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

is that this ranking is a mystery, according to everything I've been able to find on the web. I would not jump to the conclusion that it is a result of flaws in our health care system. All kinds of expanations have been advanced. I WOULD investigate a statistical explanation, based on how "live births" are classified nation by nation, as Evie and I suggested.

Even if our health care system was as flawed as you seem to think, is it SO flawed as to account for this? Do you really think a woman in Poland, Malta or Hungary is recieving better care than in the US? Some of our maternity wards must be hellholes for this to be true. Where are they?

Notice that other advanced countries, such as the UK and Switzerland are also near the bottom of the list. I would suggest a healthy skepticism about the study itself might be in order.

The study may be flawed... but since it is just revealed I am loathe to automatically discount a fairly reputable organization when they commission a survey to be used as a tool to aid in child health care world wide. There was no malicious intent to denigrate the USA... if anything the US does provide an example of advanced medical technology to the rest of the world. What is dismaying about the study is that the - arguably - most advanced nation on Earth doesn't have the lowest child mortality rate... if the survey is accurate (I concede statistical errors are possible).

If the numbers are accurate then is the issue our nations' failure to get the technology out to those who need it? Or... as I am more suspecting of, could it be an environmental and/or nutritional issue? I see kids walking around today towering in physical stature like nothing I saw as a teen. Is it good nutrition or is it the additives we put in our food? The incidence of Autism is growing faster than our population should statistically allow for. Childhood obesity along with diabetes is growing at an alarming rate. I posted a few months back about a study the AMA had helped prepare for... 5 or 6 years in the preparation... of studying american children from conception to adulthood. It was cut as being too expensive when the current national budget was being considered this past spring. This is a study that would have saved the nation money over the life span and beyond of everyone who would have benefitted from the information... but it wasn't politicly expedient today.

When I see a study like this I ask myself if the study is accurate then why is the most advanced country in the world not the most healthy as well. If someone out there is doing things better by their children than us, then we should find out why and how. It is not a political issue... it is an issue of the quality of life for every citizen in the US and from there, the world.

... in that it's an annual thing. Thus the "alarming results" are nothing new either.

BTW, I used to feel that way about the kids looking older, etc. About the only statistical measure we have for girls is that the first menstruation age HAS decreased. But take a look back at your high school yearbook. You might be as surprised as I was to be reminded how we looked "back then".

You ask why, you've been given reasonable explanations (and some other studies) yet discount them apparently. At the very least you've ignored them.

The results of flawed studies should be DISCARDED out of hand. It's like all of the "such and such increased" but it wasn't statistically significant. Should have not been reported. Any study that does not consider confounding variables is inherently flawed. Those variables are well known by now and an attempt to address them should be made.

...the realization of just how ignorant one is, is directly proportional to the amount of formal and informal education and life experience one has.

So maybe it's a good idea for you to go get ready for "finals". By the way, why don't you tell us what school you're attending and what your major is (if you're at that level).

...When you say:

''I wish you would show some proof that..."

Some people on this forum have CREDIBILITY. Also when you say:

''...quit imposing your political agenda...''

Is that a polite request or a COMMAND????

... the tiniest baby born went home from the hospital. You have to wonder in how many countries this would have been an abortion (26 weeks, life of the mother) and/or a more tragic ending of all three dying. We go through heroic efforts to save the most fragile among us.

Evie

America just plain sucks and only big(ger) government can help

Where was this claim ever made here?

Over exaggeration does not become you Duck Man... Oh wait... I used to watch that cartoon and you named yourself after it? Hmmm. Over exaggeration is exactly what that cartoon was about.

Drat ! Hoisted by your own canard !!! (Double pun there )

Not if it's the result of faulty counting.

Some babies will always die in any country, no matter how good the system in use is, at least in our current imperfect world.

... is actually from your state and is very detailed as to infant mortality.

If anyone thinks that socialized medicine will increase the "time post partum" that mother and infant stay in the hospital, they are probably fooling themselves.

How about home births? If one wants to compare infant mortalities w/o considering other factors, then if longer hospital stays are considered better, my anecdotal (and I welcome stats from anyone that can provide them) knowledge is that home births/midwifery is far more common in Canada than here.

That said, I support measures taken to allow for at least 48 hours where desired for any reason by the parents.

Evie