KIT, Of course we spend more gross dollars on not only health care but also things like blue jeans and other consumer products, we have 300 plus million people in our country. Now express what our health care costs us in terms of percentage of GNP and compare THAT figure to other industrial nations.
On Mar 10, 3:58 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Holly, (And Studio) > > I wrote this to another group, but it applies equally here. I hope that you > take the time to read it. > > Keith > > ========== > > There are many in this Nation, like you, who claim that the United States > spends more money per year on health care and has one of the worst systems > in the industrial world. On the other side of the aisle, you have folks > like me, who admit that while we may spend more than any other nation on > health care, this claim would be equally true of expenditures on blue > jeans, pro sporting tickets, aquariums, X-boxes, lawn mowers, beer and > cocktails. Further, folks like me believe that instead of being one of the > worst providers of medical care, the Unites States delivers the best care in > the world. > > Who is right? Let’s go to the data. > > In your last post, you state that the United States is ranked 37th, in > health care quality. We had this discussion in the group, predominately > with former member Larry over a year ago, and I wanted to take the time to > revisit this subject, and attempt to demonstrate once again how this number > is unfair and is skewed. > > Let’s first focus on the infant mortality rate; (“IMR”). Those who > champion universal health care claim that the United States ranks 30th in > the world in IMR. Here is a chart (with the link) that shows this > position: > > [image: IMR Ranking]<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23._fig1.gif> > > Many “left of center” individuals, (like Larry, who is a very good example > of an “Academian”) claim that the infant mortality rate is an indicator of > health care services in a country. For this to be true, three conditions > must be met: > > 1. All nations are reporting their numbers correctly/consistently. > > 2. The infants that are dying are of the same type. > > 3. Factors other than medical services are being accounted for. > > *Consistency in Reporting* > > We know for a fact that not all nations count the infant mortality rate the > same. In the United States, we use the “World Health Organization”; > (“WHO”) Definition: > > http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indneonatalmortality/en/ > > The term, “Live birth” refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from > its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the > pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other > evidence of life; *e.g*.; beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical > cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles; whether or not the > umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of > such a birth is considered live born. > > In Europe, for example, they use a totally different way of calculating > IMR’s; (*See* Page 122, of the > report:http://www.europeristat.com/bm.doc/european-perinatal-health-report.pdf > Attached > below) > > The infant mortality rate is defined as the number of infant deaths (days > 0-364) after live birth at or after 22 completed weeks of gestation in a > given year, expressed per 1000 live births in the same > year. > > Nevertheless, even this definition is not standard across all of the > European Union, much less all of the European Nation-States!! (*See* the > Above Referenced Report at Page 122, Attached Below) > > Almost all Nation-States provide data on overall infant mortality rates. > However, very few Nation-States provide data on infant mortality rates by > gestational age or birth weight, like we do here in the United States, since > infant deaths are registered in separate systems and not linked to perinatal > data. These data were available for gestational age only from Flanders and > Brussels in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Austria, Poland, > Finland, Sweden, the UK, and Norway. > > This means, of course, that for Nation-States like Portugal, France, > Belgium, Greece, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and the > Netherlands the method for counting doesn’t abide to even the less > restrictive definition that the rest of the EU uses, and all of these > countries rank higher than the United Sates in the ranking by the CDC. > > Moreover, the United States actually OVER-REPORTS the live births and > subsequent deaths!! > > http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-compar... > > What happens when adjustments are made for these differences? > > Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But > when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, > Norway has no better survival rates than the United States. > > *Which Infants Are Dying?* > > The reason for the death is important in measuring IMR as well. If, for > example, there is an indicator that results in a much larger IMR than > another, and that indicator is present in one population but not another, > that would explain a difference in the two IMR rankings. One of the first > things that we should look at in determining if these IMR rankings are > accurate is to identify if such in indicator exists. And it > does<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm> > : > > In 2004, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 > weeks of gestation) was 5.8, nearly twice the rate of 3.0 for Sweden, one of > the two European countries with the lowest infant mortality rate (along with > Norway). > > Using direct standardization (10), we applied the U.S. gestational-age > specific infant mortality rates to Sweden’s distribution of births by > gestational age. If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by > gestational age, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less > than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 > live births—a decline of 33%. > > [image: US adjusted]<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23._fig1.gif> > > In fact, if we use the numbers above, and just the numbers above, the US > moves from its current ranking of 30th to a ranking of 12; tied with > Germany. And this does not even include the adjustments that certainly > would move many of those countries 1-11 even lower!! > > And how does the United States rank in Pre-Term Birth Percentages? > > [image: Preterm Rate]<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23._fig1.gif> > > We rank among the highest in the world. The ranking that WHO and the CDC > and the CIA report are now, perhaps, showing a different story. They may > not be showing a picture of the medical delivery service in America for > infants, rather, they may be showing that America delivers far more Preterm > babies than the rest of the world, or that we REPORT more preterm live > births than the rest of the world. If even one of these two statistics were > reported, the United States would jump either near the very top or would > move up 18 spots on the list!! > > *Non-Medical Factors* > > Lastly, when looking at the IMR as an indicator on the medical delivery, or > health care, system, it is equally important to look into factors that > contribute to IMR that have nothing to do with that system. And again, we > see that there are such factors: > > [image: IMR by > Race]<http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/healthystart/evaluation/benchmarkreport/benc...> > > http://mchb.hrsa.gov/healthystart/evaluation/benchmarkreport/disparit... > > It jumps out of the page; black babies dies at a higher rate than any other > followed by Hawaiian and Native American. And why the discrepency in Black > women? > > The largest difference in rates between the two groups was for preterm > birth/low birthweight infants; *e.g*.; infants born to Black women had an > infant death rate due to preterm birth/low birthweight four times higher > than those born to White women. > > [image: LBW by race] > > And why are we seeing black women delivering babies with such low > birthrates? > > There are only two possible reasons: > > (1): The reason that African American mothers have babies who weigh less at > birth is that they are at greater risk for such conditions as high blood > pressure and preeclampsia; and (2): Minority women are subject to stress > caused by perceived racial discrimination, according to the researchers in > this study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730173400.htm > > By example, in this study, David & Collins spoke with black women who had > babies with normal weights at birth, comparing them with black women whose > babies’ birth weight was very low — under three pounds. > > They asked the mothers if they had ever been treated unfairly because of > their race when looking for a job, in an educational setting or in other > situations. > > Those who felt discriminated against had a twofold increase in low birth > weights. And for those who experienced discrimination in three “domains,” > the increase was nearly threefold. > > In David and Collins’ study of black women who gave birth in two Chicago > hospitals, 16 percent said their partner was in jail during the pregnancy. > “We > interpreted this finding as another indicator of stress, but one caused by > institutional rather than interpersonal racial discrimination,” David said. > > There is no question that we could improve upon a lot of different aspects > with regard to our health care system. Do we need a complete overhaul, at > the expense of the majority of Americans? Are we basing our decisions on > propaganda, created by folks with an agenda? > > By example, I have shown here today, that the statistic, at least with > regard to our Health Care System being 37th in the world is inaccurate and > not based on real, factual data, the raw statistic showing that the United > States has such a low IMR is simply not accurate. Where the data is > accurate, the data can be explained in large part, to conditions that may > have nothing to do with medical service delivery. > > Yet you and others would cite this fraudulent, misleading data as being the > gospel, and are willing to make wholesale changes in our laws, that will > effect our Nation for generations. We are bankrupt! Our debt is now at a > ... > > read more » > > image006.gif > 87KViewDownload > > image003.gif > 18KViewDownload > > image004.gif > 12KViewDownload > > image002.gif > 25KViewDownload > > image001.png > 42KViewDownload > > image005.gif > 80KViewDownload -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
