Infant mortality rate in the US is higher then in 28 other countries! Maybe if we called this problem After Birth Abortion it would get more attention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27203179#27203179

Being ranked 28th in infant mortality isn't going to phase the hardcore supporters of "this nation is great, this nation is perfect, love it or leave it" idiocracy.

We're ranked like 19th in graduation rates, as well.

We've been sliding into the abyss for over 25 years, but anyone who dares mention it is "unpatriotic".

I'm almost tired of trying to tell people we can do better if we'd just admit we had a problem that needed to be addressed. It's sort of like trying to tell an alcoholic that all of his problems he keeps bitching and blaming about would be so easily fixed by doing a few simply things instead of blaming everyone else.

It's the liberals, it's the foreigners, it's the muslims, it's the big government, it's the regulations.

It's my wife who makes me drink, it's my job, my kids, my neighbors, who make me drink. If you only knew what I have to go through, you'd understand why I drink.

Same thing.

,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2012 02:19PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Bob,
>
> It sounds like you drink alot.
>
> Which wines do you recommend? Domestic or
> foreign.
>
> Do you think California produces a Chardonnay that
> could compete with the French?
>
> Actually, Bob, I'm not allowed to post here, but
> as this is merely a simple question involving
> wine, I'm sure I'll be excused. (Even the nuns
> gave me a pass, once in a while.)


It sounds like I drink a lot? Just because I understand the psychology of drunks, and I used that as a comparison to nationalists and people who suffer from cogntitive dissonance?

All I can tell you is that I don't know anything about wine, and most people who believe they can hide behind being wine connousieurs because they like to drink but figure the "drunks" are people who drink mad dog and boones farm wine, are alcoholics.

Not to mention, anyone who immeidately asks wine questions when it comes to drinking a lot is most obviously a person who has spent their entire adult life drinking wine to convince themselves they aren't a drunk. Most drunks drink hard liquor or beer, and that is why the prissy deniers drink wine.

I've been on wine tasting tours. Yes, the majority of those uptight fools are raging alcoholics in full-fledged denial.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 06:52PM by Alias.

I think you have a fixation on alcohol, Alias.

How should we get back to MY drinking?

I'm not fixated on wine. Why are you? I've never given any thought to what sommeliers do, whether they have a key, or wear tin foil hats, or take a few sips before giving you your wine. Why? Is that your concern? If so, I can only say that I doubt they are stealing a few sips from your wine. You shouldn't worry about that.

If you are trying to find someone to help you get into AA, I do know how you can get the "Where and When" with a single phone call to a number in Vienna. I've had numerous friends who were powerless over alcohol and who's lives had become unmanageable.

Is that why you are here? If so, I can help you. I know a lot of people in AA, and they would love to take you to your first meeting. I've introduced a lot of people to caring and concerned people in recovery. I'll even have a drink in your honor the next time I have a few drinks with my friends, if you come to terms with your drinking problem.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:17AM by Alias.

good points Bob..though its a shame you fell into the alias diversion trap.

Perhaps reading the actual report from the CDC would present a better picture. MSNBC can't report anything without putting their "push the liberal agenda" stamp on it.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

Quote

Summary
Despite the dramatic decline in infant mortality during the 20th century, the U.S. infant mortality rate appears to have plateaued in the first few years of the 21st century.

The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than rates in most other developed countries. The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, appears to be worsening. In 2004, the United States ranked 29th in the world in infant mortality, tied with Poland and Slovakia. Previously, the United States’ international ranking in infant mortality was 12th in 1960 and 23d in 1990.

There are large differences in infant mortality rates by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Puerto Rican women have the highest infant mortality rates; rates are lowest for Asian or Pacific Islander, Central and South American, and Cuban women.

Preterm birth has a considerable impact on the U.S. infant mortality rate. The plateau in the U.S. infant mortality rate from 2000 to 2005 is due to an increase in the percentage of infants born preterm (including very preterm and late preterm), together with a lack of decline in the infant mortality rate for very preterm infants. There has also been an increase in the relative impact of preterm-related causes of death. In 2005, 36.5% of infant deaths in the United States were due to preterm-related causes of death, a 5% increase since 2000. The impact of preterm-related causes of death was even higher for non-Hispanic black and Puerto Rican women.

In the report, it notes that the US infant mortality rate has been declining for years, and only recently they have noticed a plateau based on the higher incidence of pre-term births (less than 37 weeks gestation). In the report it doesn't note that the health system is to blame. Of course the report noted that it has been declining and only recently has "appeared" to plateau - seems like he is reading a lot into this that isn't there.

In the interview, the "health contributor" is asked if the ranking is due to things getting worse in the US, or is it just that other countries are improving that much faster than we are. His answer is that it is due to our health care system and lack of coverage....

Here is the full chart the rankings are derived from.... It is hard to imagine the horrors here when compared to the other countries.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#025

Based on this chart, supposedly Singapore has the number 1 ranking....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore

Quote

Fertility rate

Singapore's fertility rate is 1.29 children born per woman (in 2007), which is one of the lowest in the world. Chinese had a ferlility of 1.07 in 2004 (1.65 in 1990), while Malays had a TFR of 2.10 (2.69 in 1990). Both figures declined further in 2006. TFR for Indians was 1.30 in 2004 and 1.89 in 1990. 1 2 While the Singapore government has launched several highly publicized attempts to raise the fertility rate and increase awareness of the negative effects of an aging population, the elderly (65+) still constitute only 8.3% of its population; this proportion is significantly lower than that of many other developed nations, such as the United States (12%) and Japan (21.2%).

Ovbiously a model to uphold, including their caning and capital punishment systems...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

Quote

Capital punishment is a legal form of punishment in Singapore. The city-state had the highest per-capita execution rate in the world between 1994 and 1999, estimated by the United Nations to be 13.57 executions per one million population during that period.[1] The next highest was Turkmenistan with 12.43. Each execution is carried out by hanging at Changi Prison at dawn on a Friday.

Interesting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2008 01:02PM by Registered Voter.

what i saw on the list ahead of us were westrern european "socialist" countries...and what the heck singapore's caning and capital punishment system has to do with infant mortality is beyond me! Though I am sure you would probably use those same "facts" to justify toughening our own punishment system if the "facts" proved useful to your point.

The fact of the article is despite having the most expensive medical system in the world...the US has far from the best. When the emotionalism is eliminated from the discussion...countries with managed care are much more responsive to the needs of its citizens.

PS..the pre-term baby "epedemic" mentioned in the article is another symptom of pregnant women not getting the preventive health care that most other countries health care systems do provide. So...it really isnt a valid explanation of why the US death rate is so high.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2008 02:01PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> good points Bob..though its a shame you fell into
> the alias diversion trap.


That was my first encounter with Alias.

I won't fall into that trap again.

I did think it was sorta odd and out of left field, but I was up late working on a content management system, and bouncing to my second monitor to post here as a way to break the monotony of programming.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Infant mortality rate in the US is higher then in
> 28 other countries! Maybe if we called this
> problem After Birth Abortion it would get more
> attention.

there's a bit of a problem with that... it's not an abortion if it's unintentional. as an abortion survivor, i thought you would have known that.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

well...I think as a society....where we decide to invest our money....that we have made a decision. we are willing to abort these young babies rather then spend the money in pre-natal care to avoid the death,

vince,
  children are cheap to make. just because they die doesnt mean you cant make more.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince is all about protecting the rights of women Gravis. You know that. He is all concerned about abortion rights, then in the same breath gets wound up over birth rates. Anyone figure that maybe if all those women took their babies to term, our birth rates would be a lot better? Hmm....

Oh yeah....the solution to birth rate problems is to force women to have babies they dont want! What a typical republikan response!

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vince,
>   children are cheap to make. just
> because they die doesnt mean you cant make more.


well at least you show yourself for what you are!

We should have never started trusting hospitals and modern medicine, and stuck with the cabbage patch and stork methods. Babies never died when they were grown/delivered by fish-eating aquatic avians.

Being 19th on a list of about 193 countries isn't that bad. I'm sure it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the whole of Europe is slightly larger than the entire United States, and that more babies being born also increases the infant mortality rate proportionately.

lol..what the heck are you talking about...all the numbers are rates of death...they are not affected by the number of births. And as I stated earlier...it is the decision of a society to prioritize the issues which we will think important...I just think it strange we care more about the "life" of an unborn fetus then we do a full term baby.

Ok, I was wrong about being 19th. So we're 29th. Whoops! The problem with the report is, the rate is an average, calculated into decimal places. Our good friend Wikipedia says that in 2008, the US was at 6.30, one behind South Korea (5.94), and two behind Cuba (5.93).

The report doesn't capture things like people on farms in the Mid-West, in the desert, poor neighborhoods, etc. If a crackhead prostitute's kid dies, that still counts as much towards the statistics as a middle-class family who couldn't afford health care (and which one is there probably a higher instance of?).

The report also cites obesity as a growing problem in the infant mortality rate, and America is notorious for being a nation of fat-asses. No amount of socialism or universal health care in the world can make some fat chick put down the fork.

Yes, it's troubling, but it's not worth being all Chicken Little about. In a nation of 300,000,000 people, some babies are going to die. I would think in Cuba, which has a significantly smaller population, there would be a lower instance, since they're higher on the list than us.

Chicken little!!! If we were taliking about aborted fetuses they'd be an outcry from the religious right...and you statements about poor..crack babies would be considered very tasteless...but heck..we are talking about full term babies...and who gives a darn!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicken little!!! If we were taliking about
> aborted fetuses they'd be an outcry from the
> religious right...and you statements about
> poor..crack babies would be considered very
> tasteless...but heck..we are talking about full
> term babies...and who gives a darn!


All I'm saying is that more information is needed before making an informed opinion. It seems the basis for your alarm is the news report you cited; again, all it really says is that we're 29th on the list, and some countries with socialism are doing better than us.

The only factor that it mentions is obesity, and again, universal health care would not prevent that (except in legitimate glandular disorders, which doesn't account for all cases of obesity). Smoking, alcohol use, lead paint, age, laying an infant on his/her stomach, being a dumbass and dropping your child... all of these things can contribute to an infant's death, but would not be addressed by a universal health care plan.

Illegal immigrants who don't want to go to the hospital. People who leave their kid in a hot car. Mauled by pitbulls. Stung by bees. Good ol' fashioned bad genetics. The report doesn't say, but implies, that the infant mortality rate would be lower if we had health care like the socialist countries.

Again, if there are less babies being born, that also lowers the mortality rate. Cuba has a birth rate of 10.3 (per 1,000) people, an IMR of 5.93, and a population of around 11.4 million. Yet it ranks higher (better) than the US, which has a birth rate of 14 per 1,000, IMR of 6.30, and a population of 300 million. Does that mean Cuba's health care is really better than the US?

Further complicating things:

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

"The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

So, in light of the evidence you presented, and what I just spent time actually researching, I don't think the problem is as massive as you make it out to be.

This kind of irrational knee-jerk reaction is no better than what the democrats are always blaming republicans for.

The author of that US News report is nothing more then a republikan hack with a medical degree...she'd probably support classifying most forms of birth control as abortions...no credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadine_Healy

A small portion of her wikipedia article

Healy was a member of the Advisory board of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an organization later shown to have been founded by PR firm APCO and funded by the Phillip Morris corporation to criticise scientific research inimical to the interests of tobacco companies and other corporations

The truth that you refuse to admit is that the only life republikans give a damn about are those that can get them a vote! When required to fund medical programs for the poor they talk about solcialized medicine....sharing the wealth socialism and welfare!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2008 07:40PM by Vince(1).

Yes, Wikipedia, the source of anything Vince has to say beyond "Hello". Well, ok, and a number of sites with various conspiracy theories on how the republicans have ruined Vince's life. They also teach how to spell with a lot of k's.

US News of course is just a hack organization. Right.

shut up RV...and crawl back into your republikan piece of hell you call your home.

Poor Vince. Sniff.

sniff it up your ass

Ah, the adult Vince. Right up there with the one that self-impregnates himself.

Have a nice day :)

the adult vince says get lost in your dream of the next republikan revolution

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The author of that US News report is nothing more
> then a republikan hack with a medical
> degree...she'd probably support classifying most
> forms of birth control as abortions...no
> credibility.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadine_Healy
>
> A small portion of her wikipedia article
>
> Healy was a member of the Advisory board of The
> Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an
> organization later shown to have been founded by
> PR firm APCO and funded by the Phillip Morris
> corporation to criticise scientific research
> inimical to the interests of tobacco companies and
> other corporations
>
> The truth that you refuse to admit is that the
> only life republikans give a damn about are those
> that can get them a vote! When required to fund
> medical programs for the poor they talk about
> solcialized medicine....sharing the wealth
> socialism and welfare!

I'm not refusing to admit anything, and even if I was, I doubt I would make a good representative of the republican party, which isn't who I really identify with anyway.

The voting age, if I remember correctly, is 18. This thread is about infant deaths, from birth to age 1.

Again, I don't see how you can base your entire assumption on one short news segment that doesn't say anything other than, "We're 29th on the list, it might have something to do with fat people."

Isn't "sharing the wealth" an Obama stance, anyway?

My opinion isnt based upon one report...for years the fact that this country has the most expensive and most ineffective medical systems has been reported. This article was just the most recent report.

I don't get where you're going with this.

Neither does he, other than a democratic talking point to sensationalize more reasons to socialize health care in the US. Right along the lines of (in the past) sensationalizing climate events to play up "man-made" global warming. Global warming itself was a reality, attributing it to man is still a stretch by any standard, and the recent record cold in South America, the record snow falls in many of the regions that were showing loss over the recent years is starting to tilt the "consensus" back to the less sensational, but more realistic, solar effect.

His gist seems to be along the lines of the fact that we have the most expensive health care in the world and yet our infants die more often than in less fortunate countries due to their "socialized" health care. Then again you have pointed out the fact that the US over-reports on birth-related deaths that are not reported at all by other countries on the list. I am sure if that were factored in you would see a huge difference in the end results.

Not that you will ever see Vince acknowledge that.

What I saw was rebutal by a medical doctor that once tried to tell us smoking is not the cause of cancer. Of course you republikans always seem to have a problem with science....and as you point out fail to see the causes of global warming...fail to see that dinasours and man never walked the earth at the same time.

ok...sonow lets see what you dimwits have to say about this....life expectancy..the US is ranked 45th in the world...behind many of those same countries with lower infant mortality rates. I cant wait to hear how we over report our deaths compared to Italy! lol...you guys are blinded by your own ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

That would be too much McDonalds.

Here, this chart probably illustrates it better:

`````````````````````
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you republikans

Hey, don't lump me in with those goobers.

"You dimwits" also seemed to be inclusive of me, so this isn't really a discussion as much as you saying, "agree with me or you're stupid." Try to at least be dignified; I'm not your arch-nemesis Registered Voter.

But in response to the life expectancy question, again, I bet that statistics plays into it a lot. First of all, let's establish that the next ten countries above us beat us on calculation of decimal places. So, we are one of ten countries with a life expectancy of about 78.

And again, because this was done statistically and is calculated based on averages, again, it stands to reason that a country with more people (USA, #45, pop. 300,000,000, LE 78.3) would have a lower overall AVERAGE life expectancy than a country with a smaller population (Andorra, #1, pop. 71,800, LE 83.52). The only country in the top ten to break 100 million people was Japan, and they've always had the reputation for longevity. Americans have a reputation for having big fat asses, which is a significant factor in reducing life expectancy, and again, would not be addressed by a national health care plan.

The only way to truly make an accurate comparison is against countries with a similar population. So, USA (pop. 300,000,000) is #3 on the list of most populated countries. Indonesia (pop. 228,500,000) is #4. However, Indonesia is #135 on the life expectancy list. Furthermore, of all the countries that have populations over 150 million, USA has the highest life expectancy by far.

So, again, I think you're making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is. I'm not a republican, democrat, or statistician, and I'm not really all that good in math. I'm just using a little bit of common sense to arrive at the most logical conclusion based on the facts presented to me.

I really dont see a basis for your statement about size of population and the expected life expectancy. You could have easily said you'd expect a lower life expectancy with a smaller population and made as much sense. Neither conclusion "stands to reason" based upon that fact alone. And since when isnt obesity related to the level of health care and education people recieve? I think obesity is directly related to the quality of the health care people recieve.

You have conveniently associated to two random facts to make your point...your information to rebutt is highly politicised by domestic sources with a political agenda. I say if it walks like a republikan..and quacks like a republikan..you are a republikan..and no doubt will use the same illogical process to vote for McSame.

How could universal health care help fat people? They get free medical appointments to hear the doctor say, "eat more vegetables, and stop supersizing your McDonald's combo?"

I'm not associating any random facts. I used Wikipedia the exact same way you do. From where I'm standing, you're the one with a political agenda to push. I've taken great pains to avoid responding with accusations and epithets on the off-chance that you really do have a point. Instead of providing a rational reason why I should agree with you, you just tell me that I'm wrong and stupid and brainwashed.

You're really hurting your own cause here.

edited to fix a typo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2008 07:09PM by MrMephisto.

Damn...we didnt even make the top 10 happiest countries...

http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_Studies/Happiest_Countries.aspx

the only point in all this is that despite all the fear mongering there are worse things then being a more socialist country.

Dude, how can you say that? You've been saying this entire thread that we need to perk up and fix things because our babies are dying and our old people aren't living two years more than they are in other countries! This thread is the definition of fear-mongering!

Truth be told is that there's 13 days until the election and another 13 days for Republicans to whine and cry over the inevitable. McCain will lose. Please re-direct your efforts toward the next election and realize you failed miserably.

Respectfully,
A Former Republican Who's Pissed Off At My Former Party

Fear monerging? If nothing else it was a mix of satire...as a pro-choice/pro-abortion person I am just pointing out the inconsistency of the pro-life movement...and a statement about how many industrial socialist countries actually have a higher standard of living then we do.

Well, you've got people thinking I'm a republican just because I'm not a dumbass. Good job.

You didn't point out anything, and you didn't make a statement. All you did was say, "here's a news clip and a couple Wikipedia articles, things are terrible and the USA sucks at health care, you disagree with me so you are dumb and stoopid, whoops, it was satire."

I hereby declare that the sky is actually neon purple in color, and anyone who says otherwise is brainwashed by the blue kolor konspiracy or is a fucking moron. Nyeh nyeh nyeh, eat it, blue sky-ers! Purle wins! Purple wins! Enjoy your fail and crushing defeat!







(Seriously, that's how you guys sound.)

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, you've got people thinking I'm a republican
> just because I'm not a dumbass. Good job.
>
> You didn't point out anything, and you didn't make
> a statement. All you did was say, "here's a news
> clip and a couple Wikipedia articles, things are
> terrible and the USA sucks at health care, you
> disagree with me so you are dumb and stoopid,
> whoops, it was satire."
>
> I hereby declare that the sky is actually neon
> purple in color, and anyone who says otherwise is
> brainwashed by the blue kolor konspiracy or is a
> fucking moron. Nyeh nyeh nyeh, eat it, blue
> sky-ers! Purle wins! Purple wins! Enjoy your
> fail and crushing defeat!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Seriously, that's how you guys sound.)


Nooooo...not at all...I think you're a republikan because you are a dumb ass...get it now dumb ass?

Now I know I have you beat, because name calling is the last act of defiance for someone who has lost an argument. No more facts, no more arguments, just "you are a dumb ass."

Classy.

thank you very much!

There is no such thing as "after birth abortion." The life of the new born is rarely taken, except in cases to save the mother's life. This term is a pejorative phrase by the pro-life lobby.

I made it up...and I am hardly pro-life. while I recognize there are very few new ideas...I think you might be confusing it with the term "partial birth abortion"