quade 4 #26 May 28, 2010 QuoteYOU figure it out. So you believe the answer is obvious, that "teenagers" have more per cap births in the US. What do you think accounts for that? Lack of morals or lack of sex education and birth control?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 May 28, 2010 http://www.causecast.org/news_items/8645-ten-things-you-should-know-about-infant-mortality"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 May 28, 2010 More http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 May 28, 2010 And the causes differ http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5642a8.htm http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Infant-Mortality.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 May 28, 2010 Quotehttp://www.causecast.org/news_items/8645-ten-things-you-should-know-about-infant-mortality Rush, did you think this thread was about the infant mortality rate or maternal mortality rate?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 May 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteYOU figure it out. So you believe the answer is obvious, that "teenagers" have more per cap births in the US. What do you think accounts for that? Lack of morals or lack of sex education and birth control? Its a direct result of Dumasses like Mark Souder.... with the do as I say attitude and giving no viable option other than the ever goat fuck stupid "abstinence" programs available to so many of the dumb as dirt and proud of it crowd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 May 28, 2010 Read the OP. That is what I am replying to The site topic is very clear IMO"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #33 May 28, 2010 QuoteRead the OP. That is what I am replying to The site topic is very clear IMO Yes, and John made it very clear he's talking about the mortality rate of the mothers.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 May 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteRead the OP. That is what I am replying to The site topic is very clear IMO Yes, and John made it very clear he's talking about the mortality rate of the mothers. He also make a statement to the other right?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 May 28, 2010 QuoteIt's not like the US is 2nd or 3rd - it's way down the list (39 or 41 depending on the date of the report). Maternal mortality According to UNICEF data (UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2002. Official Summary: The State of the World's Children 2002), we're in a 5-way tie with Poland, Japan, Germany and Portugal for #116, with 8 deaths per 100k.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 May 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteRead the OP. That is what I am replying to The site topic is very clear IMO Yes, and John made it very clear he's talking about the mortality rate of the mothers. He also make a statement to the other right? Not a statement, but a reference to set up the discussion about the mothers. Anyway, why do you think so many of the mothers in the US die in childbirth compared to the rest of the industrialized nations?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 May 28, 2010 Just for a reminder QuoteNot only does the USA's infant mortality and life expectancy suck compared with other wealthy countries, Same liberal blather used in support of the much want universial health care Which by the way, has the media fully ignoring the negative reports coming out now. The analysis is showing that what health care is left will be more expensive. 1 out of 5 hospitals will be in the red because of the reductions in medicare payments and so they will be dropping it. What effect do you think the upcoming 20% in pay to Drs is going to have on the system??huh?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #38 May 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt's not like the US is 2nd or 3rd - it's way down the list (39 or 41 depending on the date of the report). Maternal mortality According to UNICEF data (UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2002. Official Summary: The State of the World's Children 2002), we're in a 5-way tie with Poland, Japan, Germany and Portugal for #116, with 8 deaths per 100k. So we WERE, EIGHT YEARS AGO. If you bothered to read the link BEFORE hitting "reply to", you would see that the US numbers have surged to 13.3 per 100,000... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 May 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's not like the US is 2nd or 3rd - it's way down the list (39 or 41 depending on the date of the report). Maternal mortality According to UNICEF data (UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2002. Official Summary: The State of the World's Children 2002), we're in a 5-way tie with Poland, Japan, Germany and Portugal for #116, with 8 deaths per 100k. So we WERE, EIGHT YEARS AGO. If you bothered to read the link BEFORE hitting "reply to", you would see that the US numbers have surged to 13.3 per 100,000 I did read the link - perhaps you should quit ASSuming things, perfesser. You also missed this little tidbit from AA: "Amnesty International’s analysis also shows a health care reform proposal before the US Congress does not address the crisis of maternal health care." So much for your claim that universal coverage is going to solve the problem.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #40 May 28, 2010 If you saw that John was talking about a more recent report, why would you link out of date statistics?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 May 28, 2010 Quote Human nature doesn't change much from country to country. Health care SYSTEMS do. Who are you kidding? The US, and now England and Australia show a substantially different rate of obesity than the rest of the world. And since the latter two have a very different health care system, I think we can safely conclude that human nature does in fact vary. Like Mike's chart on teenage births - pretty telling. It would be interesting to see if America also has a much larger number of births to older women who delayed child rearing into their 30s and 40s. That demographic issue could also contribute to the rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 May 28, 2010 Quote you know This has come up before that the biggest problem with the comparisons between other countries and the US is we count more situtations than other countries IT IS NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON!!!! I suspect that there is less differentiation on the counting of maternal deaths due to pregnancy. It's not the same as counting or not counting infant deaths soon after birth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 May 28, 2010 QuoteIf you saw that John was talking about a more recent report, why would you link out of date statistics? Because they were actual statistics, and not an op-ed. But, since you mention reports, here's a tidbit from the CDC: QuoteIn the NVSS, maternal deaths increased with the introduction of the ICD–10 and when the separate pregnancy status question switched from being supplemental information available from some state certificates to an item expected to be included on all state certificates. Maternal mortality rates increased for both of the years when these changes affecting identification of maternal deaths were implemented. Changes with the ICD–10 that resulted in more indirect maternal causes apply more with the increasing use of separate pregnancy questions. Because most states have yet to adopt the standard format of the separate pregnancy question, it is likely that maternal and late maternal death rates in all states will continue to be subject to increases because of the adoption of questions rather than actual increases in maternal mortality. Looks like much of the 'jump' was due to a change in the ICD questionnaire that better quantified the cause of death. Still waiting to see kallend explain how his 'univeral care' mantra is going to solve the dual problems of too few doctors and patients not going to the doctor in the first place.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #44 May 28, 2010 QuoteThe US, and now England and Australia show a substantially different rate of obesity than the rest of the world. Are we talking about healthcare or a diet consisting of a good deal of high fructose corn syrup?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 May 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe US, and now England and Australia show a substantially different rate of obesity than the rest of the world. Are we talking about healthcare or a diet consisting of a good deal of high fructose corn syrup? Since it's kelp making the statement and not kallend, I'm presuming the rational choice - diet.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 May 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe US, and now England and Australia show a substantially different rate of obesity than the rest of the world. Are we talking about healthcare or a diet consisting of a good deal of high fructose corn syrup? don't follow the question. Kallend asserted that humans act the same everywhere, so any difference in death rates must be attributable to the healthcare system. While I view HFCS with great suspicion, it is only one of several factors I see causing our growth in bad metrics. Our system of HC is not among this list. Mike has provided some pretty strong arguments on this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #47 May 29, 2010 Quote QuoteNot only does the USA's infant mortality and life expectancy suck compared with other wealthy countries, but the death rate of women during pregnancy and childbirth sucks too. 38 countries have lower maternal death rates than the USA. We stlii beat Rwanda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #48 May 29, 2010 Why aren't we calling it the maternal suicide rate? I find it difficult to blame a healthcare system for failing to fix a person who will not fix him or her self. So when there's a 5'4", 220 pound diabetic tobacco user who is hypertensive and non-compliant with doctor's orders, one could suspect that this person is at a much higher risk of getting preeclampsic, having a large child and having to get a C-section delivery from which she'll have an extended healing process with higher risk of infection and death. We blame a health care system for failing to fix people who break themselves and keep themselves broken. The third leading cause of death in the US (after heart disease and cancer) is medical treatment. A whole lot of this treatment is of people who could have simply avoided it in the first place by declining to live a lifestyle associated with the affluence of our society. It's not about access the healthcare, John. Get rid of the fat, the tobacco users and the drunk - and get some patients who actually COMPLY with doctor's suggestions - and we'll have ourselves a much more manageable healthcare system. Heck, I myself just made healthcare much less expensive by changing diet and eliminating my need for blood pressure meds. The medical system utilizes too many resources taking care of people who refuse to take care of themselves. It's a good thing government is moving in to make sure that the consequences of self abuse are so much more affordable. Well, to those families making less than $250k $50k per year. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DARK 0 #49 May 29, 2010 hans rosling ahs some excellent talks on ted.com here is one he gave to the us state department im not sure if this is his infant mortality rate one but if itsnot you should look for it there are only 3/4 videos it explains alot of things about the world http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_at_state.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #50 May 30, 2010 Quote Why aren't we calling it the maternal suicide rate? I find it difficult to blame a healthcare system for failing to fix a person who will not fix him or her self. So when there's a 5'4", 220 pound diabetic tobacco user who is hypertensive and non-compliant with doctor's orders, one could suspect that this person is at a much higher risk of getting preeclampsic, having a large child and having to get a C-section delivery from which she'll have an extended healing process with higher risk of infection and death. We blame a health care system for failing to fix people who break themselves and keep themselves broken. The third leading cause of death in the US (after heart disease and cancer) is medical treatment. A whole lot of this treatment is of people who could have simply avoided it in the first place by declining to live a lifestyle associated with the affluence of our society. It's not about access the healthcare, John. Get rid of the fat, the tobacco users and the drunk - and get some patients who actually COMPLY with doctor's suggestions - and we'll have ourselves a much more manageable healthcare system. Heck, I myself just made healthcare much less expensive by changing diet and eliminating my need for blood pressure meds. The medical system utilizes too many resources taking care of people who refuse to take care of themselves. It's a good thing government is moving in to make sure that the consequences of self abuse are so much more affordable. Well, to those families making less than $250k $50k per year. Of course, 38 other nations that rank ahead of the US don't have fat people, poorly educated people, self-destructive people, drunks and smokers. Oh wait, YES THEY DO.What they have that is different is a better SYSTEM of providing health care.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #48 May 29, 2010 Why aren't we calling it the maternal suicide rate? I find it difficult to blame a healthcare system for failing to fix a person who will not fix him or her self. So when there's a 5'4", 220 pound diabetic tobacco user who is hypertensive and non-compliant with doctor's orders, one could suspect that this person is at a much higher risk of getting preeclampsic, having a large child and having to get a C-section delivery from which she'll have an extended healing process with higher risk of infection and death. We blame a health care system for failing to fix people who break themselves and keep themselves broken. The third leading cause of death in the US (after heart disease and cancer) is medical treatment. A whole lot of this treatment is of people who could have simply avoided it in the first place by declining to live a lifestyle associated with the affluence of our society. It's not about access the healthcare, John. Get rid of the fat, the tobacco users and the drunk - and get some patients who actually COMPLY with doctor's suggestions - and we'll have ourselves a much more manageable healthcare system. Heck, I myself just made healthcare much less expensive by changing diet and eliminating my need for blood pressure meds. The medical system utilizes too many resources taking care of people who refuse to take care of themselves. It's a good thing government is moving in to make sure that the consequences of self abuse are so much more affordable. Well, to those families making less than $250k $50k per year. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DARK 0 #49 May 29, 2010 hans rosling ahs some excellent talks on ted.com here is one he gave to the us state department im not sure if this is his infant mortality rate one but if itsnot you should look for it there are only 3/4 videos it explains alot of things about the world http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_at_state.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #50 May 30, 2010 Quote Why aren't we calling it the maternal suicide rate? I find it difficult to blame a healthcare system for failing to fix a person who will not fix him or her self. So when there's a 5'4", 220 pound diabetic tobacco user who is hypertensive and non-compliant with doctor's orders, one could suspect that this person is at a much higher risk of getting preeclampsic, having a large child and having to get a C-section delivery from which she'll have an extended healing process with higher risk of infection and death. We blame a health care system for failing to fix people who break themselves and keep themselves broken. The third leading cause of death in the US (after heart disease and cancer) is medical treatment. A whole lot of this treatment is of people who could have simply avoided it in the first place by declining to live a lifestyle associated with the affluence of our society. It's not about access the healthcare, John. Get rid of the fat, the tobacco users and the drunk - and get some patients who actually COMPLY with doctor's suggestions - and we'll have ourselves a much more manageable healthcare system. Heck, I myself just made healthcare much less expensive by changing diet and eliminating my need for blood pressure meds. The medical system utilizes too many resources taking care of people who refuse to take care of themselves. It's a good thing government is moving in to make sure that the consequences of self abuse are so much more affordable. Well, to those families making less than $250k $50k per year. Of course, 38 other nations that rank ahead of the US don't have fat people, poorly educated people, self-destructive people, drunks and smokers. Oh wait, YES THEY DO.What they have that is different is a better SYSTEM of providing health care.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
