Monday, October 1, 2012
U.S. Health Care best in the world
Infant Mortality? NUMBER 1, if all the other countries used the same reporting method as the U.S. Basically WHO countries only count full term babies in their infant mortality rates, the U.S. counts any preterm baby with a heartbeat.
Life Expectancy? NUMBER 1, when you remove fire arms and traffic fatalities. Not exactly something you can get a pill for.
Post Cancer Diagnosis life expectancy? NUMBER 1
The United States is the only country where its poorest people are also the fattest. Go Figure.
Of course all of that will change under ObamaCare. A few years ago, there was only one drug treatment available for colon cancer. It cost $1000 a month and added 11 months to your life on average. Now there are 6 drugs. The most effect adds 24 months on average and costs $10,000 a month. Which one do you think you will get under the ObamaCare medical exchanges?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
live,
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of the IPAB, huh?
Jean
L.S
ReplyDeleteSurprised you feel the need to qualify your claim. It becomes meaningless when we do so and as a further attempt to denigrate the opposition to your choice for President it tends to cheapen the argument.
Can I suggest that the evidence available suggests that Obalan care, certainly not perfect, is an improvement on what you are used to.
Although there is always Luke warm interest here as to the state of the hoop la which embraces your elections, this time round the contest is becoming a bit of a yawn for most. Our media is reporting a national lead of about eight percent to the Pres. Here of courage there is little attention paid to the all important "swing States" and the College. However, our MSM does have a history of getting the trends and picking the winner early in the contest on most occasions.
Cheers from Aussie
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live births. This is the standard for us and all other countries. Your assertion that the U.S. rate is calculated differently is false. The U.S. currently ranks 34th.
ReplyDeleteMICK you are talking at you ass on this one. Get educated. They do NOT use the same reporting method.
ReplyDeleteOUR 1000 births includes premature babies.
THEIR 1000 births do NOT.
•First, the U.S. strictly adheres to the World Health Organization's definition of live birth (any that "breathes or shows any other evidence of life"), counting even the extremely premature and most fragile. In contrast, the WHO Bulletin noted the "common practice in several (Western European) countries to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period."
Because the most premature are least likely to be recorded, the effect is dramatic. One researcher showed that the mortality rate can vary by 50% depending on the definition, while another proved that terminology caused up to a 40% variation and a 17% false reduction in
Second, three-fourths of the world's neonatal deaths are counted by highly unreliable five-yearly household surveys, instead of by health care professionals. Surveys frequently misclassify what were really live births as "stillbirths," thereby excluding most neonatal deaths.
•Third, premature birth, the main risk factor for neonatal death, is far more frequent in the U.S. than any developed country — 65% higher than Britain, for instance. Whether that's due to aggressive in vitro fertilization or harmful behaviors during pregnancy, the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that premature birth is "the primary reason for the United States' higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe."
•Fourth, racial and ethnic minorities have far higher infant mortality, whether in the U.S. or under government-run systems such as Canada's and the United Kingdom's. Population heterogeneity disadvantages the U.S. — not because U.S. mortality is worse, but because racial-ethnic heterogeneity in the U.S. is four to eight times higher than in countries such as Sweden, Norway, France and the U.K.
In fact, the U.S. has superior infant mortality rates for newborns with the highest risk of dying who actually need medical care — the best in the world outside of Sweden and Norway — even without correcting for obvious population and risk-factor differences deleterious to U.S. statistics.
I would also like to add. How well do you think Sweden and Norway would do in their statistics if they had to treat an obese population that the US has in Hispanic, black and even white communities. The Swedes are much more fit, their mortality rates would be much worse treating our population with their identical system.
ReplyDeleteDespite being a left wing douchebag, I believe in pointing out agreement when I see it. From everything I was taught in nursing school, much of what Live has said here is true. Because of our general prenatal care and ability to bring severely premature babies to birth, a lot of babies are born here that likely would have died before birth in many other countries.
DeleteYour tag at the end here about Sweden and Norway, however, is basically meaningless. But, you have a long established history of writing things that are completely void of context.