Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (109529)	4/15/2005 9:23:57 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Nope, Krugman makes very specific points here: infant death mortality rate and lowered life expectancy. I can assure you from personal experience that the infant mortality statistics are very dependent on what one calls a live birth. Even children that are not viable as early as 19 weeks are considered "live births" at many Catholic hospitals or even non-catholic hospitals with nuns present on request. Pre-term labor births as young as 24 weeks are kept in life support. Many don't make it and make the "infant mortality statistics" look low. But in Cuba, they would never have been given the chance, yet despite this, it doesn't reduce their infant mortality statistics. Krugman of course glosses over all these details in his indictment of US healthcare.

To: JohnM who wrote (109529)	4/15/2005 9:30:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

My concern for the Krugman line of reasoning is that it slanders the quality of care, when the real issue is its availability. Nope, Krugman makes very specific points here: infant death mortality rate and lowered life expectancy. 1 - Infant Mortality rates are subject to how you define live births which is different in different countries. 2 - Both infant mortality and average life expectancy are effected not just by the quality of care but by access. 3 - Both are also effected by other factors unrelated to medical care. Tim

To: JohnM who wrote (109529)	4/16/2005 12:05:11 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

John, As a professor I am not surprised you don't take my word without data, but I am surprised you take Krugman's or Kristof's and that they are willing to take and believe numbers from dictatorships :-) Is the CDC a good enough source for you? Download: cdc.gov Look specifically at: LFWK33 on Page 1 Overall infant mortality: 6.8 Less than 1,500 Grams: 243.9 Less than 500 Grams: 855.1 500-749 Grams: 476.8 750-999 Grams: 154.2 Now with the raw data I can adjust for the UN standard of 1,000 Grams and get an infant mortality rate of: 3.7. Does this make any impression? Realize I could also adjust for socio-economic, racial and other factors, but don't. At 3.7 we compete favorably with the world and beat most western democracies, let alone brutal dictatorships. And we do this with all of our warts - illegal aliens, uninsured mothers and those with serious drug problems. John@mathrules.com BTW - The superior Cubans had a 6.0 rate. The current CIA list: cia.gov In it Cuba is at 6.33 and the US is reported at an unadjusted 6.5 (this is a 2004 estimate). The data from the CDC used above is real data in 2001.