other countries do not.
Australia does, and we have a similar standard of neo-natal care, and we came in second.
The big gripe with comparing different country's medical care systems and health outcomes, is that all these countries are different.
Different in demographics, culture/lifestyle, environment and population size.
Could we really compare the U.K. to Japan evenly?
No because they have entirely different cultures/lifestyles and different demographics (not sure about population size.)
To make it easier to understand, we know that Australia has a larger amount of people that develop skin cancer, compared to the U.S. or Europe.
Australia also has universal health care.
Would it be fair to say that the increase in people with skin cancer is because of universal health care?
Of course not, it's because of geographical location.
Most supporters UHC are saying that people in countries with it are healthier because of it.
They use unadjusted statistics as "proof."
Does that make sense?
that does make sense, and i agree with it totally, but rivrrats argument that its different simply because of the way births are recorded is what i have a problem with, as Australia and America both use the WHO definition of a live birth.
I only know some countries have different definitions.
The U.S. has several depending on who you ask.
Check these links out.
The title is loaded with this one but he does cite empirical studies.
Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others
The reality of infant mortality rates - OmniNerd
Pretty crazy how different things are calculated and what information is left in, out and just all around screwy.
The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:
...some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence... Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20
The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.
And you can prove this of course right? A non biased source with actual facts that is .....
?Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe? | Journalism Center on Children & FamiliesIn 2005, the latest year that the international ranking is available for, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel.
The report, produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compares infant mortality rates between the United States and Europe, with special attention to two factors that determine the infant mortality rate: gestational age-specific infant mortality rates and the rate of preterm births. It argues that the high infant mortality rate in the United States is due to the high percentage of preterm births, which has risen 36 percent since 1984.
The table is at the link.Differences in the reporting of live births between countries can have an impact on international comparisons of infant mortality.
In the United States and in 14 of 19 European countries, all live births at any birthweight or gestational age are required to be reported. Also, since no live births occur before 12 weeks of gestation, the requirement for Norway that all live births at 12 weeks of gestation or more be reported is substantially the same as for countries where all live births are required to be reported.
Table 1. Requirements for reporting a live birth, United States and selected European countries, 2004
Some of those things are stupid, like enrolled in preschool.
Why would that make any difference?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?