U.S. infant mortality rate among worse

[palerider]

More conservative nonsense. Lets see, according to you, liberals have destroyed the black family and blacks are ignorant of most health care issues. In other words, blacks are not responsible for their own actions and they are generally less intelligent. Do you have any more stereotypes that border on racism?

Of course modern liberalism has destroyed the black community. Are you arguing otherwise? Do you feel froggy enough to debate the issue?

And ignorance has nothing to do with intelligence although in your case, I might agree that there is some correlation.

What evidence do you have that nations with universal health care discard extremely sick infants? Even if that is partially true, it logically can't completely account for the incredible discrepancy between France's #1 ranking and our #36 on the WHO's list.

I am afraid that you would need to actually do some reading to get to the facts. Try medical journals. I suggest the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet for starters. Most universities that have medical schools will have subscriptions that you can read. (lots of big words and very few pictures, but if you are interested in learning...)

In addition to simply not treating high risk newborns, there are other factors as well. For instance, in the US, any infant that exhibits any sign of life, no matter what month of gestation it was in is counted as alive. Germany, Austria, and France, for example, don't count a child as alive that does not weigh at least one pound and in those countries and switzerland, a child will not be listed as alive if it isn't at least 12 inches long. France and Belgium simply report babies as stillborn if they are at less than 26 weeks of gestation.

Do the math. Very pre mature infants only account for about .005% of births but if you don't count them in the numerator and denominator when reporting infant mortality, the numbers improve by about 25%.

It isn't surprising that advocates of socialized medicine throw out these highly manipulated and dishonest numbers as an argument for socialized medicine but never bring out figures like survival rates from cancers, or heart disease.

 

[Popeye]

Of course modern liberalism has destroyed the black community. Are you arguing otherwise? Do you feel froggy enough to debate the issue?

In claiming liberals have destroyed the black family, I can only assume you are referring to poverty programs. This is the same old tired argument that white conservatives, all comfortable and cozy, have been employing for years. The right wing, in this country, have long been against helping anyone but themselves. The whole argument is nothing but transparent excuses and justifications for their greed.

And ignorance has nothing to do with intelligence.

Intelligence can be loosely defined as the ability or capacity to learn. Ignorance can be defined as lacking knowledge. It's true, an individual can be intelligent and still be ignorant in some areas. However, logically, an entire race can't.

In addition to simply not treating high risk newborns, there are other factors as well. For instance, in the US, any infant that exhibits any sign of life, no matter what month of gestation it was in is counted as alive. Germany, Austria, and France, for example, don't count a child as alive that does not weigh at least one pound and in those countries and switzerland, a child will not be listed as alive if it isn't at least 12 inches long. France and Belgium simply report babies as stillborn if they are at less weeks of gestation.

Do the math. Very pre mature infants only account for about .005% of births but if you don't count them in the numerator and denominator when reporting infant mortality, the numbers improve by about 25%.

It isn't surprising that advocates of socialized medicine throw out these highly manipulated and dishonest numbers as an argument for socialized medicine but never bring out figures like survival rates from cancers, or heart disease.

I see where you got this different way of reporting IMRs. However you neglected to mention that measures have been taken to account for these differences. A statistical methodology has been worked out by UNICEF, to quote from Wikipedia, "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEF’s yearly exercise. In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD,2 an estimation methodology that minimize the errors embodied on each estimate and harmonize trends along time".
In UNICEF's report of early 2007, the US ranked last among industrialized countries in infant mortality rate. Your argument has been nullified, seems clear, we need universal health care.

 

[PLC1]

Nations with socialized medicine rarely, if ever make extroidanary attempts to save the lives of high risk children. The truth may not be palatable to you, but it is the truth none the less. The same is true for high risk elderly. If you live in a nation with socialized medicine, you get hospice care rather than any real attempt to save your life. In short, if it is going to be expensive to treat you, you are set aside to die.

Opinions with no facts to back them up are, indeed, very unpalatable to me. It's a little bit like cotton candy, only without the sweetness. Unsupported opinions are like fluff, like nothing. They have no weight, no substance, and so are unpalatable.

 

[palerider]

Opinions with no facts to back them up are, indeed, very unpalatable to me. It's a little bit like cotton candy, only without the sweetness. Unsupported opinions are like fluff, like nothing. They have no weight, no substance, and so are unpalatable.

That describes everything you say, so why are you here?

Have you ever wondered why advocates of socialized medicine don't trot out numbers regarding survival of various cancers and heart disease when touting the superiority of socialized medicine to the US's system?

My bet is that you have never even noticed, much less wondered why, and NEVER took the time to research an answer. Go get an actual knowledge base and then we can talk. Of course, if you actually knew something, we probably wouldn't have anything to discuss on the subject as we would be in agreement.

 

[palerider]

In claiming liberals have destroyed the black family, I can only assume you are referring to poverty programs. This is the same old tired argument that white conservatives, all comfortable and cozy, have been employing for years. The right wing, in this country, have long been against helping anyone but themselves. The whole argument is nothing but transparent excuses and justifications for their greed.

Are you, or are you not prepared to debate the issue? One on one. If you are feeling froggy, I will be happy to start a thread in the debate section. If it is a tired old argument, then you should have no problem batting aside the fact that in the late 50's, the divorce rate among blacks was statistically equivalent to that of whites, and the fact that the rate of children born to single mothers was only a couple of percent higher than among blacks, and that there was less than a 5% difference between the SAT scores of blacks vs whites, while today the divorce rate is higher, over 75% of black children are born to single mothers and the gap in SAT scores is roughly the size of the grand canyon. You should also be able to easily bat aside the fact that most of the problems can be attributed to the lack of fathers and the fact that the welfare system effectively replaced fathers with government services.

Intelligence can be loosely defined as the ability or capacity to learn. Ignorance can be defined as lacking knowledge. It's true, an individual can be intelligent and still be ignorant in some areas. However, logically, an entire race can't.

Consider that among the group in question, doing well in school, ie. getting educated is considered "acting white" and as such, places an extreme degree of peer pressure on children NOT to excel. Few are the number who can overcome the peer pressure. Drop out rates, and testing verifies that black children, as a portion of the population, aren't being educated and as a result, remain IGNORANT. So yes, if it is a cultural "thing" to avoid "acting white" and getting educated, then the bulk of an entire race can indeed remain ingnorant.

I see where you got this different way of reporting IMRs. However you neglected to mention that measures have been taken to account for these differences. A statistical methodology has been worked out by UNICEF,....

Sorry, a set of figures based on retrospective estimates and not supported by any national mechanism is about as useless as the computer models that predict global warming in the future, but can't tell you accurately what the climate looked like 3 years ago. Upon what basis does unicef override a physician's cause of death on a death certificate?

 

[Popeye]

Are you, or are you not prepared to debate the issue? One on one. If you are feeling froggy, I will be happy to start a thread in the debate section. If it is a tired old argument, then you should have no problem batting aside the fact that in the late 50's, the divorce rate among blacks was statistically equivalent to that of whites, and the fact that the rate of children born to single mothers was only a couple of percent higher than among blacks, and that there was less than a 5% difference between the SAT scores of blacks vs whites, while today the divorce rate is higher, over 75% of black children are born to single mothers and the gap in SAT scores is roughly the size of the grand canyon. You should also be able to easily bat aside the fact that most of the problems can be attributed to the lack of fathers and the fact that the welfare system effectively replaced fathers with government services.

I googled the myth of liberalism destroying the black family. Predictably I got a lot of figures, such as the ones you pointed out, and conservatives trying to connect those figures to liberals for political gain. It would be nice if solutions were foremost in conservative minds, but the lure of assigning blame is too tempting.
First off, divorce and marriage rates changed during the sixties due to a change in social mores. In 1970, 64% of black families were headed by married couples, by 1980 it was down to 48%. Now, what occurred during the 70's that could account for this drop? To me, one answer sticks out, a recession. Black men who lost their jobs during this time often broke up their marriages. They often descended into drugs, that, along with the corresponding war on drugs, draconian laws and all, made criminals of young black men setting the stage for the current situation. It's much to convenient to blame everything on failed liberal programs. Other factors have to be taken into account.

Consider that among the group in question, doing well in school, ie. getting educated is considered "acting white" and as such, places an extreme degree of peer pressure on children NOT to excel. Few are the number who can overcome the peer pressure. Drop out rates, and testing verifies that black children, as a portion of the population, aren't being educated and as a result, remain IGNORANT. So yes, if it is a cultural "thing" to avoid "acting white" and getting educated, then the bulk of an entire race can indeed remain ingnorant.

You're stereotyping an entire race. The ghosts of slavery still haunt the black population. If our ancestors had been enslaved by a particular race, maybe we would have a rather skewed view of that race as well. Maybe it's not so much to "avoid acting white" but to avoid acting like their ancestor's enslavers. Anyway, I still dispute your claim of the majority of the black race remaining ignorant.

Sorry, a set of figures based on retrospective estimates and not supported by any national mechanism is about as useless as the computer models that predict global warming in the future, but can't tell you accurately what the climate looked like 3 years ago. Upon what basis does unicef override a physician's cause of death on a death certificate?

No death certificates are being overridden. UNICEF is just taking into account the different methods for determining IMRs and, using a particular methodology, allowing for them. This kind of thing is done all the time. Somehow, I think your argument is with the results, not the method used in achieving them.

 

[PLC1]

That describes everything you say, so why are you here?

Have you ever wondered why advocates of socialized medicine don't trot out numbers regarding survival of various cancers and heart disease when touting the superiority of socialized medicine to the US's system?

My bet is that you have never even noticed, much less wondered why, and NEVER took the time to research an answer. Go get an actual knowledge base and then we can talk. Of course, if you actually knew something, we probably wouldn't have anything to discuss on the subject as we would be in agreement.

More fluff and opinion. Where are your facts?

What makes you think I'm an advocate of socialized medicine? I'm an advocate of facts and logic.

 

[palerider]

First off, divorce and marriage rates changed during the sixties due to a change in social mores. In 1970, 64% of black families were headed by married couples, by 1980 it was down to 48%. Now, what occurred during the 70's that could account for this drop? To me, one answer sticks out, a recession. Black men who lost their jobs during this time often broke up their marriages. They often descended into drugs, that, along with the corresponding war on drugs, draconian laws and all, made criminals of young black men setting the stage for the current situation. It's much to convenient to blame everything on failed liberal programs. Other factors have to be taken into account.

Oddly enough, however, the marriage rate among blacks did not fall during the great depression when unemployment was rampant and don't forget that black marriage rates were falling quickly in the 60's when the economy was expanding and both black salaries and college enrolments were expanding. The big difference was that after the onset of the welfare state, black women could do better for themselves at the government trough.

You're stereotyping an entire race. The ghosts of slavery still haunt the black population. If our ancestors had been enslaved by a particular race, maybe we would have a rather skewed view of that race as well. Maybe it's not so much to "avoid acting white" but to avoid acting like their ancestor's enslavers. Anyway, I still dispute your claim of the majority of the black race remaining ignorant.

Dispute all you like. The dropout rate and testing results, however, speak for themselves.

No death certificates are being overridden. UNICEF is just taking into account the different methods for determining IMRs and, using a particular methodology, allowing for them. This kind of thing is done all the time. Somehow, I think your argument is with the results, not the method used in achieving them.

Based on what? At some point, someone must say "this child lived and then died" as opposed to a death certificate that says "this child was stillborn".

If the method is flawed, the results will be flawed. And again, let me ask why those who favor socialized medicine don't trot out numbers that aren't so easily manipulated like survival rates for cancers, heart disease, kidney disease etc. between countries with socialized medicine and the US?

 

[palerider]

What makes you think I'm an advocate of socialized medicine? I'm an advocate of facts and logic.

Not if you advocate socialized medicine. The two are not compatible.

 

[PLC1]

Not if you advocate socialized medicine. The two are not compatible.

Fact: We pay more for our medical care, about 17% of our GDP, than any other advanced nation.

Fact: We are still rated by the WHO among the bottom among the advanced nations in health care.

Opinion: We aren't getting what we're paying for, have an inefficient system, and need to overhaul it.

That doesn't necessarily mean "socialized medicine", but it does mean that we can't continue to beat the drum and say we have the best medical care system on Earth. The facts simply don't bear that out. What they do say, loud and clear, is that we need to overhaul the system we have before it bankrupts us.

Fact: Every advanced nation in the world except the US has universal care of one form or another, and they pay less than we do.

Fact: We are not anywhere near the top in longevity, or infant mortality.

There. Now, what are your facts?

 

[palerider]

Fact: We pay more for our medical care, about 17% of our GDP, than any other advanced nation.

Fact: We are still rated by the WHO among the bottom among the advanced nations in health care.

Opinion: We aren't getting what we're paying for, have an inefficient system, and need to overhaul it.

That doesn't necessarily mean "socialized medicine", but it does mean that we can't continue to beat the drum and say we have the best medical care system on Earth. The facts simply don't bear that out. What they do say, loud and clear, is that we need to overhaul the system we have before it bankrupts us.

Fact: Every advanced nation in the world except the US has universal care of one form or another, and they pay less than we do.

Fact: We are not anywhere near the top in longevity, or infant mortality.

There. Now, what are your facts?

The answer to the cost of our medical care is simple. We once had it and modern liberalism lost it for us. When I was young, my parents carried insurance that was called major medical which covered treatement that required a hospital stay or very expensive care (defined in the policy) and paid the day to day stuff out of their pockets just like everyone else at the time.

If we carried medical insurance to cover catastrophic costs and paid minor medical bills out of our pockets, the cost would fall rapidly. In fact, there is a growing body of doctors who no longer accept insurance for office visits. The result, is that they get out of the bloated bureaucracy and the patients get an office visit that costs between $25 and $40 dollars, and blood work that costs about $15.

My health care is covered by what is known as a medical savings account. I pay a few hundred dollars per year for an insurance policy that covers catastrophic costs, and the money that I would be paying for HMO type coverage (my share of medical coverage through my employer) goes into a medical savings account. I draw on that money for office visits and routine medical care.

I earn interest on that money rather than simply lose it to an insurance company. I have been handling my medical coverage like that for the past 30 years. Long before anyone had ever heard of the term "medical savings account". Over the years, the amount of money I have had to pay out in routine coverage has not even come close to the amount I would have been paying for HMO or PPO type insurance. My medical savings account now amounts to a couple of hundred thousand dollars. When I reach age 65, I go on medicare and that money is mine as opposed to the money you are paying for whatever insurance you have and will have until you reach retirement age.

When you have a systen in which insurance pays for everything, increasing prices are inevetable. You have to pay the bureaucracy that runs the system and the bureaucracy in insurance is no different that any other. It eats the bulk of money coming in simply supporting itself. Did you know that only about a quarter of every tax dollar you pay actually gets past the bureaucracy and actually pays for whatever government services you believe you are paying for? Exactly the same is true for insurance.

Here is an opportunity to use your brain a bit. How much do you believe your auto insurance would cost if it covered oil changes, car washes, new tires, tire rotations, tune ups, etc., etc., etc., rather than just personal injury and property damage? Your car insurance would cost as much or more than your medical insurance.

Would such a system work the same for everyone? Of course not, but then there is no system that works for everyone. A system such as I have described, however, would work for the vast majority and force medical costs down to a manageable level so that those who need help would not be nearly the sort of burden on our resources that they are now.

Socialism in any form is not the answer to any question unless the question is "how can we create dependence?"

 

[palerider]

By the way. You seem not to understand the difference between a medical care system and medical care. We are tops with regard to medical care as evidenced by survival figures for cancers, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease etc.

Longevity in a nation has little to do with medical care and almost everything to do with personal habits. Survival rates are the measure for healthcare and the level of care available and no nation on earth can match us for survival rates. Go and peddle your skewed and dishonest numbers to someone who can't see straight through them. They don't fly here.

 

[palerider]

I have one other thought to express with regard to the infant moratlity rates that may put this in persepctive for those of you who have drunk the socialized medicine koolaid.

Consider the infant mortality rates within our own country. The infant moratlity rate in Washington DC is very close to twice the rate of the rest of the nation. Does that mean that we should conclude that the state of medical care, the doctors, and medical facilities in DC are sub standard? I know from personal experience that some of the best medical doctors and medical facilities in the world are in DC. We all also know that heads of state from all over the world come to DC when they need the best medical care available and as a result of local politics, is available to everyone regardless of insurance status.

Or, are there, perhaps, some other factors at work in the DC area that might cause an area with some of the best doctors and medical care in the world to have an infant mortality rate that is about double that of the rest of the nation? Perhaps the high infant mortality rate is a result of culture and not the availability of medical care.

The impact of families, and especially two-parent families, is shown in high relief when single-parent birth statistics are compared to two parent family statistics. During the 1960s, about 17 percent of African-American children were born to single mothers; today, 22 percent of white children are to single mothers, while among black women however, over 70 percent are single mothers.

Correlation, of course, does not prove cause - but it certainly raises concerns to anyone who is capable of thinking an issue through.

Compared to white mothers, African-American women have about twice the rate of infant mortality. They have extremely low-weight babies at a rate 15 percent greater than white women. They are twice as likely not to receive prenatal care, and almost three fourths of their children are born to single mothers.

What does all this say about the U.S. health care system? Absolutely nothing.

What does it say about the U.S. welfare system that began with the great society programs of the 1960s at a time when only 17 percent of African-American women were single mothers? What does this say about federal welfare programs that have transferred the responsibility for fathers to care for their families to the government? It says everything. Absolutely everything.

 

[Coyote]

I have one other thought to express with regard to the infant moratlity rates that may put this in persepctive for those of you who have drunk the socialized medicine koolaid.

Consider the infant mortality rates within our own country. The infant moratlity rate in Washington DC is very close to twice the rate of the rest of the nation. Does that mean that we should conclude that the state of medical care, the doctors, and medical facilities in DC are sub standard? I know from personal experience that some of the best medical doctors and medical facilities in the world are in DC. We all also know that heads of state from all over the world come to DC when they need the best medical care available and as a result of local politics, is available to everyone regardless of insurance status.

Or, are there, perhaps, some other factors at work in the DC area that might cause an area with some of the best doctors and medical care in the world to have an infant mortality rate that is about double that of the rest of the nation? Perhaps the high infant mortality rate is a result of culture and not the availability of medical care.

The impact of families, and especially two-parent families, is shown in high relief when single-parent birth statistics are compared to two parent family statistics. During the 1960s, about 17 percent of African-American children were born to single mothers; today, 22 percent of white children are to single mothers, while among black women however, over 70 percent are single mothers.

Correlation, of course, does not prove cause - but it certainly raises concerns to anyone who is capable of thinking an issue through.

Compared to white mothers, African-American women have about twice the rate of infant mortality. They have extremely low-weight babies at a rate 15 percent greater than white women. They are twice as likely not to receive prenatal care, and almost three fourths of their children are born to single mothers.

What does all this say about the U.S. health care system? Absolutely nothing.

What does it say about the U.S. welfare system that began with the great society programs of the 1960s at a time when only 17 percent of African-American women were single mothers? What does this say about federal welfare programs that have transferred the responsibility for fathers to care for their families to the government? It says everything. Absolutely everything.

You make some interesting points though I don't know if it has that much to do with the welfare programs (and yes, I agree those programs have their faults but not to the point of abolishing them). I do not like the fact that welfare rewards irresponsible parenthood. Personally - I think if a single parent is receiving welfare it should be contingent upon birth control with no extra money for children conceived during that time.

You say: They are twice as likely not to receive prenatal care, and almost three fourths of their children are born to single mothers.

Does this not point to a problem of the availability of prenatal care? Do these other countries with lower infant mortality have a lower rate because of good prenatal (socialized) care?

 

[Popeye]

Oddly enough, however, the marriage rate among blacks did not fall during the great depression when unemployment was rampant and don't forget that black marriage rates were falling quickly in the 60's when the economy was expanding and both black salaries and college enrolments were expanding. The big difference was that after the onset of the welfare state, black women could do better for themselves at the government trough.

You continue to ignore a major factor, I previously mentioned, that is largely responsible for the breakup of the black family, the drug war. Look at these statistics. The proportion of jail imprisonment for blacks is five times higher than the rate for whites. African-American males comprise over 55% of the nation's prison population.
One out of 4 black males, ages 20-29, are either in prison, on parole, or on probation. Draconian drug laws have hit the black male population the hardest, it's just a form of institutionalized racism. Common sense will tell you that statistics such as those have influenced the success of black marriages. It's not easy being a father when you are just another statistic in the legal system.

If the method is flawed, the results will be flawed. And again, let me ask why those who favor socialized medicine don't trot out numbers that aren't so easily manipulated like survival rates for cancers, heart disease, kidney disease etc. between countries with socialized medicine and the US?

The method UNICEF used to arrive at infant mortality rates is not flawed. They've made it clear, in arriving at their conclusions, that they have allowed for the difference in methods each individual country uses. To claim those figures have been "manipulated", has no basis in fact. If the US ranked near the top in IMRs, you would be touting that as an argument against "socialized medicine".