Re: We're Number......LAST
Exactly where are you talking about though?
The United States on the one hand, and pretty much the rest of the developed world on the other. In comparison, we are getting our asses kicked on overall health care and our wallets drained at the same time.
Really? Are you aware that the numbers being used for comparison in the OP come from the WHO which is a part of the UN? Lol. Sorry. Lots of alphabet there.
Then talk to that guy. As previously noted, I have not cited any UN or WHO data. And thanks to years of experience in and around the federal government, I can put you under the table in an acronym contest.
But seriously. If the numbers from the start are going to be talked about...they are using the WHO numbers as a big portion of their statistics (with some stuff from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
But seriously, all major industrialized countries have highly developed health care systems and highly developed statistical reporting systems. We are not talking about Burundi here. European health care systems are as comprehensive and competent as US systems and have been for quite a long time. The same is true for such countries as Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. As for classification differences, they are often touted by rah-rah apologists but are in fact way at the margin and in the final analysis totally meaningless. Suppose for instance that we took only the data from the ten US states with the lowest infant mortality rates (NH, WY, VT, MN, CO, WI, HI, KS, UT, and MA) and let them stand in for the country as a whole. We would still rank only tenth out of thirty in infant mortality. Suppose that we then threw all the non-whites out of the data for those ten states. Still tenth, I'm afraid. That's because your carping is nothing but an attempted whitewash of a national disgrace. The richest country in the world loses as many babies as we do not because of social differences or measurement discrepancies, but because we simply don't get health care of any type to an inexcusable portion of our population. This same factor helps drive our eternally dismal standing in the matter of deaths from amenable causes.
I know it was just a google search, but honestly just look up the different articles that are there.
Uh-huh.
Let me Google that for you...
Notice this is from the WHO and it talks about the inaccuracy of infant mortality.
No, it was
PUBLISHED by WHO but is actually a 2008 interview with a
Save the Children researcher working in South Africa. She talks about progress (and in some cases the lack of it) toward meeting
Millennium Development Goals. In Africa. Maybe you didn't read it or something.
Why? Kids fall through the cracks. Well. That is only in Africa right? Maybe Asia? Sadly. No. Countries define "live birth" differently. Try this on:
That was a threadbare, six-year old hand-me-down. It didn't fit. Horrible color as well. Wouldn't wear it to a rock fight. Not a single viable point surfaces within that puff-piece article. It's completely worthless.
Come on? Now you are citing as if they were dispassionate observers a bunch of Obama-haters flailing away at that same WHO report from 2000 as part of a 2009 attempt to beat back health care reform? Get serious! Your extensive and barely more recent exhibits are all frauds. This is because you do not have a case.
In short. Just on infant mortality can you REALLY tell me that the WHO/UN reporting methods are all that "reliable?" Numbers can be fudged. Not in some sinister plot (which if we are to get real...the WHO has a universal health coverage agenda...because that is their mission so I can't fault them for having it)...but because as we HAVE discussed and YOU are trying to ignore...reporting standards differ and so those differences fudge the numbers as a side effect. Do I need to continue on the inadequacies of data reports from the UN?
They have an agenda and are fudging the numbers? Such a load of insouciant and disingenuous tripe. Grade-schoolers would be marked down for turning in such rot.
How many people have to go to the public hospitals and free clinics? So compare numbers of doctors to numbers of patients. Who do you think will have a higher work load? City or rural? Do you think that number of patients doesn't contribute to a decline in overall healthcare for a particular doctor/region? Just because there is "access" doesn't mean the quality is good. Rural can't be compared to city. Why? Differences. Variety of different abilities in different areas. So...
You claimed that the poverty and population density of our inner cities was making our overall health care numbers look bad when it is in fact our rural health care system that is in the worst state of repair. Europe of course has cities. The population density there is higher than here. Their poverty rates equal or exceed ours. Your claims were just more gratuitous smoke and mirrors.
Which country? AGAIN. I really shouldn't need to explain this but I will. We are talking about the rankings of the United States compared to 27 nations. That means the averages of 27 nations. 50 states is equivalent to the policies of 27 nations. The budgets and income are going to be different. Germany isn't trying to deal with French or Polish or Italian health care issues when they are brought to the table. United States Government politicians are going to have to deal with New York, Florida, Mississippi, California, and so on. If we are going to discuss national policies...you need to pick a nation. Last time I checked...Europe wasn't a nation.
Where does CDC data come from? Would that principally be from fifty state health departments, plus DC, VI, and FM? You are yet again trying to produce a silk purse from a sow's ear. It isn't working. You will not be receiving a patent for the process. The EU has more than 500 million diverse people and various political subdivisions. The US has more than 300 million diverse people and various political subdivisions. The EU crushes the US in overall health care, and does so while spending a lot less per capita for it. End of (very unfortunate for us) story.