• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity - Yahoo! News

The United States has scored poorly on a campaign group's list of the best countries in which to be a mother, managing only 28th place, and bettered by many smaller and poorer countries.

One factor that dragged the US ranking down was its maternal mortality rate, which at one in 4,800 is one of the highest in the developed world, said the report.

It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.

Only 61 percent of children were enrolled in preschool, which on this indicator made it the seventh-lowest country in the developed world, it said.
 
While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:

Now that we've passed healthcare reform, I wish we could deny it to every rabid neo-con that fought tooth and nail to defeat it. Let those imbeciles be the ones that die of preventable diseases.

Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.
 
While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:



Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.

That's because when the government assumes the role of the private sector, by design it cant be superior.

Insurance and Medicine are still private aren't they?
 
While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:



Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.
everything has failed, really? pshaw.
 
I have a hard time envisioning health, publicly or privately, as a commodity.
 
While the study was revealing - but with nothing new to me - I was struck by this comment posted below it:



Here is a good example of someone ASSUMING that a universal health care run by the government (or further governed, if you will) - will equal IMPROVEMENT in our overall ability to provide care, etc. . . when the government has in fact proven that everything that's been done under it's guidance has failed.

So you'd consider our highway system and military to be failures? Because they're the best in the world. Our post office runs efficiently as hell, do you know any private companies that will take a letter 2000 miles and deliver it by hand for less than a buck?

Health care? Every country that has adopted UHC has found it to be less expensive with better outcomes. Every time. If that's not good evidence, I don't know what is. There are countries with UHC that deliver their medicine entirely through private insurance and private practitioners and still do better than we do. There are others that go full-fledged socialized medicine, and they do better too. Then there are lots of countries with a system that is in between. They do better than we do.

To not see the trend is to be blind.
 
So you'd consider our highway system and military to be failures? Because they're the best in the world. Our post office runs efficiently as hell, do you know any private companies that will take a letter 2000 miles and deliver it by hand for less than a buck?

Health care? Every country that has adopted UHC has found it to be less expensive with better outcomes. Every time. If that's not good evidence, I don't know what is. There are countries with UHC that deliver their medicine entirely through private insurance and private practitioners and still do better than we do. There are others that go full-fledged socialized medicine, and they do better too. Then there are lots of countries with a system that is in between. They do better than we do.

To not see the trend is to be blind.

Personal wellness is not solely dependent on a medical care system.
Of course you always ignore this and attribute better health to medical care.
 
So you'd consider our highway system and military to be failures? Because they're the best in the world. Our post office runs efficiently as hell, do you know any private companies that will take a letter 2000 miles and deliver it by hand for less than a buck?

I wouldn't know how to compare us to other countries, I've never been anywhere else. . . so I'm not going to pretend.

But what makes you feel we have *the best* roadways as a nation? Not to forget that the states hold the biggest responsibility and cost for road-care and maintenance, not the federal government. . .so a broad sweeping statement won't work.
Per my state - we have some of the worst roads in the country, so that chime falls on deaf ears.

Our military is the best in the world? Is it really?
Well - this depends on who you talk to and what you're talking about. Quality of military is a HUGE variety of issues all jumbled together - I refuse to pretend that we dominate in every aspect of this when we blatantly don't.
My husband be pissed: but some aspects of our military is wretched beyond belief and fails to function as it should. Everything from our paperwork system to efficiency in the field, tactics and spending practices and even medical-care can be analyzed and judged and compared to others - so how you can fairly assess that we're the best is beyond me.
Medical care, by the way, in the military is atrocious. Remember Walter Reed? That was a problem that solely stemmed from the government itself. This gem that you worship and feel is stellar is quite tarnished and incapable when it comes to the things that matter.

And our post office? Our post office is so efficient that it's going bankrupt and having to close branches just to continue to function.

The overlooked thing about the government (and the core problem of all government-run failures) is that apparently it can run up a HUGE bill and payroll - and then just tax us and borrow from other countries when it overdraws. Basically, it has no spending limit - no one to cut off the tap when they've topped off. So they can spend, spend, spend - without having to answer to anyway.

Now, I don't consider that to be efficient, ideal business practice or smart - I think that's stupidity at it's finest. To which you say it's "the best" - so :shrug: whatever.

Health care? Every country that has adopted UHC has found it to be less expensive with better outcomes. Every time. If that's not good evidence, I don't know what is. There are countries with UHC that deliver their medicine entirely through private insurance and private practitioners and still do better than we do. There are others that go full-fledged socialized medicine, and they do better too. Then there are lots of countries with a system that is in between. They do better than we do.

Certain approaches might work in other countries - but will it work in ours? Our government is not like other governments - we are a government by proxy, unlike the UK and others which are a direct government: the government IS the power over all transportation, airways, utilities and so on. So - giving our government MORE responsibility - can it function and maintain control and balance?

I think it's proven time and time that it cannot. It cannot succeed because it refuses to control it's own spending and asses problems before it erupts and collapses, bringing everyone down with it.

To not see the trend is to be blind.

That's exactly what I'm saying to you - the government is in control of a vast number of things, all of which are plagued with problems and riddled with holes that need fixing. . . yet you're looking at these same things and being overly optimistic - when the evidence proves that if it's in the government's hands it's going to get ruined because partisan politics will rule and customer service and propriety will be put aside.
 
It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.

See, this is such BS. No other country counts pre-mature births as births. If an infant is born pre-maturely in most other countries and dies, it isn't counted in the infant mortality rate. But in the US, we take heroic measures for such infants and we DO count them in our live births/infant mortality rates, which inflates our numbers of infant mortality.

The US *accurately* reports the live births and deaths. Most other countries do not.
 
Very true, rivvrat.

Another statistic not accounted for but might tell a different story are the # of births that our advances in technology and medicine have allowed to carry further into the pregnancy/birth - even if the infant didn't survive infancy or childhood.
 
I should amend my former statement to say that no other country counts premie *deaths* as live births/deaths. If the premie lives, they count it as a live birth (though they rarely take heroic measures to save them). But if the premie dies, they do NOT count it as a live birth and subsequent death.

Here in the US, we DO count them as a live birth and death. Which inflates our infant mortality numbers.

Very true, rivvrat.

Another statistic not accounted for but might tell a different story are the # of births that our advances in technology and medicine have allowed to carry further into the pregnancy/birth - even if the infant didn't survive infancy or childhood.

Indeed. You can only do that **** with private practices, though.
 
Quoted from the article:

It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.

I wonder if they took into consideration that we have a higher rate of premature births than other developed nations, and that our methods for counting live births differ from other countries? I bet not.
 
Sorry Riverrat- I posted before I read all the way through the thread.:3oops:
 
See, this is such BS. No other country counts pre-mature births as births. If an infant is born pre-maturely in most other countries and dies, it isn't counted in the infant mortality rate. But in the US, we take heroic measures for such infants and we DO count them in our live births/infant mortality rates, which inflates our numbers of infant mortality.

The US *accurately* reports the live births and deaths. Most other countries do not.

And you can prove this of course right? A non biased source with actual facts that is .....
 
See, this is such BS. No other country counts pre-mature births as births. If an infant is born pre-maturely in most other countries and dies, it isn't counted in the infant mortality rate. But in the US, we take heroic measures for such infants and we DO count them in our live births/infant mortality rates, which inflates our numbers of infant mortality.

The US *accurately* reports the live births and deaths. Most other countries do not.

Australia does, and we have a similar standard of neo-natal care, and we came in second.
 
Australia does, and we have a similar standard of neo-natal care, and we came in second.

The big gripe with comparing different country's medical care systems and health outcomes, is that all these countries are different.
Different in demographics, culture/lifestyle, environment and population size.

Could we really compare the U.K. to Japan evenly?
No because they have entirely different cultures/lifestyles and different demographics (not sure about population size.)

To make it easier to understand, we know that Australia has a larger amount of people that develop skin cancer, compared to the U.S. or Europe.
Australia also has universal health care.
Would it be fair to say that the increase in people with skin cancer is because of universal health care?

Of course not, it's because of geographical location.

Most supporters UHC are saying that people in countries with it are healthier because of it.
They use unadjusted statistics as "proof."

Does that make sense?
 
The big gripe with comparing different country's medical care systems and health outcomes, is that all these countries are different.
Different in demographics, culture/lifestyle, environment and population size.

Could we really compare the U.K. to Japan evenly?
No because they have entirely different cultures/lifestyles and different demographics (not sure about population size.)

To make it easier to understand, we know that Australia has a larger amount of people that develop skin cancer, compared to the U.S. or Europe.
Australia also has universal health care.
Would it be fair to say that the increase in people with skin cancer is because of universal health care?

Of course not, it's because of geographical location.

Most supporters UHC are saying that people in countries with it are healthier because of it.
They use unadjusted statistics as "proof."

Does that make sense?

that does make sense, and i agree with it totally, but rivrrats argument that its different simply because of the way births are recorded is what i have a problem with, as Australia and America both use the WHO definition of a live birth.
 
that does make sense, and i agree with it totally, but rivrrats argument that its different simply because of the way births are recorded is what i have a problem with, as Australia and America both use the WHO definition of a live birth.

I only know some countries have different definitions.
The U.S. has several depending on who you ask.

Check these links out.

The title is loaded with this one but he does cite empirical studies.
Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others

The reality of infant mortality rates - OmniNerd

Pretty crazy how different things are calculated and what information is left in, out and just all around screwy.
 
Last edited:
I only know some countries have different definitions.
The U.S. has several depending on who you ask.

Check these links out.

The title is loaded with this one but he does cite empirical studies.
Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others

The reality of infant mortality rates - OmniNerd

Pretty crazy how different things are calculated and what information is left in, out and just all around screwy.

it is rather incomparable when taking into account all the different systems, but i notice the first link excludes rather important information too

it says
The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:

...some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence... Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20

The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.

as i'm comparing Aus. and the US for this, what it leaves out there is that all infants in Australia are recorded within 9 days, so the window for skewed stats is pretty small.

but until someone takes the time to fix the stats so that they reflect the true state of things, it's rather difficult to compare countries.
 
And you can prove this of course right? A non biased source with actual facts that is .....



In 2005, the latest year that the international ranking is available for, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel.
The report, produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compares infant mortality rates between the United States and Europe, with special attention to two factors that determine the infant mortality rate: gestational age-specific infant mortality rates and the rate of preterm births. It argues that the high infant mortality rate in the United States is due to the high percentage of preterm births, which has risen 36 percent since 1984.
?Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe? | Journalism Center on Children & Families

And from CDC:

Differences in the reporting of live births between countries can have an impact on international comparisons of infant mortality.

In the United States and in 14 of 19 European countries, all live births at any birthweight or gestational age are required to be reported. Also, since no live births occur before 12 weeks of gestation, the requirement for Norway that all live births at 12 weeks of gestation or more be reported is substantially the same as for countries where all live births are required to be reported.
Table 1. Requirements for reporting a live birth, United States and selected European countries, 2004
The table is at the link.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm#differences
 
Last edited:
Some of those things are stupid, like enrolled in preschool.
Why would that make any difference?

Kids have done fine without structured preschool for most of human history. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom