Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2010, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,254 posts, read 64,338,536 times
Reputation: 73931

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Why on earth would you remove poor people from our infant mortality rate? Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist. Fortunately the vast majority of my generation (people under 35) actually believe in providing decent health care to all americans and not creating mythical statistics that ignore demographic groups other than one's own.
No. What's stupid is comparing countries with populations of 5 or 10 million with that of 300,000,000.
What's more stupid is comparing countries with relatively homogeneous populations to that of a huge melting pot of huge demographic and fiscal diversity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2010, 09:08 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,595,597 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Just like the illegals do here.
The taxpayers of the UK picked up the tab for your mother, I wonder what that adds to their healthcare bottom line?
Cheaper, more efficient and better than corporate wealthcare insurance! Universal Single Payer Healthcare cuts out the middlemen
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,940,075 times
Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
No. What's stupid is comparing countries with populations of 5 or 10 million with that of 300,000,000.
What's more stupid is comparing countries with relatively homogeneous populations to that of a huge melting pot of huge demographic and fiscal diversity.
You should be careful spewing these trash talking points around people who actually know stuff! This isn't your cousin Eddie's house on a Friday night. I know i can't change your mind, and studies show that the conservatives entrench further when presented with opposing facts, but hopefully this debate will change the mind of some people who are on the fence.

"Fiscal diversity" - is that referring to our shrinking middle class and growingly enormous gap between rich and poor? Closing that gap is part of the point of health care reform and something a lot of us care about.

You painted 32 diverse countries with a single brush stroke. You inferred that japan had a population of 5-10 million!!!!

Are some racially homogeneous? Yes. Are they all? I don't think so.

Consider though, that Australia has a 30% foreign-born population compared with about 11% in the United states. Consider that the czech republic has a GDP per capita of $15,000, about 1/3 that of the united states. So the argument that our diversity and poverty excuse our high infant mortality rate is invalid. It's off-the-cuff rambling that sounds good casually or on talk radio but makes no sense when you look at the data.

If you want to make this a debate about data, that would be great. But the facts tends to have a liberal bias.

Last edited by progmac; 11-03-2010 at 09:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 09:30 AM
 
46,944 posts, read 25,969,275 times
Reputation: 29439
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Poor African Americans have n abnormally high death rate among infants which is double the national average. When you remove them from the equation the death rate in the US falls in line with the top countries in the world even with the odd reporting guidelines.
You can do that with statistics? Just remove the data sets you don't like? This changes everything!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,940,075 times
Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You can do that with statistics? Just remove the data sets you don't like? This changes everything!
I could make the Congo's birth outcomes be up there with the best in the world if I could just exclude the poor people!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 10:28 AM
 
5,391 posts, read 7,227,765 times
Reputation: 2857
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Poor African Americans have n abnormally high death rate among infants which is double the national average. When you remove them from the equation the death rate in the US falls in line with the top countries in the world even with the odd reporting guidelines.
Poor people live in other countries, too. The difference is, those poor people have access to care so that their country's health stats are better than ours.

Why should we remove the group that has double our national rate from the equation? Do they not matter? Just cover our eyes? Shouldn't we be working towards improving health for all groups in our country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 10:36 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,143,981 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Poor African Americans have n abnormally high death rate among infants which is double the national average. When you remove them from the equation the death rate in the US falls in line with the top countries in the world even with the odd reporting guidelines.
If we could only figure out a way to fudge the charts, rather than help the families...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,449 posts, read 14,462,518 times
Reputation: 4777
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
High babysterfte possible by midwives

UTRECHT- The high number of babies that in Netherlands dies during pregnancy or childbirth, may have to do with the fact that a lot of work with midwives. The number of babies that in Netherlands during childbirth, is one of the highest in Europe.
Photo: Getty Images
That is apparent from examination of the UMC Utrecht that Wednesday in the journal bmj is published. Volkskrant and NRC Next wrote about the research. Pregnant women are twice as likely that their baby dies as they begin their birth with a midwife instead of a gynecologist. That chance is even almost four times as high as the wife during a home delivery to the hospital must or is transferred to the gynecologist.

During Prinsjesdag was already known that the Ministry of health in the coming year 24 million euro funding to tackle the babysterfte. That amount must for 2012 and beyond reach 38 million euros.

www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/8104770/__Hoge_babysterfte_mogelijk_door_verloskundigen__. html?p=2,1 - Translator

I can tell you life experience of our own children being born over there....no painkillers, a midwife waiting and waiting for over 24 hours after the water was broken and risking a lot....

Second child was born in the hospital after they want to sent us home, but we insisted to stay there since we had a medical indication...only after an almost complete delivery but the baby got stuck an emergency C-section took place and the baby was born with an Apcar score of 2!

Very scary but luckily both kids are doing very well and are straight A honor students but it was within seconds of being a complete different life for all of us.

Please repeal health care!

How do you think you're going to repeal health care anyway? Good luck with that, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 11:37 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,028,702 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You can do that with statistics? Just remove the data sets you don't like? This changes everything!
In this case we're looking for root causes to better understand the reason. For example from the same dataset we could determine another factor is because the US has a abnormally high amount of premature births compared to other nations. What's the reason for that?

I'll have to correct myself because I was going from memory with my original post it's not just poor African Americans but African American infants in general.

Sorry if the facts aren't PC, they are what they are. If you want to talk about statistics you need to understand how you arrive at them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2010, 11:54 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,143,981 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Quite often I look at a patient of mine and think, "You would have been dead in x other country."

Not because they don't care...but because they don't have the resources I have at my fingertips. They have to practice way more based on statistics...if you practice just based on evidence-based statistics (which in most cases is fine, but be aware that they are about cost-control and resource allocation), I know many patients we have had that would be dead today...

Gut intuition and a higher standard saves lives, too. But if you can't get the test or procedure because you simply don't have access to it, you're f'd.
Preventive care will keep your patients healthy, too.

"The new health care reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or “PPACA”) will [as of Sept 23, 2010] require [x-insurance company] to cover additional preventive care services and eliminate member cost-sharing (copayments, deductibles, or coinsurance) for certain in-network preventive care services. Cost-sharing requirements for preventive care services rendered out-of-network will continue to apply as they do today.

"The list below provides an overview of services that will be covered under our updated Preventive Care Guidelines. Newly-added services, including those associated with previously-covered screenings and vaccines whose scope has been expanded, are noted in italics."

Changes in Preventive Care Benefits Due to Health Care Reform

"To understand the scope and details of the preventive care recommendations on which these changes are based, please refer to materials at the following link:

Recommended Preventive Services - Regulations | Implementation Center | HealthCare.gov
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:54 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top