US slipping in life expectancy rankings

[Patters]

This article raises some interesting questions, but one of the more interesting as that the infant mortality rate for black women is 2x that of white women. What are the anti-abortion people doing about that? Nothing. Why? Because passing a law to deny women rights over their own body costs nothing; on the other hand, reducing infant mortality would require major investments in health care. To a large degree, the anti-abortion movement is about either controlling women or a self-righteous feel-good campaign for the selfish. If that was untrue, then they would work with liberals to help young mothers and young kids.

http://www.boston.com/news/education...ancy_rankings/

For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.

Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

...

Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.

[DarrylS]

Framing this as an issue for abortion rights will surely make the bathwater thrown out with the baby.. the issue of healthcare for the poor is complex, go to any inner city hospital and the quality of care is obvous. This along with preventative care and ongoing medical attention.. access to prescriptions all contribute to this issue... time and time again I have seen situations that most people would pay attention to, however because of the lack of health care and access to continuing care it does not happen.

This will set off a firestorm of comments, but seems as though universal health care would offset this, but otoh poverty and younger death rates amongst the poor might be functional for the Gov't.

[BelichickFan]

I'm not touching the abortion side because that's Patters being stupid again.

On the kids numbers, there isn't enough information, not surprisingly. It's framed as black vs. white - should it be rich vs. poor. How are the poor white numbers compared to the poor black numbers ? And what are the deaths from ? Is there something inherent in blacks that raise their numbers ? Believe it or not, we aren't all the same. Men vs. women, black vs. white. There are differences and this article comes nowhere close to providing enough detail. Just like women live longer than men, does that mean they get better health care ?

[Patters]

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

I'm not touching the abortion side because that's Patters being stupid again.

C'mon BF, I put that in especially for you!

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

On the kids numbers, there isn't enough information, not surprisingly. It's framed as black vs. white - should it be rich vs. poor. How are the poor white numbers compared to the poor black numbers?

That's a good point.

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

And what are the deaths from? Is there something inherent in blacks that raise their numbers? Believe it or not, we aren't all the same. Men vs. women, black vs. white. There are differences and this article comes nowhere close to providing enough detail. Just like women live longer than men, does that mean they get better health care ?

I think common sense would suggest that quality of life issues, such as having health care, living in safe neighborhoods, being able to afford decent food, are 99% of the issue. There may be some genetic issues, but actually what I've read is one of the ironies of good health care is that it's reducing the quality of genetically healthy people (because we're finding ways to keep people with genetic diseases alive and even helping them procreate).

[Patriot_in_NY]

Here's my Harry Boy moment.......

We need more abortions.........
like up to age five..........
If it looks like they are gonna be panty-weight p*ssy liberals......
Abort them..........


How'd I do Harry

Seriously, do we not have bigger issues then abortion?????

We're dying cuz we are soft and fat and have the worst nutrician habits in the world. In the ghetto and with poor people, it's even worse for whatever reason. Probably economic. I try to eat heathly, and it guarantee it costs more then eating like crap and going to McD's every day.

p.s. - I'm totally kidding before everyone gets thier panties in an uproar.

[BelichickFan]

Originally Posted by Patters

I think common sense would suggest that quality of life issues, such as having health care, living in safe neighborhoods, being able to afford decent food, are 99% of the issue.

Well I don't know. They certainly could be. Although I don't know what the answer is to your "safe neighborhood and decent food" arguments. The article gives no information on the health care piece. A typical birth takes no "health care" - all I remember for mine was a Vitamin K shot. Now, for atypical, problematic births that I don't know but the article doesn't give any information.

[Patters]

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Well I don't know. They certainly could be. Although I don't know what the answer is to your "safe neighborhood and decent food" arguments. The article gives no information on the health care piece. A typical birth takes no "health care" - all I remember for mine was a Vitamin K shot.

You gave birth? Okay, seriously, I agree there are many issues involved, but I've never read anything about significant biological differences between the races. Certainly, health care plays an important role, especially in advising the expectant mother on what changes in her lifestyle will help the fetus develop normally. One could say in a sense education may be the most important thing.

[PatsFanInVa]

Well, you see, the difficulty is we'd like to have atypical births, by the standards imposed by Mother Nature, or even the standards imposed by an urbanized population prior to the 20th century.

In nineteenth century Chicago, the infant mortality rate was three in ten, and one half did not make it to age five (that's total infant mortality plus post-natal causes before age five.)

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/...mortality.html

This also puts the discussion in perspective from the point of view of those who don't much care where we "rank." Our progress in the industrialized world is astounding; just moreso in some places (Europe, Japan... Jordan???) than in others (U.S.) We're still splitting hairs compared with a scant 130 years ago.

As to the natural rate of infant mortality, early man probably suffered 50% attrition from infant mortality alone. It is in fact a myth that early man lived until he was 40 or so and then flopped over dead. He likely lived a good long life (age 60 or 70 at death,) but the life expectancy at birth skews the result (the mean age of death plummets, when so many are dying from being born.)

The idea that you just squat in the field and plop! out comes the next generation, is fine and dandy, as far as it goes. We just don't mention that 30-50% of them were EXPECTED to die at birth or be still born... evolution and all that. Hell, it even makes the survivors stronger!

So: No, we can not ignore infant mortality, unless we like this state of affairs. For modern Westerners, it's really not a viable solution to lose 30-50% of neonates.

But No, we have also not slipped into the stone age by trailing Jordan now (along with Europe and Japan.)

We have simply slipped from leadership.

Our profile is beginning to resemble the old Soviet Union's, albeit not yet as drastically so:

1. Our social services are sub-par, for industrial nations;
2. Our military expenditures and allocation of resources is exaggerated, as compared with our social expenditures;
3. We are beginning to define ourselves by our military might at the expense of all other measures of greatness.

But then, the argument goes, would you rather be Greece or Rome?

By remaining far and away the preeminent military power on the globe, we guarantee our freedom to determine our own political system, and the right to exploit a number of natural resources and markets to a great extent.

By basing self-perception on other measures of greatness, such as literacy, life-expectancy, or other quality-of-life measures (leisure time, artistic flowering,) we risk the notion of not determining our own political fate -- as, in fact, Europe, Japan, and Jordan do not truly determine theirs. Everything still must pass muster with the U.S. in all these domains, ultimately. Don't think so? Let one of these nations make a military move that the U.S. has made clear is antithetical to her interests. We just don't see this that often, because we all have an "understanding" on the subject.

At any rate, better to rule than be ruled, I suppose; better to be Rome than Greece. But is it antithetical to military greatness, to also be a great nation in terms of treatment of the populace?

Once would think it is a matter of degree. Were we to find other solutions, rather than conflict, it is possible that we could make our other "numbers" a bit less shameful, from a leadership perspective.

But perhaps the reality is one has a choice. Be the dominant military power, or be the Great Society. Perhaps "both" is not an option.

PFnV

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

Here's my Harry Boy moment.......

We need more abortions.........
like up to age five..........
If it looks like they are gonna be panty-weight p*ssy liberals......
Abort them..........


How'd I do Harry

Seriously, do we not have bigger issues then abortion?????

We're dying cuz we are soft and fat and have the worst nutrician habits in the world. In the ghetto and with poor people, it's even worse for whatever reason. Probably economic. I try to eat heathly, and it guarantee it costs more then eating like crap and going to McD's every day.

p.s. - I'm totally kidding before everyone gets thier panties in an uproar.

Good work, praise Jesus.

[Harry Boy]

Do liberals who constantly bring up Health Care For The Poor have any Idea what Medicaid does and what Medicaid Pays For?

Poor people in the State Of Maine get better Health Treatment & Better Dental Care Than I Do, everything I have to pay for in the Doctors Office or in the Dentists Office they get "for nothing"

Why do Canadians come over the border and have their heart surgery in Lewiston or Portland Maine when they can get it done for nothing in Canada