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.
In your view I am sure that is true. However you have actually presented nothing that contradicts the basic facts. The US spends outrageous sums on health care and gets a weak outcome.
But I did love that analysis.. It is really nice to see a tech guy write something that complex and readable.
It's not my view, it is the written words of the researchers. And again the US doesn't have poor healthcare outcomes.
It's not my view, it is the written words of the researchers. And again the US doesn't have poor healthcare outcomes.
There is nothing in their writings that suggests otherwise.
The do postulate mechanisms that are not all health care related. But they do not claim that an appropriate health care system would not fix some of these problems. In fact they suggest it.
Merely noting causals does not change the outcome.
There is nothing in their writings that suggests otherwise.
The do postulate mechanisms that are not all health care related. But they do not claim that an appropriate health care system would not fix some of these problems. In fact they suggest it.
Merely noting causals does not change the outcome.
Way too expensive for a mediocre outcome.
Their writings suggest exactly what they say. They in no way suggest any health care system, and I defy you to post a quote that says they do.
If you read the piece they indicate that comparisons between countries are unhelpful, that it is more important to look at contributing factors to IMRs. They conclude by saying there are more factors than healthcare that contribute to IMRs.
Their writings suggest exactly what they say. They in no way suggest any health care system, and I defy you to post a quote that says they do.
If you read the piece they indicate that comparisons between countries are unhelpful, that it is more important to look at contributing factors to IMRs. They conclude by saying there are more factors than healthcare that contribute to IMRs.
Back to our favorite quote...
However, we do conclude that the IMRs should be viewed as reflective of health and socioeconomic status and not just health care, and that to achieve improvements in the IMR will require more than just new technology
There is an endorsement. And note this view was a ways back. Gotten much clearer since it was written.
However, we do conclude that the IMRs should be viewed as reflective of health and socioeconomic status and not just health care, and that to achieve improvements in the IMR will require more than just new technology
There is an endorsement. And note this view was a ways back. Gotten much clearer since it was written.
From the link.
"The very low IMR ranking of the United States as compared with other industrialized countries is a statistic often used to cite problems with the quality of health care in the United States. The premise of this article is that infant mortality rates reflect many factors in addition to the quality of the U.S. health care system. Our analysis suggests that many factors, ranging from how vital events are registered to broad social and economic policies, contribute directly or indirectly to observed differences in infant mortality."
This is what they are talking about.
By the way, I am still waiting to see where they discuss healthcare systems. I think the fact that you got this very basic fact wrong indicates you simply don't understand the study.
"The very low IMR ranking of the United States as compared with other industrialized countries is a statistic often used to cite problems with the quality of health care in the United States. The premise of this article is that infant mortality rates reflect many factors in addition to the quality of the U.S. health care system. Our analysis suggests that many factors, ranging from how vital events are registered to broad social and economic policies, contribute directly or indirectly to observed differences in infant mortality."
This is what they are talking about.
By the way, I am still waiting to see where they discuss healthcare systems. I think the fact that you got this very basic fact wrong indicates you simply don't understand the study.
And they close with...
However, we do conclude that the IMRs should be viewed as reflective of health and socioeconomic status and not just health care, and that to achieve improvements in the IMR will require more than just new technology
What's "more"?
And that is also the discussion of health care systems . "more" covers a lot of ground.
However, we do conclude that the IMRs should be viewed as reflective of health and socioeconomic status and not just health care, and that to achieve improvements in the IMR will require more than just new technology
What's "more"?
And that is also the discussion of health care systems . "more" covers a lot of ground.
I will give you the last word.
No sense beating a great thread to death.
More is what I linked above, it was also part of their conclusion. More covers the very specific things they mentioned.
"Our analysis suggests that many factors, ranging from how vital events are registered to broad social and economic policies, contribute directly or indirectly to observed differences in infant mortality.""
I have no idea why you want to insist it means something other than what they say it means. In 14 pages they never uttered the phrase " healthcare system" , yet you read the word more to mean just that. It couldn't possibly mean all the non healthcare issues they addressed in the 14 pages.
Last edited by shorebaby; 09-01-2011 at 11:45 PM..
Given the low rate of infant mortality in the developed world (yep, even in the USA), the extent of it is insufficient to skew average life expectancy across countries in any meaningful way. The same is true for under 5 mortality. The USA is 50% worse than Switzerland for under 5 mortality. That difference is simply too big to be accounted for by statistical error alone.
and the usa has 1000%(10 times) more teen pregnancies than switzerland
The U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world – twice as high as in England or Canada, and ten times higher as in Switzerland
Infants born to teenage mothers are at higher risk of being born low birthweight babies and have a higher mortality rate.
The infant mortality rate among infants of non-Hispanic black mothers is more than double that for non-Hispanic whites.
You would have to examine the underlying factors. High abortion rates, STD's and other behavioral practices can affect the prematurity of babies, a girl having 4 or 5 abortions has damaged her reproductive organs significantly but also what effects do the birth control hormones have on developing girls?
A pregnancy naturally lasts 40 weeks, with or without expensive health care. There are other reasons, these young girls are going into labor too early.
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.