- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 0
Tom Daschle just said that the U.S. ranks 29th in infant mortality (WHO statistic?). Why is this true?
Tom Daschle just said that the U.S. ranks 29th in infant mortality (WHO statistic?). Why is this true?
Exactly, we save more babies than anyone else that could not possibly be saved anywhere else, every year.
I really hate when people try to use this stat as a way of showing how broken our healthcare system is. It's not a real-picture statistic
I'll probably regret asking this, but, I'm curious what type of babies you think can be saved in the US that couldn't be saved in Canada or Western Europe? What technology do we have that they don't have, especially technology that would have an impact on the infant mortality rate?
Note that this question is peripheral to the OPs question....I'm not interested in debating the issue of why our infant mortality rate is higher than other western countries. I'm just curious what type of babies we save that COULDN'T (as opposed to wouldn't, which is also a different issue) be saved in Canada or much of Europe (also, Japan, Israel and a few other places with advanced technology for neonatal care).
Just interested, how many countries would you estimate do have the technology to save the youngest of the young?
Btw the WHO is a socialistic organization with a grudge against american healthcare.
The basics that are needed technologically to save 24-26 week preterm infants are:
1. Ventilators that work
2. Surfactant
3. IV nutrition (TPN)
These are available in some form in essentially all industrialized countries of the world. They are available in somewhat more limited or less ideal form, or only available to private/government insurance (not public system) patients in many if not most of the countries in Latin American and Asia that are "developing." They are not widely available in Africa outside of South Africa.
The decision on which babies in the 24-26 week range to provide this care to is highly variable by country and within countries.
A small number (probably not enough to affect infant mortality numbers) of infants who are not extremely preterm but have other major health issues will need technology including inhaled NO, cardiopulmonary bypass (ECMO) or advanced cardiac care to survive. These are available in most industrialized countries, and very rarely in Latin America. These are expensive technologies and tend to be used more in the US than elsewhere, but this affects only a very small number of babies.
Read the recent TIME article about how the infant mortality rates are highest in people without proper access to prenatal care, which is about 20% of the US. Not surprising...The US tries to save more longshot babies than other countries. Many of them die anyway. Bingo bango bongo, higher "mortality rate."
Yay statistics.
The US has a large illegal immigrant population who do not have access to health insurance and other preventive care. They go to the ER as a last resort. I suspect the high infant mortality and uninsured population would have something to do with the immigration issues in the US. Canada and the rest of the Western nations do not have this problem because they don't reside right next to Mexico.
Btw the WHO is a socialistic organization with a grudge against american healthcare.
I'll probably regret asking this, but, I'm curious what type of babies you think can be saved in the US that couldn't be saved in Canada or Western Europe? What technology do we have that they don't have, especially technology that would have an impact on the infant mortality rate?
Note that this question is peripheral to the OPs question....I'm not interested in debating the issue of why our infant mortality rate is higher than other western countries. I'm just curious what type of babies we save that COULDN'T (as opposed to wouldn't, which is also a different issue) be saved in Canada or much of Europe (also, Japan, Israel and a few other places with advanced technology for neonatal care).
I love all the gut-think going on in this thread. It must be just a reflex at this point.
"What's that? The US has a terrible ranking by a prestigious apolitical international organization? Why, they're liberal socialist elites! They don't understand America! We try to save everyone! You see, all these statistics just further prove how awesome we are!"
I mean, patting ourselves on the back due to a 29th ranking? Saying that hospitals in Europe or Japan just toss pre-mature babies in the trash can because it "costs too much"? Are you guys out of your ****ing minds?
I'm sure Canada and W. Europe could save the same babies we do, but its my understanding that many of the really premature babies we try with they won't spend the money/time to try the same.
There are some differences in approaches to infants < 26 weeks gestation, but not much for the most part. There are some hospitals/doctors that commonly provide care for 22-23 week gestation infants in the US and this is very uncommon elsewhere, but this isn't a large number of babies. Recall that the original assertion I challenged from a different poster was that we save babies that they couldn't save.
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of good. Sound like people were right on the mark.
The health care system is only involved in taking care of people, not in holding their hand. I work at a hospital that serves the indigent people of the area. I cannot tell you how many people choose to spend $150 on designer jeans, $200 on new phones and $100 on cigarettes PER MONTH but refuse to buy a $10 medicine for their child or pay even a dime for health care. There are fewer "victims" than people would have you believe. There is an idea of entitlement that is not present in other countries. People make choices to suit themselves right now and then cry fowl when there are consequences for those choices.
The difference between the US and holland (or any western european country) is so multifactorial you cannot assign it to just one thing; is it average education level, level of personal responsibility, demographics, social situations/preferences/attitudes, immigration, sex education or the host of other factors? There is a portion of the population in this country that sees absolutely nothing wrong with teen pregnancy because everyone around them gets preganant in their teens and then drops out. Simple sex education is not going to do much to change this as it is ingrained in their culture.
And on a side note, I live in the south and even here an abortion is pretty damn easy to get. Please stop spitting out the crap you hear other people say, because usually it is wrong. The US ranks 6th in abortions per capita behind russia, bulgaria, hungary, cuba and sweeden.
Lastly, you do realize that some posters on here find themselves left of these "social justice" organizations, right? Their failure to recognize leftist agendas and propaganda is directly related to their frame of reference....
Saying the WHO is apolitical is flat out wrong. They clearly have a socialist agenda. Chapter 2 in their yearly report is entitled: "Advancing and sustaining universal coverage." Apolitical huh...
And I guess everyone else who disagrees with the WHO statistics (how they are collected, how they are compared etc...) are apolitical intellectuals who have the ability to immediately spot faulty data due to their innate wisdom.
Give me a break,
R u telling me that you, and other posters on this board don't let your political, nationalistic, cultural (whatever else you want to name here) stances affect your viewpoint.
Basically, every single post on this thread has been conjecture and opinion, obviously people are going to argue this issue depending on their views.
The US healthcare system is dysfunctional, some people can't bring themselves to admit this. The disease oriented nature of US health care delivery often discourages mothers from seeking pre-natal and post-natal primary health care.
Ok, put on your bib so I can spoon feed you some definitions.
Universality - "Encompassing all of the members of a class or group"
Socialism - a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
Ok, now listen carefully. Universal healthcare has absolutely nothing to do with socialism! Ie. The United States could easily provide universal healthcare for its citizens (if it really wanted to) without dismantling private for-profit health care delivery.
The only country that I am aware that has socialist health care (ie. doctors are employed directly by the state to provide healthcare to its citizens for relatively little compensation compared to their training and expertise - the important point being the state determines the doctors income) is cuba (maybe north korea who knows).
Conversely a myriad of countries provide universal healthcare to its citizens without resorting to socialist medicine. (ie. Canada has a single payer system whereby physicians bill the government on a fee for service basis).
What is my point?
Just because the WHO has the audacity to have a mission of providing health care to as many citizens of the world as possible doesn't make it some sort of institution whose goal is to advance socialism.
Countries with pure socialistic health care. In England, unless you work for a private hospital, you are a government employee. The VA, government employee. I would not be surprised to find that other parts of W. Europe are similar but I just don't know.
Being a government employee does not = socialism, I am not really sure why you think that. Many different people in many different industries work for the government, that does not in any way imply that it is a socialist government.
medisforme said:The only country that I am aware that has socialist health care (ie. doctors are employed directly by the state to provide healthcare to its citizens for relatively little compensation compared to their training and expertise - the important point being the state determines the doctors income) is cuba (maybe north korea who knows).
Ok, now listen carefully. Universal healthcare has absolutely nothing to do with socialism! Ie. The United States could easily provide universal healthcare for its citizens (if it really wanted to) without dismantling private for-profit health care delivery.
The only country that I am aware that has socialist health care (ie. doctors are employed directly by the state to provide healthcare to its citizens for relatively little compensation compared to their training and expertise - the important point being the state determines the doctors income) is cuba (maybe north korea who knows).
Conversely a myriad of countries provide universal healthcare to its citizens without resorting to socialist medicine. (ie. Canada has a single payer system whereby physicians bill the government on a fee for service basis).
ok friend I will make this reasoning as simple as possible for you.
All clouds are white, but not everything that is white is a cloud.
now lets apply this lesson to the previous posts.
In socialism basically everyone works for the government or is provided for by the government, however just because people work for the government in a given country does not make that country socialist.
Do you see where I am going with this?
Just because some health care workers are government employees in England doesn't mean its a socialist health care system (if you give me a day or so, when I have more time to research this, I will provide some links about the actual nature of englands health care system).
Maybe an example closer to home will help you understand better.
The government often directly employs private companies in defence contracts to produce artillary shells etc... However, you would think it laughable if I suggested that the US government has a socialist agenda. So you see, being a government employee does not = socialism.
Your defense contractors work differently. They are private companies paid by the government to make/do something. The government doesn't interfere in the inner workings of said companies nor sets the salaries of the companies employees. Just like when I employ the services of Pizza Hut, I do pay them to make me something but I don't determine workplace policy.
This is where you reveal your ignorance. Tell me, what do you think Thomas Jefferson would make of TARP or megaconglomerates? Having a permanent military? Having a president go to war without a formal declaration? Half the other **** that we currently do?This road only leads to one end; for those who are too blind to see this neither I nor anyone else can help or lead you. To advocate for such "change" is disturbing to anyone who holds an understanding or appreciation of the principles laid out for us by our Forefathers, those things that have made us great and propelled us to the top
This is where you reveal your ignorance. Tell me, what do you think Thomas Jefferson would make of TARP or megaconglomerates? Having a permanent military? Having a president go to war without a formal declaration? Half the other **** that we currently do?
This "principles of our forebears" canard is pretty nauseating considering that most of them wouldn't have identified with pretty much anything that is currently going on with either major political party in the US.
The US tries to save more longshot babies than other countries. Many of them die anyway. Bingo bango bongo, higher "mortality rate."
Yay statistics.