Where do you get your info for rankings? I will not accept any stats that come from or originated from world health organization. The reason being that this organization gives blatantly FALSE information, for example Infant Mortality. The report ours to be amongst the lowest when the United States has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation. How might that chnge statistics? If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
In most countries, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.
Our doctors are heroic in their efforts to keep babies alive.
This also applies to the elderly. We take heroic measures to keep the elderly alive as long as possible and their deaths count against the deaths for those diseases as apposed to taking in account their age. A perfect example: I was in the hospital for Gram negative sepsis. There is only a 30-50% survival rate for this disease in the United States. While that statistic is frightening the majority of people who get this are the elderly and infirm and in generally kills these people. However I was young and able to take it on. This statistic is also skewed because the cause of death would be reported as a cancer the elderly person was suffering from that was being treated however pointlessly but drugs that greatly decrease the immune system making the person susceptible to sepsis and other nasties.
Further, I posted my previous article mainly so people could go read the comments from people who live there. People who suffer because of nationalized health care. I do not want to read trumped up stats released by the media to support this system we WILL get that WILL fuck us up. Read what the people are saying that is what the internet is for!
And as for Canada, Here is a fine example CLICK HERE and add that they pay like 47% taxes but I guess it is okay for the government to steal your money to give to everyone including those you would not even piss on were they on fire.
5 comments on National Health Care = Poor Health Care & Double Taxes
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
I'm with ya on this one, girl!
It is the main readon i cannot with clean conscience vote democratic :(
Thank you for sharing information that isn't usually included when the subject comes up in the candidates speeches. Our nation's health care system is in poor shape now, and heaven knows we can't afford higher taxes!
I agree we need a cahnge but perhaps somethign more innovative instead of following failing nation health care plans
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/dms-dra052302.php
Contact: Dartmouth Medical School Communications
Despite resources, at-risk infants in US fare no better, researchers finddms.communications@dartmouth.edu
603-650-1492
Dartmouth Medical School
Hanover, NH — Despite unrivaled resources devoted to neonatal intensive care in the US, tiny newborns have similar survival to those in other developed countries, Dartmouth Medical School researchers found, contradicting a common assumption that at-risk infants in the US fare better.
Analyzing reproductive, prenatal and postnatal care in the US, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, Dartmouth Medical School pediatricians Lindsay Thompson, David Goodman, and George Little found little difference in national survival rates for low birth weight babies at one month or one year of age.
Their study, published in the June issue of Pediatrics, adds to the concerns reported last month in the New England Journal of Medicine by another Dartmouth team that more neonatal intensive care resources are not necessarily better, and offers insights into how health care resources affect mortality or survival.
Drawing on information from 1993-2000, the DMS researchers documented that the US spent far more on neonatal intensive care, but placed less emphasis on reproductive and prenatal care, compared with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. And although the US has a higher overall incidence of low birth weight, its resources still surpass those of the other countries, even taking the sicker babies into account. For example, the US has 40 percent more neonatologists for high-risk infants than the next best-staffed country.
The authors question the effectiveness of the current distribution of reproductive resources in the US health care system and the marginal benefits of additional neonatal intensive care.
They urge taking some cues from the other three countries that place more weight on preconception and prenatal care and suggest the US improve funding and access for reproductive care, while retaining the status quo for neonatal services.
"This study refutes a common assumption that even though the US has a poor international rank for infant mortality, it has the best birth weight-specific mortality rates," notes lead author Thompson. "Given the high levels of postnatal resources in the US, finding no better outcomes for infants was discouraging," she says.
Guess who..