Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
You, of course, have to evidence to suggest that babies out of teenage pregnancies are more in danger of dying not because of lack of access, but because of lack of understading...
|
Are you suggesting that prenatal care is not related to infant mortality? Are you asking me to prove that to you? Are you asking me to prove to you that people at the highest risk of not getting prenatal care are poor teens? Is that what we need to spend time on?
Quote:
|
In fact, the US has higher infant mortality, and mortality for kids under 5, for a variety of reasons that go beyond neonatal care. The US does worse for mortality of children under 5 to pneumonia, for example.
|
When I read the WHO report I saw mortality for children under 5 as 8 per 10,000 (.08%) compared to Canada as 6 per 10,000 (.06%). Perhaps some consider that alone to be statistically significant enough to draw conclusions, I don't.
Quote:
|
You can't be serious with this crap. You want to live a shorter life? Fine, but so why pay more for it?
|
I would rather spend money today to keep my cholesterol low, blood pressure low, etc., than to not spend the money and spend extra days at the end of my life in a hospital bed. It is clear on this issue, that you make your choices, I make mine - government should not dictate to you nor me.
Quote:
|
No, it takes an active imagination to try to come up with specific excuses as to why the US does worse in almost every single health statistic, especially when the disparities don't match up with the claim you are making.
|
I did not see WHO make the value judgment regarding the quality of health care that you seem to make.
Quote:
|
As for the infectious diseases part, look up years of life lost to communicable diseases, and you will see how death to infectious diseases affects the life expectancy rate. Oh, and death to infectious diseases in the US declined for most of the 20th century, but started going up again in 1980...
|
and my point is we need to understand the numbers. when comparing two countries on this issue, you have to understand for example what is the impact of AIDS on the numbers, and how does cultural aspects in one country compare to another in this regard outside of health care to determine how the numbers impact health care delivery questions.
Quote:
|
They made no adjustments to their life expectancy table. What you are doing is comparing different variables, why I don't know.
|
Read the report again. They did make adjustment to life expectancy, for something they call "full health" - which you can not explain.
Quote:
|
The WHO has exactly the same number for life expectancy as that calculated in the US. The two things you are trying to compare is the data the WHO has on "Healthy life expectancy" and "life expectancy." They are different things, and so to claim that the WHO is trying to mess up the numbers only shows how little you know.
|
Lets be clear. I am asking for an understanding of their numbers. The numbers are in their report, not mine. Isn't fair to ask? If we are going to make policy decisions based on the report and comparisons to other nations, don't we want to understand the numbers. How do we know their source is not biased? How do they explain that in some categories of statistics some nations show no data?
Quote:
|
As far as homicides go, look around a bit more. Soon you will find the mortality rate for injuries, which will include not only homicides, but any and all accidents. You will see that in the US the mortality rate for injuries is 47, for Canada 34 and for France 48. In other words, the difference in mortality rate to injuries is not enough to explain the difference in overall mortality rate for Canada, and should actually benefit the US in a comparison to France.
|
I was challenged regarding homicides. I was told homicides would make no difference when comparing the US and Canada. I simply went through an exercise to prove, at least to me, that it does make a difference. I am comfortable with the conclusion I have come to until someone proves otherwise, you have not.