RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system

RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 8:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Is infant mortality a health care issue or is it a drug abuse issue? Maybe we just need to intennsify the war on drugs... quote: Infant mortality is associated with many factors, including the health and economic status of the mother, her race or ethnicity, access to quality medical care, and such cultural problems as rising obesity and drug use. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html (Yes, I know it's a questionable source, but its the best I could do in a pinch). What exactly am I missing here, because I did not see the quote in the linked article or even within the links in the article.

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 8:30:07 PM)
Good catch, sorry, I had the link mixed up with another article I was looking at. Here's the one I pulled that quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19sun3.html There's not a lot on infant mortality out there. Seriously, it seems as though more is known about infant mortality among spotted owls. I wonder, is there some reason that the various studies that I am sure have been done aren't being published?

mcbride -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 12:49:02 AM)
That's pretty funny. I'm not your personal nanny state, Sanity. The NYT item you posted summarised the causes, and you already know there are dozens more, media and academic, that do the same thing more pointedly. I don't expect you to admit it, given your ideology. I'm posting to help Americans who are still confused by the lies being told about one particular public system that I happen to know about first hand. Anyone who's interested can find page after page of findings like this one, which demonstrate for any reasonable person the glaring gap in infant mortality -- 14.2 for blacks and 5.8 for whites -- as well as the correlation with the availability of prenatal care to minorities, and very similar correlations to lack of health care access for the poor: "A cluster of interrelated environmental factors is associated with infant mortality in the United States. These include poverty, inadequate prenatal care, cutbacks in federal programs, a high rate of teenage pregnancies, and use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco during pregnancy. The factor most often cited as responsible for the lower rates of infant mortality in other developed nations is the universal availability of free prenatal and maternal health care." - healthline.com The fact remains, in the words of the CDC, " In 2004, the United States ranked 29th in the world in infant mortality, tied with Poland and Slovakia, [falling steadily] from 12th in 1960 and 23rd in 1990." But hey, if you say that's not because of health care, mazeltov. I'll happily leave the conclusions in the hands of those undecided readers.

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 3:34:52 AM)
You initially tried to claim that infant mortality differences were entirely due to health care factors, but now you're backtracking and admitting that there are other causes as well. See, it's not so hard to admit you were wrong. [:)]

mnottertail -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 3:55:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You initially tried to claim that infant mortality differences were entirely due to health care factors, but now you're backtracking and admitting that there are other causes as well. See, it's not so hard to admit you were wrong. [:)] It then would be no great leap of faith to admit that the trivial differential in cancer survival rates during some arbitrary 3 year period could be attributed to other than solely 'the best health care system in the world' (*NB: venomous, dripping sarcasm), as well. N-est ce' pas? Ron

Lucylastic -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 5:30:30 AM)
Sanity, yanno I was gonna come up with some stats for you but I decided in the end there was SOOOOO much material available at the CDC that I would give you a link instead and you can do all the digging you want but first http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D31;jsessionid=116073135CD10905DA5FA74D4CE4F9A0?stage=results&action=sort&direction=MEASURE_DESCEND&measure=0 listed by age of mom, the month prenatal care started, there are a kagillion different ways to check out the data, http://wonder.cdc.gov/lbd-current.html Ill let you have your fingers do the work http://www.cdc.gov/SIDS/ http://www.cdc.gov/SIDS/SUID.htm OH and they also have stats for canada too Have fun

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 7:31:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Have you had any negative experiences with the WIC program, or were they mostly positive? And what can you say about the availability of WIC to mothers and expectant mothers. It's a very good program, and it's freely available, right? I've had mixed experiences with the WIC program. I do have to say, though, that impoverished women and children who have access to WIC have better nutritional profiles than women and children from similar backgrounds who -don't- have access. Enrolling the moms at the free clinics in the WIC program, and providing transportation to allow them to purchase groceries was considered part of the care we provided at the clinics (it's always surprised me how few grocery stores are found in densely populated but deeply impoverished neighborhoods). It did make a big difference in terms of pregnancy health. We did have some bad experiences when we dealt with some of our 'street moms', though, and it is the same set of problems that come up when trying to get help like Medicaid or AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children... aka Welfare)... if you don't have an address, you don't get benefits, and for our moms who were on the street, and who couldnt' even get space in a shelter, that made it doubly difficult to get things like healthy food -- for -many- of those women, we fed them at least one decent meal at the clinic when they came in for care, and sent them home with bags of things like apples and peanut butter -- things that would last a while, even without refrigeration, but that didn't require can openers, or pots/pans/etc. Dame Calla

mcbride -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 8:59:50 AM)
Yeah, this from a guy who ignored the CDC's list of causes, such as "the health and economic status of the mother, her race or ethnicity, access to quality medical care, and such cultural problems as rising obesity and drug use" except for the last one listed, which let him (attempt to) blame infant mortality on "mom is a crack head". Nice try. I didn't say "entirely" anything, as you know. I made fun your ignoring all the other causes, which is pretty comical. Oh, and I pointed to all those links between race and poverty and lack of access to health care, and the 15,000 babies who would live every year if the US system was simply average. So, if that answer from the CDC seems confusing -- and may I say, your theatrical aside to rulemylife ("Seriously, it seems as though more is known about infant mortality among spotted owls.") was positively Hamletesque -- may I suggest that the many helpful links posted by Lucylastic might quench that thirst?

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 11:14:42 AM)
I posted that information. Looked it up, found it, read it, then posted it - which is the exact the opposite of ignored it. What I'm trying to help you to understand is really very simple, you can't compare apples to oranges. I'll try one more time before giving up on you. Put it this way - if more expectant American mothers smoke cigarettes than Canadian expectant mothers then there may be higher infant mortality in the U.S. which would have absolutely nothing to do with levels of health care. And that's the topic, how the U.S. measures up to Canada's health care. All I've been trying to point out is that the thing you introduced as a means of comparison, infant mortality, may not be a very good indicator for various reasons. Lucy's a doll, but her links were to meaningless raw data that is of no bearing to this argument.

mnottertail -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 11:21:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And that's the topic, how the U.S. measures up to Canada's health care. To be perfectly punctilitious, no. What the subject of the thread IS about: How the U.S. (healthcare system (understood)) measures up to Canada's healthcare system. Not for shit, is the plain and simple answer. It started going really out of round (in my estimation) with a very inaccurate and insidious comment about cancer, but that's the nature of the beast out here in random political stupidity. Ron

rulemylife -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 11:27:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I posted that information. Looked it up, found it, read it, then posted it - which is the exact the opposite of ignored it. What I'm trying to help you to understand is really very simple, you can't compare apples to oranges. I'll try one more time before giving up on you. Put it this way - if more expectant American mothers smoke cigarettes than Canadian expectant mothers then there may be higher infant mortality in the U.S. which would have absolutely nothing to do with levels of health care. And that's the topic, how the U.S. measures up to Canada's health care. All I've been trying to point out is that the thing you introduced as a means of comparison, infant mortality, may not be a very good indicator for various reasons. Lucy's a doll, but her links were to meaningless raw data that is of no bearing to this argument. Yes, and it very well may be possible that the high infant mortality rate is directly related to radiation from the above ground nuclear tests in the '40's with the effects being passed through generations. It could also be that that bisphenol A is leeching out of plastics and causing fetal health problems and premature delivery. In fact, I could come up with a hundred bullshit theories on why this is happening as long as I don't have to provide any proof. So let us know when you find some for yours.

tazzygirl -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 5:38:08 PM)
If we are doing a country to country comparison, it might be helpful to understand the following... http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 6:01:12 PM)
Wow, tazzygirl, thanks for posting that, it's enlightening. .

mnottertail -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 6:12:49 PM)
It is a thread about babies dying, which has nothing to do with healthcare systems, it is purely bullshit, brought up by mewling and puking liberals, trying to dissuade real americans from the truth. Sanity has already put the lie to that bullshit.

tazzygirl -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 7:07:53 PM)
i understand Master Ron, i merely posted it because you cannot compare apples to oranges when the definitions vary so much.

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 7:30:25 PM)
Does anyone find it strange that all the fine editors and reporters and other assorted self-proclaimed newsmen down at The New York Times failed to dig out that little nugget of truth? It's fairly amazing. One little tazzygirl managed to put the whole lot of 'em to shame.

tazzygirl -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/25/2009 7:38:25 PM)
as i have said before, statistics can be heavily skewed depending on the information used to gather the findings. until all countries use the same definition you cant compare.

mcbride -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/26/2009 7:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Does anyone find it strange that all the fine editors and reporters and other assorted self-proclaimed newsmen down at The New York Times failed to dig out that little nugget of truth? It's fairly amazing. One little tazzygirl managed to put the whole lot of 'em to shame. More amazing is that anyone would think that it hadn’t occurred to CDC, WHO, and countless other research organizations, and been taken into account. Of course there are some differences, as QuandO and other right-wing blogs have been noting, in an effort to explain away a serious failure. But there are some glaring problems with pretending that it explains away all, or most, of the startling gap between the US and comparable countries. As others have pointed out, in Canada and the Scandinavian countries, and others, very premature babies with relatively low odds of survival are counted as live births, which produces higher mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births. And yet… those countries still have better infant mortality rates than the US. If it were true that the US was doing nearly as well as other industrialized countries, but that they measure stillborns differently, you could simply check that. And you can. And guess what? The WHO does that, here. There are some simple charts here. If you separate out and look at all the applicable rates, newborn, and infant, and stillborn, you get trouble. The “statistical illusion” argument falls apart. I wonder if all the fine editors and reporters and other assorted self-proclaimed newsmen down at The New York Times did their homework and figured out, quickly, that it's a little nugget of, well, something other than truth.

Lucylastic -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/27/2009 7:22:39 AM)
Sanity, I provided you with a link to a wealth of numbers and causes, the fact that you couldnt be bothered to use it doesnt make it meaningless to anyone who cares to make some kind of effort. For Example, in 2005 Mothers who only got prenatal care at the seven month mark onwards--- 519 infants died The number of mothers that had no prenatal care, ---995 infants died. Why they didnt have health care is not reported. The CDC says the following "International comparisons of infant mortality can be affected by differences in reporting of fetal and infant deaths. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking" The OECD states In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births so not only US but Canadian rates are reported the same way Ive grown weary of this simply for the fact that it doesnt matter what us NON Americans put forward as some kind of backup for OUR systems, you just disregard it anyway. I have had two children under the Canadian system, along with one miscarriage and one ectopic pregnancy. All I had to do was show my healthcard at every doctors visit, every test, every gynae appointment, every hospital appointment with no forms, no insurance companies paperwork, no shopping for care. and not one penny in out of pocket expenses. And we were just average lower income working stiffs The canadian system is no where near perfect, but we do work on making it better...We may have to send people out of the country sometimes as there is a shortage of staff and beds in some areas, but government health care does pay for canadians treatment.(eg....Number of high-risk pregnancy cases Ontario has sent to the States since January, 2006=39, paid by ohip) take it with a pinch of salt, ignore it, find fault with it whatever... no more from me on this subject. Lucy

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875