Last edited by Don't Tase Me Bro; 06-12-09 at 08:51 AM.
Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero
First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.
Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.
U.S. News & World Report
Here you goLinks? And exactly what do you define as "staggering"? What percentage difference qualifies as staggering? Are you taking into account all the other variables?
One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002.
The age-adjusted 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined was 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women, which is significantly lower than the estimates of 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program ( P < .001).
Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.
That is your opinion.The problem is that too many Americans cannot afford it, or even a reasonable facsimile thereof.
$15 a month? That's it? That's pretty darn cheap, so what's the problem?I'm the employer paying close to $15 a month in health insurance premiums for my employees to be able to afford to go to the doctor.
Of course I have read it. What's telling is that you haven't and yet you sit there throwing out quotes and numbers from a report that you have never read, analyzed, or verified.No. Have you?
I should not have to point out all of the facts I did to someone as opinionated on this subject as you appear to be. You should have done your own research before just blindly accepting the statistics from some report you've heard others talk about.
Really? Bankrupt an entire industry and putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work is the whole point?Sure, private insurers will lose business, that is the whole freaking point.
Note that you say "affordable" health care. That's always the argument from you people who seek to destroy our health care system. You never talk about the quality of that health care and how that will suffer in order to make it "affordable." It will become "affordable" by rationing care, long waiting lists, and denying treatments that the government bureaucrats deem to expensive or draining on the system. This is what happens in nations with socialist health care every day.Since when is the continued wealth of private medical insurers more important than affordable health care?
And "the continued wealth of private medical insurers", as you so notably phrase it, thus citing a class warfare jealousy argument and not a medical one, is quite important to me because that private insurance is the reason I have a better quality of health care than most other people in the world.
Government health care for everyone isn't about taking those people with less access to health care or a lack of insurance and bringing them up to the quality of care the rest of us receive today. It's about taking the rest of the us with a high quality of care and dragging that quality down to make it "affordable" so everyone can have the same miserable low quality health care, just like in Britain and Canada etc.