Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

U.S. ranked lowest of newborn survival.

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
September 1, 2011 11:32:22 AM

Probably a reflection of the poor underpinning healthcare system in the US.

The rich survive ... the poor don't.
September 1, 2011 12:08:10 PM

That and all of the drugs women are given during childbirth.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 1, 2011 2:00:44 PM

Wonder what the demographics are...
September 1, 2011 2:35:01 PM

Münchausen syndrome by proxy is probably very common in the US.

Women wanting more attention after the father starts doting on the child.

Alternatively all of the radiation fallout from the nuclear testing ... or genetic damage to the second and third generation of children born post Agent Orange Vietnam Vets ... or possibly god is smiting all of the democrats for following Darwin's theory of evolution.

Take your pick of the least insulting of the above.

I can troll up more on demand ... with little or no recourse to the interwibble.
September 1, 2011 3:55:39 PM

wanamingo said:
That and all of the drugs women are given during childbirth.


Because people don't use drugs in other countries...
September 1, 2011 4:20:12 PM

@ reynod "Probably a reflection of the poor underpinning healthcare system in the US" - And your rational/comparision for this statement??

Not Knocking England, spent 3 years there and have relatives living there. For the average Joe Blow (Or his wife Jane), I'll take the US system over the English system!!!!
September 1, 2011 4:33:44 PM

If you believe that article, your a complete idiot.
September 1, 2011 4:46:28 PM

Gulli said:
Because people don't use drugs in other countries...


Please see the documentary "The Business of Being Born"
September 1, 2011 5:34:18 PM

geekapproved said:
If you believe that article, your a complete idiot.


How so?
September 1, 2011 5:40:35 PM

geekapproved said:
If you believe that article, your a complete idiot.

but people who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" are more enlightened than the rest of us, right?
September 1, 2011 6:27:14 PM

@ branden
And just how does spelling ability relate to IQ, or how “enlightened” one is?
My spelling is atrocious, probably one of the worst on this forum. Sometimes my dag burn fingers get too far behind my mind and type what I’m thinking and not the word my fingers are at (LOL). My other problem is, IT does not bother me, nor has it impeded my career.
.. Youngest E9 (USAF CMSgt) in my career field.
.. Was in charge of the Electronics Department and Assistant Dean at a community college.
.. Highly respected Electronic Technician
.. Currently the Test Engineer / Test Conductor for a 20 Million Dollar Satellite Instrument.
.. Could go on.

Do I believe “If you believe that article, your a complete idiot.” – No.
Their brain is just wired different than those of us that question the validity. The difference between politically left vs right, and social upbringing
I do feel that the article should be questioned – Yes. The motives of the author need to be looked at; the data needs to be looked at. Too often there are ulterior motives and flawed data is used.
September 2, 2011 2:51:23 AM

retiredchief, i fully realize IQ isn't necessarily proportional to spelling.

i'm just saying, here's an article from a reputable media source (that employs professional journalists and fact-checkers) with stats from the WHO to back up the interpretations made in the article. if geekapproved wants to convince us the article is bunk without providing sources of his own then spelling mistakes sure aren't going to help his cause.
September 2, 2011 3:55:47 AM

Agree with the Chief...

[/SatCom huh? cool. Former 3C0 myself]
September 2, 2011 4:12:24 AM

I wonder if that research was 'skewed' by abortions.
September 2, 2011 10:47:43 AM

RetiredChief said:
@ branden
And just how does spelling ability relate to IQ, or how “enlightened” one is?
My spelling is atrocious, probably one of the worst on this forum. Sometimes my dag burn fingers get too far behind my mind and type what I’m thinking and not the word my fingers are at (LOL). My other problem is, IT does not bother me, nor has it impeded my career.
.. Youngest E9 (USAF CMSgt) in my career field.
.. Was in charge of the Electronics Department and Assistant Dean at a community college.
.. Highly respected Electronic Technician
.. Currently the Test Engineer / Test Conductor for a 20 Million Dollar Satellite Instrument.
.. Could go on.

Do I believe “If you believe that article, your a complete idiot.” – No.
Their brain is just wired different than those of us that question the validity. The difference between politically left vs right, and social upbringing
I do feel that the article should be questioned – Yes. The motives of the author need to be looked at; the data needs to be looked at. Too often there are ulterior motives and flawed data is used.


I'm from Australia.

I won't get into a p!ssing competition as I am too tired to brag.

:) 
September 2, 2011 11:21:20 AM

DelroyMonjo said:
I wonder if that research was 'skewed' by abortions.


It may be helpful to look up the meaning of "newborn".
September 2, 2011 11:24:06 AM

Anyway, it's stupid to ignore the big elephant in the room: as Reynod pointed out it's mostly the lack of affordable healthcare for large segments of American society that makes the US come out so bad. There's really no point in denying it.
September 2, 2011 12:25:42 PM

Gulli said:
Anyway, it's stupid to ignore the big elephant in the room: as Reynod pointed out it's mostly the lack of affordable healthcare for large segments of American society that makes the US come out so bad. There's really no point in denying it.

I agree that there is a lack of affordable health care but when it comes to births I think there are other factors as to why Americans have such a low newborn survival rate. Does Singapore have a better healthcare system and that's why they have the lowest mortality rate (Seriously I have no idea). In America you can plan your birth, take drugs to induce your birth, take more drugs to dull the pain, and lay on your back feet up. Throughout all of history childbirth has been done by a midwife.

**My Girlfriend is a human development major so I have to listen to craziness like this, also he3r clock is ticking......
September 2, 2011 12:45:44 PM

Gulli said:
Anyway, it's stupid to ignore the big elephant in the room: as Reynod pointed out it's mostly the lack of affordable healthcare for large segments of American society that makes the US come out so bad. There's really no point in denying it.



Like some 30 million illegal aliens?

We've also been over this but you fail to listen or take notice. We have Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for poor adults, and SCHiP for poor children. If peoples' ignorance is preventing them from utilizing these publicly funded services, how is yet another government program going to solve the problem?
September 2, 2011 12:51:29 PM

wanamingo said:
I agree that there is a lack of affordable health care but when it comes to births I think there are other factors as to why Americans have such a low newborn survival rate. Does Singapore have a better healthcare system and that's why they have the lowest mortality rate (Seriously I have no idea). In America you can plan your birth, take drugs to induce your birth, take more drugs to dull the pain, and lay on your back feet up. Throughout all of history childbirth has been done by a midwife.

**My Girlfriend is a human development major so I have to listen to craziness like this, also he3r clock is ticking......


Yes, Singapore has a better healthcare system. It's true Americans take more drugs (both medicinal and the other kind), so that will factor into it somewhat. However, the healthcare thing is too big to ignore: it's not just the quality of care at the moment of the actual birth, high medical costs also scare pregnant women away from prenatal care for instance.
September 2, 2011 12:57:59 PM

Gulli said:
Yes, Singapore has a better healthcare system. It's true Americans take more drugs (both medicinal and the other kind), so that will factor into it somewhat. However, the healthcare thing is too big to ignore: it's not just the quality of care at the moment of the actual birth, high medical costs also scare pregnant women away from prenatal care for instance.


Yeah right. That's why leaders from around the world fly to Singapore for simple surgeries. Hell even the Canadian PM brought his wife to the States for a simple procedure and we've all heard how great the Canadian system is.
September 2, 2011 1:48:50 PM

That last post about sums it up. Healthcare in the US is a great big money-grubbing racket, BUT when people around the world need urgent medical care, they come here. Of course, for them the costs may not be relevant, whereas they are for the large number of uninsured Americans. And before Gulli gets cranked up, that does NOT make insurance, or the care it funds, a "right." NOTHING is a right that is achieved or maintained at the forced expense of others; if those others weren't there, what happens to your "right?" The issue here is the game-playing and dishonesty surrounding the health care business. Too many lawyers, administrators, bureaucrats, and others with NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENT CARE see the money flow and then find ways to leech onto it.
September 2, 2011 2:12:11 PM

Misleading statistics.

This article tears CNN blog to shreds: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mo...
the link that mrface posted.
Some highlights for the article:
-42 of the world's 52 surviving babies born at weights under 400g were born in America
-Some of the countries reporting do not count babies that die within the first 24 hours as live births, they count them as either "stillborn" or "miscarriage" and therefore do not affect mortality rates. In America, if you have a heartbeat when you are born then you are considered alive. (40% of all infant deaths occur within 24 hours. Gee, think that skews the stats a little?)
-In Switzerland, a baby under 30cm at birth is not considered a live birth.
September 2, 2011 2:46:06 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Like some 30 million illegal aliens?

We've also been over this but you fail to listen or take notice. We have Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for poor adults, and SCHiP for poor children. If peoples' ignorance is preventing them from utilizing these publicly funded services, how is yet another government program going to solve the problem?


It's 12 million and is comparable to the rate in Western Europe (Spain even had a higher rate than the US, before they gave many of them an amnesty a couple of years ago). Medicaid does nothing for those just above the eligibility standard (millions of people, women of fertile age are overrepresented in this category). Also (you provided an example yourself, concerning your nephew) it doesn't even cover a C-section (your nephew still had to pay $500, which isn't exactly pocket change to young parents), so it's still scares away people.
September 2, 2011 2:47:20 PM

^^ That's interesting. I didn't know countries have different definitions for being 'alive' or 'dead'. Those terms seem pretty straight forward to me.

Just sayin'.
September 2, 2011 2:49:37 PM

Gulli said:
It's 12 million and is comparable to the rate in Western Europe (Spain even had a higher rate than the US, before they gave many of them an amnesty a couple of years ago). Medicaid does nothing for those just above the eligibility standard (millions of people, women of fertile age are overrepresented in this category). Also (you provided an example yourself, concerning your nephew) it doesn't even cover a C-section (your nephew still had to pay $500, which isn't exactly pocket change to young parents), so it's still scares away people.



No it's actually closer to 30 million. It's all a guess anyway.

My nephew was allowed to make monthly payments on that $500 outstanding balance by the evil healtcare provider too.
September 2, 2011 2:54:48 PM

Onus said:
And before Gulli gets cranked up, that does NOT make insurance, or the care it funds, a "right." NOTHING is a right that is achieved or maintained at the forced expense of others.


Well, then the protection of the courts, police, fire department and military are not a right. Quite contrary to "... the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Of course there's something called "shared responsibility" (it's not other who pay for you, it's a community that pays for everyone together, each a share), but if your mother didn't teach you to share I suppose the concept is really hard to grasp.
September 2, 2011 3:03:17 PM

There is a huge difference between voluntarily sharing Gulli, and having what you own forcibly taken from you in the name of shared responsiblity.

It's personal, or individual responsibility that is lacking more and more. That is what has been diminshed in the US; to the detriment of the country as a whole.
September 2, 2011 3:04:14 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No it's actually closer to 30 million. It's all a guess anyway.

My nephew was allowed to make monthly payments on that $500 outstanding balance by the evil healtcare provider too.


It's 30 million (1 in ten people around you should be illegal aliens by that count) when you believe Faux News (who probably confused illegal aliens with "brown people"), it's 12 million when you believe every other source. Britain, Spain and Italy all have more than 1 million illegal aliens. The number is usually in the 100.000s for the smaller Western European countries, so it's not like the problem doesn't exist here.
September 2, 2011 3:06:08 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
There is a huge difference between voluntarily sharing Gulli, and having what you own forcibly taken from you in the name of shared responsiblity.


That's right and the trend is that less and less people want to share the cost of a bloated military and more and more people want to share the cost of health care.
September 2, 2011 3:23:53 PM

Gulli - "the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Means that NO LAW shall be passed that Impedes that goal. NOT that a government can reach into the pocket of one individual to give to another.
I was raised to share, and do! But what I find objectionable is giving to a (example only) a women that is on welfare, has 6+ kids by unknown fathers so that she can collect more welfare money, or the person that drops out of school and EXPECTs me to contribute to his life style of doing nothing. I think jtt286 shares that philosophy.

One point we do agree on is the "bloated" militaty. What worked in WWI and II does NOT work now. We shoiuld have gone in a put them back to the stone age and LEFT.
The US should Cut overseas Contributions and redirect the money saved to our own needy - At least to thoes that deserve it.
September 2, 2011 3:25:32 PM

You'll find that the growing masses who want the costs of healthcare "shared" are the ones who want others to pay for their care; they aren't asking for more of their own money to be taken for it.

Absolutely, RetiredChief. U.S. meddling so our elected parasites can feel powerful as they play with the lives and livelihoods of others needs to stop. Focus on "rights," not "interests." In a moral society, the latter may not be maintained by force, although sometimes the former absolutely require it. For example, U.N. members Syria and Iran openly support organizations defined by the U.N. as terrorists (e.g. groups that blatantly target civilians as prime targets, not merely as unavoidable collateral damage). Give them a specific ultimatum to stop, and when (if? ha!) they don't, DESTROY terrorist targets within their borders without regard to collateral damage, until there is no place they are welcome.
September 2, 2011 3:28:31 PM

But my big problem with a lot of conservative ideas is you leave so many people out in the cold because they "deserve" it? I agree people do abuse the system in terrible ways.

So whats the solution? We dont tax aggressively and let the rich control more and more resources, because they can?

Or do we start a welfare state and support those who need it, legitimately or not?

Can we keep this civil and enlightening please? There are ways to disagree without resorting to libel.
September 2, 2011 3:38:36 PM

If the rich gain control of resources by honest means, there's no harm, no foul. It is when their control is gained by fraud, trickery, or other compulsion that they need to be stripped to penury; not in taxes, which just legalizes their methods (and lets government parasites in on the loot), but by executing willful wrongdoers and confiscating their ill-gotten gains.
September 2, 2011 3:38:44 PM

Who cares, the whole system is going down the drain:we are all goners anyway
September 2, 2011 3:45:21 PM

Onus said:
If the rich gain control of resources by honest means, there's no harm, no foul. It is when their control is gained by fraud, trickery, or other compulsion that they need to be stripped to penury; not in taxes, which just legalizes their methods, but by executing willful wrongdoers and confiscating their ill-gotten gains.



Who would do that the government? And I know what Oldman has said about getting something legally and honestly doesn't always mean morally(A legal loophole). If the system provides a way for wealthy persons to exploit it how could we change it? If the state regulates the markets then its just a competition to make your state more business friendly. On the other hand if the government enforces we are introducing more bureaucracy and giving the government more power ( which doesn't always have its finger on Americas pulse)?

It seems like a catch 22.
September 2, 2011 3:48:31 PM

The problem is when "legally" and "honestly" are two different things. Therein lies the problem, and only a fool thinks Government has any real desire to "fix" this.
September 2, 2011 4:07:03 PM

We all need to acknowledge that there are corrupt, and dishonest people everywhere, in business and government. This is the problem. Our founding fathers proclaimed vehemently, that our US Constitution will only work if the people are moral; meaning 'the original argument'.

Can man rule themselves? This is the fundamental argument we are having.

Our country IS run by "the rich". See congress, stuffed with millionaires. Whether or not decisions are made in the private sector or the public sector, if there is no honor in those decisions, it fails.
September 2, 2011 4:20:14 PM

"What is the correct name for a group of Baboons" – Answer a "Congress"
Question/answer on radio the other day.
September 2, 2011 5:01:02 PM

RetiredChief said:
"What is the correct name for a group of Baboons" – Answer a "Congress"
Question/answer on radio the other day.


“Con" is the opposite of "pro," so "congress" must be the opposite of "progress."
September 2, 2011 5:11:06 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
We all need to acknowledge that there are corrupt, and dishonest people everywhere, in business and government. This is the problem. Our founding fathers proclaimed vehemently, that our US Constitution will only work if the people are moral; meaning 'the original argument'.

Can man rule themselves? This is the fundamental argument we are having.

Our country IS run by "the rich". See congress, stuffed with millionaires. Whether or not decisions are made in the private sector or the public sector, if there is no honor in those decisions, it fails.


Agreed, a culture of civil responsibility is needed to keep even the most well designed system from slowly crumbling. This is why laws have to change over time to cope with a changing world. Deeply rooted corruption can destroy any system. The thing is, however, that civil responsibility can't be forced and businesses are unlikely to self-regulate (numerous economic crises are prove that businesses always go for short term gain, even when it hurts them in the long term). This leaves government to force change through laws. Unfortunately the rest of society is not isolated from whatever decisions businesses make: when they screw up it's everyone's problem (pollution, lacking safety regulations and lay offs literally kill people), therefore governments "interfere" with businesses.
September 2, 2011 5:17:19 PM

Gulli said:
Well, then the protection of the courts, police, fire department and military are not a right. Quite contrary to "... the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Of course there's something called "shared responsibility" (it's not other who pay for you, it's a community that pays for everyone together, each a share), but if your mother didn't teach you to share I suppose the concept is really hard to grasp.
Right and wrong. In America, the protection of the courts and the military are Rights, as defined by the Constitution. Police and fire on the other hand are not rights. In early American history and prior to establishing professional and unionized police and fire departments, many towns and cities throughout America did share responsibility for policing themselves and volunteering for the fire brigade. Shared responsibility in America was born of the people and based on community need. Shared responsibility was never intended to be within the purview of the American government, there are thousands of private charities that operate outside of government that are more adept to providing those in need than the government could ever be.
September 2, 2011 5:21:35 PM

So we all agree that corruptions are the biggest issue facing this and any other economy.

So whats the root cause of corruption? Being thinking rational human beings why cant people do whats best for all?
September 2, 2011 5:42:52 PM

wanamingo said:
So we all agree that corruptions are the biggest issue facing this and any other economy.

So whats the root cause of corruption? Being thinking rational human beings why cant people do whats best for all?


(Most) people do what's best for themselves and usually in the short term too. It's just the way our brains are hardwired after millions of years of evolution in the wilderness, this has been thoroughly studied in psychology and sociology. It takes quite an education and life experience to realize you also have to think about the greater good and the long term future, on top of that it takes character to actually act on that knowledge.
September 2, 2011 5:46:52 PM

There is no implication that a thinking, rational being would do what's best for all, only for himself. That in and of itself is NOT a problem, provided he acts honestly, respecting the rights of others as equal to his own. Government's job is to see that that happens, by HARSHLY punishing those who violate the rights of others in furtherance of their own goals. That is what no longer happens. For example, arguably I have a right to clean air, but companies can pay the parasites for permission to foul the air we breathe. Only when it gets bad enough for enough people is that changed. Or, the parasites make rules about what people may not do, for example listing a hundred things you may not dump into the water. The 101st isn't on the list, so if it makes someone money to do it, he will until / unless it gets added to the list. Same thing with all kinds of unethical, immoral, or dishonest behavior. Until it's on some list, it remains legal. "Don't be dishonest. Don't lie, don't cheat, and don't steal" are apparently too hard to understand, so more and more lists need to be enumerated, creating a "shell game" that the dishonest and their parasites can use to their advantage.
At this point I would highly recommend the collection of essays entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness," which is a part of the Ayn Rand library. The topics, covered by numerous authors, address a wide variety of circumstances and explain how a rational individual would determine how to act. Hint: it doesn't involve checking a list somewhere, and it doesn't involve getting permission from parasites.
September 2, 2011 5:49:03 PM

Maybe Darwinian evolution isn't capable of creating life that wont destroy itself when it becomes technologically advanced.

All we'll ever be is just hairless monkeys grunting at each other.......
September 2, 2011 5:49:39 PM

Answer to the current issues: Help each other.

"That whole 'Love Thy Neighbor' thing? Yeah, I meant it."

-God.
!