Did anyone notice the recently announced rankings of infant mortality by the World Health Organization? The United States dropped from 29th to 41st in the world.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the medical director of NBC News described the new ranking as "disturbing", "shocking" and "appalling". She stated that this basic indicator of our healthcare system is nothing to be ignored or explained away. The statistic is a fundamental measure of the quality of healthcare for the entire population of the countries measured, not just those who can afford better.

In an interview on The Nightly News last week she said,

"The evidence tonight is in the numbers, and the numbers are not very pretty. expect developed countries to do well when it comes to infant morality, but not necessarily. Take a look at the countries that are usually at the top of the heap. They include Japan, Singapore, and France. They're always consistent in the top tier. But, now, look at this: Cuba, Malaysia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, they are ahead of the United States, which now ranks 41st in infant mortality, and that's a real concern because really we spend more money per capita for health care in this country, and those are the results. No matter how you massage those numbers, we were ranked 29th five years ago. No way to paint this in a good way.

This is dismal and, frankly, appalling."

It seems to me that given the fact that we spend more than twice as much on healthcare than any other developed country in the world, that anyone who continues to defend the American healthcare system is simply not considering the facts.

My sources say differently...http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.o...ads-the-world/

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

My sources say differently...http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.o...ads-the-world/

Thanks for the site. On the face of it, the conclusions in the original posting just seemed to cry for skepticism. Too many backward nations with better health care; really? The article you provided makes things a whole lot clearer.

I've bookmarked the site and can research more from there. I guess the proponents for socialized medicine will have to ignore the points of your linked article and attack the provider of the article.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

My sources say differently...http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.o...ads-the-world/

Good link. Proponents of socialism will give misleading statistics to favor their agenda, which is government control of everything in our lives.

Forgive me folks but I read an article in WSJ about a year or so ago addressing this very issue and explained that it was misleading owing to the criteria usd by various different countries. after a recalculation USA ranked best. I apologize for not having better data.

Oh GOOD GRIEF!!!

Of course a country like Cuba would have a good infant mortality rate (based on live births) when you kill off all the unwanted and especially defective babies before they are born!

Cuba has the highest abortion rate in the hemisphere, cited anywhere from 60 to 70%. This data is available in many places. Here is one....

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...n/ab-cuba.html

If anyone thinks there is better healthcare in Cuba, you need to learn Spanish and talk to people who have lived there all their lives until recently, and they FLED. The Michael Moore crap is laughed at by Cubans who know that Moore and other foreigners with MONEY are catered to in exclusive, for-profit clinics and hospitals that the average Cuban cannot even enter, much less get care in.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Oh GOOD GRIEF!!!

Of course a country like Cuba would have a good infant mortality rate (based on live births) when you kill off all the unwanted and especially defective babies before they are born!

Cuba has the highest abortion rate in the hemisphere, cited anywhere from 60 to 70%. This data is available in many places. Here is one....

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...n/ab-cuba.html

If anyone thinks there is better healthcare in Cuba, you need to learn Spanish and talk to people who have lived there all their lives until recently, and they FLED. The Michael Moore crap is laughed at by Cubans who know that Moore and other foreigners with MONEY are catered to in exclusive, for-profit clinics and hospitals that the average Cuban cannot even enter, much less get care in.

WOW!!! Many Thousand Thanks ilovetv!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Did anyone notice the recently announced rankings of infant mortality by the World Health Organization? The United States dropped from 29th to 41st in the world.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the medical director of NBC News described the new ranking as "disturbing", "shocking" and "appalling". She stated that this basic indicator of our healthcare system is nothing to be ignored or explained away. The statistic is a fundamental measure of the quality of healthcare for the entire population of the countries measured, not just those who can afford better.

In an interview on The Nightly News last week she said,

"The evidence tonight is in the numbers, and the numbers are not very pretty. expect developed countries to do well when it comes to infant morality, but not necessarily. Take a look at the countries that are usually at the top of the heap. They include Japan, Singapore, and France. They're always consistent in the top tier. But, now, look at this: Cuba, Malaysia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, they are ahead of the United States, which now ranks 41st in infant mortality, and that's a real concern because really we spend more money per capita for health care in this country, and those are the results. No matter how you massage those numbers, we were ranked 29th five years ago. No way to paint this in a good way.

This is dismal and, frankly, appalling."

It seems to me that given the fact that we spend more than twice as much on healthcare than any other developed country in the world, that anyone who continues to defend the American healthcare system is simply not considering the facts.

Such accusations that are unsubstantiated is a disservice to our great country and health care system. Please peel away the propaganda and read the real facts about the barbarians in Cuba.

LONDON, Sept. 5 (UPI) -- A study of 12 nations found middle-age Britons suffer worse physical and mental health than any of the other countries studied, researchers said.

The international Bupa Health Pulse study asked more than 13,373 people in 12 countries -- Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, Britain and the United States -- questions about their health and lifestyles.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/...3971315223266/

Just keep burying your head in the sand.

Yes, there are some slight differences in measuring infant mortality. One study I read even acknowledged the fact that, on the whole, the US delivers more pre-term babies and, subsequently, loses more because of it. Now, you might be able to explain why Cuba has skewed statistics - even assuming something as provocative as a 60-70% abortion is anywhere near accurate. But what about the rest of the countries?

And, again, what about the fact that we spend more than twice as much per capita as any other country and get these substandard results?

It's a lot more expensive to actually treat, and allow to live until or past their day of birth, babies born weighing less than 2 pounds, and babies having birth defects.

"In the United States alone, 4 million babies are delivered annually, with almost 15 percent of those (500,000) being premature, defined as less than 37 weeks' gestational age.

Of these, 5 percent (25,000) are born weighing less than 2 pounds, of which 75 percent (18,750) survive [2]. Approximately 75 percent of NICU admissions are related to prematurity and 25 percent are term newborns with a variety of pathology.

Daily NICU costs exceed $3,5 per infant, and it is not unusual for costs to top $1 million for a prolonged stay. Expenditures to preserve life are limited in every society, and, although third-party payers have questioned this level of expenditures, courts have consistently reaffirmed the rights of parents to determine the treatment of their newborns....."

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/20...for1-0810.html

Not really differing on any of the points raised above, and it is truly wonderful and a blessing that our success in saving preterm babies (including one of my own, when my own health was a shambles, and might I say that even with successful outcomes, such as my child's, the trauma of a recovery from preterm birth on both the infant and the family can be very difficult and with longterm consequences) is so good once they are born prematurely, but a question that comes to mind is why not more focus on prevention of preterm births in the first place, and on healthy pregnancies; why do we have so many premature births - more than many other much less medically technologically advanced areas of the world, according to the WHO?

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/...-table-T3.html

Since the data on newborn survival is clouded by differing measurements, I thought I would take a look at the other end of the scale. Here is the UN data on life expectancy at age 65:

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inID%3A36

Numbers list life expectancy in years with the presentation female/male


Country Female Male

Canada 20 17
China 16 14
Congo 13 11
Cuba 19 17
France 21 17
Germany 20 16
Japan 23 18
Netherlands 19 16
Russia 15 10
United Kingdom 19 16
United States 20 16

The only conclusions I can draw from this are:

(1) People live longer in developed countries than underdeveloped and third world countries.
(2) The differences between medical care results in developed countries are not significantly different.
(3) Any statement that healthcare is significantly better in one or another developed country is refuted by the data. IOW it is strictly BS.

Just off the top of my head, I would think that the quality of healthcare in a nation is only a portion of the reason for a certain life expectancy. Not having studied the subject, I would think that lifestyle, diet, and various cultural factors should also be considered. Example that comes to mind is the recent loss of a cousin. He died of lung cancer that was far advanced before he sought medical help. He smoked like a chimney since he was 17 and never saw a use for doctors although married to a wonderful ICU nurse. This well loved man died at the ripe old age of 57, just 2 months after the diagnosis!

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Just off the top of my head, I would think that the quality of healthcare in a nation is only a portion of the reason for a certain life expectancy. Not having studied the subject, I would think that lifestyle, diet, and various cultural factors should also be considered. Example that comes to mind is the recent loss of a cousin. He died of lung cancer that was far advanced before he sought medical help. He smoked like a chimney since he was 17 and never saw a use for doctors although married to a wonderful ICU nurse. This well loved man died at the ripe old age of 57, just 2 months after the diagnosis!

Lifestyle choices play a big part in a person's health and in many (not all) pre-term and low birth weight babies.

And then there are people whose genetics predispose them to early heart disease, cancers, etc. and their reasonable lifestyle choices are outdone by genetic inheritance.

Bottom line is we have the freedom to choose to drink, do drugs, eat our way into morbid obesity, etc., and while many claim to have no healthcare insurance, they do not enroll in Medicaid, and do not take advantage of county health department's clinics and services. Freedoms come with individual responsibilities attached.