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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8506)	8/20/2009 11:58:09 PM
From: Little Joe	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Criticism of WHO and its deficiencies. Why would place such reliance on any of these groups who have an obvious agenda. Secondly, I don't think you got the gist of the argument. WHO relies on the statistics of the reporting country. If other countries are considering live births only if children are born above a certain weight, it is obvious that the statistics of those countries are not comparable to the U.S. WHO and others who make these claims dont consider that because it is not keeping with their agenda. Their are problems with the American system, but the quality of the medicine is not one of them, at least compared to other countries. lj

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8506)	8/21/2009 12:16:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

This should lead to the question..."Why are babies born in Norway with a higher birth weight?" That should lead to that question, but the answer isn't obviously something to do with medical insurance. Even if it plays a role there is no reason to think its a decisive one. The 2nd link gives a good answer to that question. The US is number one in teenage pregnancy with 1,671.63 births per 1 million, Norway is number 15 with 349.88. Also you ignore the other points. "Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates...But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high" ... "In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive. If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates. The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates." pajamasmedia.com Also see health.usnews.com ...American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would have surely died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very low birth-weight babies - less than 3 pounds - almost always died. Now, some of these babies survive. Whilesuch vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low birth-weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to WHO. Ironically, U.S. doctors' ability to save babies' lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced treatment. Because of varying standards, international comparisons of infant mortality rates are improperly used to create myths about how the United States should allocate local or national resources... ocregister.com