US has the 2nd worst newborn mortality rate...

It's a brand new study -- and another nail in the coffin of the "greatest health care system" myth.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

So is this: Mind the gap: Americans less healthy than the English.

>> White, middle-aged Americans - even those who are rich - are far less healthy than their peers in England, according to new research that erases misconceptions and has experts scratching their heads. Americans had higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, lung disease and cancer - findings that held true no matter what income or education level. Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens. <<

If this is accepted news, Evie, why is our country doing nothing about it? Doesn't fixing a broken health care system come under the heading of "promoting the general wealfare," to say nothing of affecting one's right to life? Or do you consider that term relevant only to the unborn, and not the living?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... we have ourselves to blame. Gimme a break Dave. You and I both know a lot of people that don't go to a doctor unless they are in extreme pain or to a dentist until they need to have a tooth pulled. That's not an indicator of how good healthcare is, it's an indicator of the laziness or whatever of society.

How about comparing the mortality rates to the rates of occurrence. We're a fat people. That accounts for the higher rates of a lot of things.

What do you propose we do? Govenrment mandated diet and exercise programs? Monthly mandatory cholesterol testing and monitoring of statin compliance?

Then everyone will lose weight!

If you read the actual article, they blame the high-stress, totally competitive nature of American society. We work the longest hours and take the fewest vacations of any major industrial nations; couple that with about the worst health-care system among them, and we're not around as long as we should be to enjoy all our wealth!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... it's NOT the healthcare system per se. Unless you want government to dictate your lifestyle for you.

Longest hours and fewest vacations ... Yeah, and 15,000 don't die from a "heat wave" that barely reaches 100 degrees.

"That study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association last week that compared the health of U.S. and British citizens spoke volumes about America's health care system.

"Researchers from the U.S. and England were just trying to discover why poor people are less healthy than rich, but were astounded when their studies showed that poor people in England are actually as healthy as rich people in America and healthier when it comes to cases of diabetes, blood pressure and cancer.

"But even more astounding to them was when comparing all white Brits with white Americans, regardless of income, the Americans have more diabetes, more heart disease, more respiratory problems and many more other diseases as well.

" "It was a bit of a big shock," Michael Marmot of University College in London told National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." "I just didn't imagine we'd find it consistently across the board, with worse health in the United States compared with England." "

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=83320&ntpid=0

But I'm sure it can't have anything to do with better health care, that would be sacrilegious and unthinkable, or at least it should be suppressed like so many other truths in America.

Rob

... of diabetes, respiratory problems, etc. have anything to do with the the healthcare system?

None of the researchers was willing to say it, but the fact that Americans have an enormous number of people without health insurance can't be overlooked as a cause.

So when they don't say it, make up facts. Sounds familiar. Truth that does not exist cannot be suppressed. And Dave Zweifel's opinions are not truth.

than the English one. It COULD mean that the American system is finding (diagnosing) more health problems rather than Americans having a higher rate of disease. So the American system COULD be more effective at detecting and treating illness.

Certainly, the health care system is not CAUSING things like diabetes.

...Of course it is. You just look at their teeth and tell that right off.

that from? Soviet Union?

And all those socialist countries in northern Europe are beating the US all hollow on the public health front despite "the Best Health Care Money Can Buy". Perhaps nobody told them that we're better than they are and that we should win in all categories.

Guess there hasn't been enough trickle down for the bottom half of the American public to afford the Best Health Care Money Can Buy. Of course I always thought Trickle Down Economics was a joke, but now you have proof. Trickle Down Economics only works if the Wealthy are not permitted to sequester their assets either off shore or in trusts.

As I used to say in Reagan's day, Trickle Down Economics only works if the Rich are too poor, or too careless to sew up the holes in their pockets.

Rob

... becuase that's what would happen in socialized countries. The same person itching to kick a "lost cause" out of the ICU is probably amongst the ones complaining that we spend too much trying to save premies and on neo-natal ICU's.

Amazing how the author of the article can be SOOO dense. We have the most neonatal units and doctors. Duh! I wonder why. Because we TRY. The same, BTW, goes for trying to save and rehabilitate severe accident victims, etc.

seen or even heard about in two separate National Health Care schemes covering the last 26 years. There is an entire hospital (West Park) in Toronto dedicated to patients with no hope of recovery, and nobody has suggested terminating treatment. I really don't know where you get your ideas about health care here, or anywhere else, since they bear no relation to the systems I have lived with or have studied.

Rob

Search on futile care to see what I fear. It's already being done in the US, and will get WORSE, not better, if we adopted a socialized scheme.

deaths. If life support is terminated, the death becomes part of the statistic. The way medical statistics operate is that intervention automatically includes the patient in mortality studies, because it is the intervention that is in question, not the birth. Doctors want to know if their interventions are improving or are detrimental to over all survival, and which doctors are least successful in their practice of medicine. Indeed, if one thinks of Northern Europe as being euthenasia (?sp) friendly, and it still has better newborn survival rates, then their healthcare system is producing more viable live births, despite possible terminations of life support, than the United States.

Rob

... that it is NOT. Babies "born" under a certain weight are not considered live births in many places. If the intervention is what makes it a "birth", and the risk of subsequent death is very high (astronomically high compared to overall mortality rates) then this artificially inflates infant mortality rates. In many countries, they don't even try -- write the birth off as a fetal death.

support for single parent families especially in the first year of a newborn's life. Possibly the use of midwives which are common in other countries, and a certain amount of tort reform/obstetrical practitioner insurance reform. That's not Doom and Gloom, its a solution.

I've been advocating National Health Care here for a long time, and it was EdH who wondered why Socialism wasn't dead, and I posted this very item in the midst of that discussion. I'm just trying to remind people that there are better ways of doing things, not like those who replied to my Molly Ivins thread trying to "take this thing south". But the Righties have found a perfect method to avoid any discussion by getting nasty without dealing in any way with the subject.

And since when is the reporting of a widely published statistic "bashing the USA". I didn't make the statistic up, or even post it, the statistic is what indicates that there is a problem, not me. Find another messenger to kill.

I offer ideas all the time only to be slagged for that too.

Rob

Stop trying to ruin the US health care system. If Americans want to change it, they will, but they don't want their health care system run like the Post Office or the Welfare System. They made that clear with HillaryCare.

See my post to Grim below. If there's one area where US provides superior care it is for neonatal and infant care.

... a study that does nothing to point out the FLAWED standard used -- to the effect of misrepresenting this country as having poor infant care -- does unfortunately grossly malign that country.

I didn't say it was specifically intended to embarrass the US. I would say that they have a responsibility to understand the implications of such studies and to point out the errors in their methodology.

Grossly... : glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness

Maligned : to utter injuriously misleading or false reports about : speak evil of...

Such a comment suggests malicious intent... now your suggesting it was just bad methodology? The article from CNN doesn't even discuss methodology so how you found a flawed standard of statistical analysis is beyond me.

What was reported in the article is the following.

Based on 10 measures of well being - 6 for mothers and 4 for children...
The Mother Index... Sweden at number one
- Denmark, Finland (tied)
- Austria, Germany, Norway (tied)
- Australia, Netherlands (tied)
- Canada
- and then the US and UK.... The US ranks in the top 10 (tying with the UK) of the mother's index

Unfortunately the statistics re: Newborn Mortality in the Industrialized World ranks the US at 32 out of 33 industrialized countries with more than 5 deaths out of 1000 newborn births. The US was ranked with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia... Latvia came in at 6 deaths per 1000 to close out the bottom.

I read over the CNN article three times and have yet to find discussion of analysis or what statistical sampling method was used.

If anyone would like to download the full report go to this LINK and click on DOWNLOAD REPORT.

so I don't understand why you claim invalid survey methods based on the fact they don't provide the methodology. One could just as easily claim your refuting the survey is faulty since you don't address the actual survey yourself. Instead you quote a 4 year old article that references an even older study about a country that doesn't even fall in the industrialized category that the STC survey considered.

BTW... what does this part even reference? Cuba's infant mortality rate, 16 6.0 per 1,000, is now lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate, at 7.2 per 1,000. The Cuba number makes no sense and the US number is way over the claimed STC survey results.

I don't have a problem per se, with questioning the results of the study and wanting to explore the methods, accepted statistical deviation, and if there was adjustment for reported vs. unreported newborn deaths. What I questioned was your statement implying that there is a deliberate attempt with the survey to paint the US in a bad light... then flip flopping and questioning methodology instead.

Look, I see a study that mentions the US provides excellent health care for the mother and yet, we still have a higher infant mortality rate than many other countries. Why? Is it environmental? Could it be connected to nutrition and the high amount of processed foods we eat? Is it a fault in our methods of modern health care. You yourself (in your addiction thread) state the addiction/disease approach is faulty and ineffective. Why are you suddenly so supportive of a different part of our medical arsenal?

I see questions of concern... you see an effort to insult the US. If the results are real then asking questions will hopefully save lives.

... 4 years old. But SSDD.

FACT: US leads the world in trying to save premies. We count as a live birth many babies that aren't even counted as babies in other countries. That's the thanks we get I suppose.

Reread my link. Or are you intentionally being dense?

Sorry if I'm dense... The numbers in that article made sense to you?

The comment FACT: US leads the world in trying to save premies. We count as a live birth many babies that aren't even counted as babies in other countries. That's the thanks we get I suppose. is more substantial than your other posts despite the gratuitous ''We get no respect'' addendum. This part about the premies could skew the study results... and depends on the methodology used... which you have made assumptions about but not shown the methodology itself.

You said ''Yes ... a study that does nothing to point out the FLAWED standard used'' and then go on to say ''Your quote: I read over the CNN article three times and have yet to find discussion of analysis or what statistical sampling method was used... Is my point exactly.'' Would you please make up your mind? Was there a flawed standard used or the reason why you question the study is because they showed no methodology at all? I'm amazed that you would base either argument on a news blurb anyway rather than the study itself (which I posted a link to).

I thought we were discussing your statement that this study was designed to malign the US though? As I said to Ed... You do realize this survey covers 125 countries and not just the US? Why the paranoia?

You've painted yourself into a corner... take a break and regroup.