PDA

View Full Version : I need some help



Bailey
07-12-2012, 03:52 PM
I have heard some countries do not count infant deaths in their mortality rates, does anyone know where i can find such proof?

noonwitch
07-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Maybe the UN (I know) would be a starting place? Or some other international health or medical organization?

You could try googling "international vital statistics". We call our birth and death records department in Michigan "Vital Statistics".

Wei Wu Wei
07-12-2012, 08:15 PM
what I think you're referring to is an argument about how infant mortality statistics are counted. America has a notoriously bad infant mortality rate for a wealthy nation, but many critics argue that this number is partially a result of different measuring methods.

infant mortality rates count how many "live birth" infants die within their first year of life. The UN has a strict definition as to what "live birth" means for the purposes of collecting data. The argument is that the US strictly follows this definition, but that other countries do not. It's claimed that other nations do not count premature, sickly, or barely-alive newborns as "live births", and as a result, those deaths do not count towards the infant mortality rate.

Some evidence for this is the high percentage of infant deaths that occur in the first 24 hours in the US, as opposed to certain other countries, that have a far lower percentage of infant deaths in the first 24 hours. Some of these countries also report a higher stillborn rate than the US.

It could be argued that the lower infant mortality rate, lower rate of death in the first 24 hours, and higher stillborn rate points to differences in how these numbers are measured.

Gina
07-12-2012, 09:52 PM
I think it's the World Health Organization that does all the "research" for such things.

On edit: It's hilarious that we supposedly have the worst rates. We have the best neo-natal facilities in the world.

Rockntractor
07-12-2012, 10:03 PM
I think it's the World Health Organization that does all the "research" for such things.

On edit: It's hilarious that we supposedly have the worst rates. We have the best neo-natal facilities in the world.

I am sure Wei is baffled why people come from around the world for our health care.

AmPat
07-12-2012, 11:28 PM
what I think you're referring to is an argument about how infant mortality statistics are counted. America has a notoriously bad infant mortality rate for a wealthy nation, but many critics argue that this number is partially a result of different measuring methods.

infant mortality rates count how many "live birth" infants die within their first year of life. The UN has a strict definition as to what "live birth" means for the purposes of collecting data. The argument is that the US strictly follows this definition, but that other countries do not. It's claimed that other nations do not count premature, sickly, or barely-alive newborns as "live births", and as a result, those deaths do not count towards the infant mortality rate.

Some evidence for this is the high percentage of infant deaths that occur in the first 24 hours in the US, as opposed to certain other countries, that have a far lower percentage of infant deaths in the first 24 hours. Some of these countries also report a higher stillborn rate than the US.

It could be argued that the lower infant mortality rate, lower rate of death in the first 24 hours, and higher stillborn rate points to differences in how these numbers are measured.We count all the infants, including the meth/alcohol, and other drug addled infants. How bout those other vaunted communist countries you are anxious to list?:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
07-12-2012, 11:53 PM
I am sure Wei is baffled why people come from around the world for our health care.

There's nothing baffling about it. If you can afford it, we have the very best top quality (and most expensive) health care available for the rich and powerful.

If you look at your average working person though, the health care options available to them is worse than what they could get in most other developed nations.


Think of it this way, Mexico has some of the nicest, largest, and most luxurious gated communities in the world. They are fantastic, splendid places to live and are the retirement destination for many wealthy people. Some of the wealthiest people in the world live in Mexico, and many Americans move there to retire.

Does this mean that Mexico has an excellent housing or economic system? Only if you look at part of the picture.

AmPat
07-13-2012, 07:43 AM
There's nothing baffling about it. If you can afford it, we have the very best top quality (and most expensive) health care available for the rich and powerful.

If you look at your average working person though, the health care options available to them is worse than what they could get in most other developed nations.


Think of it this way, Mexico has some of the nicest, largest, and most luxurious gated communities in the world. They are fantastic, splendid places to live and are the retirement destination for many wealthy people. Some of the wealthiest people in the world live in Mexico, and many Americans move there to retire.

Does this mean that Mexico has an excellent housing or economic system? Only if you look at part of the picture.
BS and double BS. Here we go with more of the idiotic class warfare crap from yet another O Blah Blah-Alinsky student. I come from a family that is far from rich and powerful. I have had several of my family both close and extended who were responsible and paid for their own health insurance. I have also had family both close and extended that had NO Health Insurance. In both cases, ALL OF THEM received top notch health care. You may retire the tired leftist lie of "rich and powerful" BS now. At least here on this site. We aren't buying your manifesto.

Bailey
07-13-2012, 08:03 AM
what I think you're referring to is an argument about how infant mortality statistics are counted. America has a notoriously bad infant mortality rate for a wealthy nation, but many critics argue that this number is partially a result of different measuring methods.

infant mortality rates count how many "live birth" infants die within their first year of life. The UN has a strict definition as to what "live birth" means for the purposes of collecting data. The argument is that the US strictly follows this definition, but that other countries do not. It's claimed that other nations do not count premature, sickly, or barely-alive newborns as "live births", and as a result, those deaths do not count towards the infant mortality rate.

Some evidence for this is the high percentage of infant deaths that occur in the first 24 hours in the US, as opposed to certain other countries, that have a far lower percentage of infant deaths in the first 24 hours. Some of these countries also report a higher stillborn rate than the US.

It could be argued that the lower infant mortality rate, lower rate of death in the first 24 hours, and higher stillborn rate points to differences in how these numbers are measured.


Thanks for your input but spare me your leftest dogma, just the facts please

Odysseus
07-13-2012, 11:05 AM
There's nothing baffling about it. If you can afford it, we have the very best top quality (and most expensive) health care available for the rich and powerful.

And if you can't afford it, you will get it anyway, as hospitals are barred by law from turning anyone away. Oh, and because of the tax code, the rich and powerful pay for the medical care of the indigent.


If you look at your average working person though, the health care options available to them is worse than what they could get in most other developed nations.

This is an out and out lie. Like Marx, you speak of average working persons without actually knowing anything firsthand about us. In fact, Americans routinely demonstrate greater satisfaction with the healthcare that we receive than people in other countries do. And, the people in other countries demonstrate their preferences by coming here. Your attempt to explain that away, below, has an obvious logical error, which I address.


Think of it this way, Mexico has some of the nicest, largest, and most luxurious gated communities in the world. They are fantastic, splendid places to live and are the retirement destination for many wealthy people. Some of the wealthiest people in the world live in Mexico, and many Americans move there to retire.

Does this mean that Mexico has an excellent housing or economic system? Only if you look at part of the picture.

No, but it means that it has the services that those people want, which the US might not, or the prices are substantially lower. Somebody might retire to Mexico because the cost of living is lower there, but if the cost of living were the same here, and the level of services the same, then they'd be fools to do it. Clearly, what attracts people to Mexico is the ability to live very well on relatively modest means, which doesn't mean that Mexico's housing or economy is superior (in fact, the low cost of living there reflects a very weak economy), but rather that there are some comparative advantages to our own economy and housing markets. A weak peso attracts buyers with strong currencies, and strong currencies purchase more in weak economies. This is why the Japanese bought up US real estate when the Yen was stronger than the Dollar, even though nobody was suggesting that Japan's housing or economy were inferior to the US at the time. The question you are avoiding asking is what are the comparative advantages to the healthcare structures in the US ? Clearly, it's not the pricing, since Canadians, Brits and most others get their health service for free, so it must be someing to do with the service. In that case, we'd have to look at the things that comprise quality of service, such as access to diagnostic tools or other equipment, speed of service or availability. Since price controls lead to rationing, and Canada's single payer system is a nationwide price control, we know that the availability of services and the access are strictly limited, when available at all. In other words, people are coming here to purchase what they cannot get for free at home.