Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree43Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 25th, 2015, 07:01 PM   #11
Supra Et Ultra
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And a baby born in Cuba has a better chance of living than a baby born in the US.

Only a fool would believe that. And we have found a peanut who believes.

Quote:


..... the fact that the U.S. medical system is far more aggressive about resuscitating very premature infants, mean that very premature infants are even more likely to be categorized as live births in the U.S., even though they have only a small chance of surviving. Considering that, even in the U.S., roughly half of all infant mortality occurs in the first 24 hours, the single factor of omitting very early deaths in many European nations generates their falsely superior neonatal-mortality rates.

*******************************

The fact is that for decades, the U.S. has shown superior infant-mortality rates using official National Center for Health Statistics and European Perinatal Health Report data — in fact, the best in the world outside of Sweden and Norway, even without correcting for any of the population and risk-factor differences deleterious to the U.S. — for premature and low-birth-weight babies, the newborns who actually need medical care and who are at highest risk of dying.

In summary, the analysis and subsequent comparison of neonatal- and infant-mortality rates have been filled with inconsistencies and pitfalls, problematic definitions, and inaccuracies. Even the use of the most fundamental term, “live births,” greatly distorts infant-mortality rates, because often the infants who die the soonest after birth are not counted as live births outside the United States. In the end, these comparisons reflect deviations in fundamental terminology, reporting accuracy, data sources, populations, and cultural-medical practices — all of which specifically disadvantage the U.S. in international rankings. And unbeknownst to organizations bent on painting a picture of inferior health care in the U.S., the peer-reviewed literature and even the WHO’s own statements agree.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us


Thanks from Jimmyb, caconservative and kbear

Last edited by excalibur; February 25th, 2015 at 07:15 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old February 25th, 2015, 07:17 PM   #12
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And a baby born in Cuba has a better chance of living than a baby born in the US.
No they don't and that has been covered far too many times here.
Thanks from excalibur
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 25th, 2015, 07:18 PM   #13
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And who publishes 60%?
Other countries with the UK leading with 1/4 of what the US produces.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 25th, 2015, 08:14 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 7,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Other countries with the UK leading with 1/4 of what the US produces.
And what has that got to do with healthcare?
Britain has better outcomes than the US, for 40% of the cost.
goober is online now  
Old February 26th, 2015, 12:28 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And what has that got to do with healthcare?
Britain has better outcomes than the US, for 40% of the cost.


Absolutely. And they live longer.
LongWinded is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 12:35 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Only a fool would believe that. And we have found a peanut who believes.



Infant Mortality: A Deceptive Statistic | National Review Online


Infant mortality is an indication of a failed medical community. Instead of getting health care with the pregnancy, many young women do not HAVE health care. NOT going to full term indicates a lack of health care coverage in most cases.

Gone too soon What’s behind the high U.S. infant mortality rate - 2013 FALL - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine

Quote:
. . .

But these reporting differences cannot account for the full extent of the gap between countries, says Paul Wise, MD, a pediatrician at Packard Children’s and a health policy analyst at Stanford. “The reporting differences are a minor part of the story but not an excuse for why the U.S has such a high mortality rate.”

Because even when researchers look only at births that meet the criteria for all European countries — 500-gram babies born at 22 weeks and later — the United States doesn’t fare any better. In 2009, Marian MacDorman, PhD, a statistician at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics drew up a new ranking list, comparing the United States with 20 European countries and excluding the deaths of all babies born before 22 weeks’ gestation. The United States still ranked below most European countries.

So the problem is real, which begs the questions: What’s going on? And what’s to be done about it?

. . .

“Our problem with premature births is a problem with the poor health of women of reproductive age in our country and the lack of access to health care that many women in this group have,” says Wise. “Young women tend to have highly fragmented care.” Many of them lack health insurance, he says, and don’t see a doctor regularly enough for any clinician to even know that they have risk factors that lead to preterm births.

According to a 2010 report by the CDC, Americans in their 20s — peak childbearing years for women — were almost twice as likely to lack health care as older adults, and 12 percent of people in that age group had been unable to fill a prescription they needed because of cost.

. . .
So why are republicans trying to reduce the number of people who have access to health care?
LongWinded is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 07:22 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA TN
Posts: 10,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Only a fool would believe that. And we have found a peanut who believes.



Infant Mortality: A Deceptive Statistic | National Review Online


I wonder if some countries even try to resuscitate a very premature baby? do they just let it die and call it a stillborn? that would skew statistics. everything possible is done here to save a preemie, even one born at 23 weeks. those babies weigh less than a pound and fit in the palm of your hand! there are probably poor countries that don't even have the equipment small enough for a baby that size or a NICU.

if I went into labor at 23 weeks and I knew the baby was going to be born, where would I want to be, the US or Cuba??? hhmmm...

Last edited by kbear; February 26th, 2015 at 07:27 AM.
kbear is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 03:20 PM   #18
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And what has that got to do with healthcare?
Britain has better outcomes than the US, for 40% of the cost.
Maybe because it is medical breakthroughs

Britain does not have better outcomes than the US.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 03:21 PM   #19
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongWinded View Post
Infant mortality is an indication of a failed medical community. Instead of getting health care with the pregnancy, many young women do not HAVE health care. NOT going to full term indicates a lack of health care coverage in most cases.

Gone too soon What’s behind the high U.S. infant mortality rate - 2013 FALL - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine



So why are republicans trying to reduce the number of people who have access to health care?
You don't have a clue how infant mortality rates are calculated in the US or the world.
Thanks from caconservative
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 10:03 PM   #20
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 33,235
It is superior if you want to die from Cancer, or other diseases.


If you don't play the "Hey Watch This game" you will live longer in the US too.




UK ranks 16th behind the US in saving lives.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
britain, care, health, ocialized, superior, system



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Dismantling of the American Health Care System Uncle Han Current Events 0 October 24th, 2013 10:34 AM
Doctor shortage, increased demand could crash health care system imaginethat Healthcare 34 October 10th, 2013 02:40 AM
Best Health Care System in the World? hevusa Money and Finance 8 August 8th, 2011 07:02 PM
Our pathetic mental health care system Nightrider Opinion Polls 2 March 25th, 2009 01:24 AM
America's sick health care system worsens garysher Healthcare 2 July 9th, 2008 07:26 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.