Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 86
Thanks Tree80Thanks

Thread: What the dip in US life expectancy is really about: inequality

  1. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,928
    Thanks
    5079

    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    People should be embarrassed for our country. Instead they think income inequality and the difference in health care and life expectancy between the wealthy and everyone else is a sign of freedom, baby! Freedumb!
    When you import poverty in large numbers it drags down all statistics. This adds to problems we already have.
    Thanks from Kallie Knoetze

  2. #22
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,697
    Thanks
    50685

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The US infant mortality rate cannot be compared to other countries because the definition used for infant mortality is not the same.
    In 2005, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel. There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking. In 2005, 22 countries had infant mortality rates of 5.0 or below. One would have to assume that these countries did not report more than one-third of their infant deaths for their infant mortality rates to equal or exceed the U.S. rate. This level of underreporting appears unlikely for most developed countries.

    The United States compares favorably with Europe in the survival of infants born preterm. Infant mortality rates for preterm infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries. However, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are generally higher in the United States than in European countries.

    The primary reason for the United States’ higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the United States’ much higher percentage of preterm births. In 2004, 1 in 8 infants born in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 in Ireland and Finland. Preterm infants have much higher rates of death or disability than infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more (2–4, 6), so the United States’ higher percentage of preterm births has a large effect on infant mortality rates. If the United States had the same gestational age distribution of births as Sweden, 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 33% decline. These data suggest that preterm birth prevention is crucial to lowering the U.S. infant mortality rate.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db23.htm
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #23
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,266
    Thanks
    504

    From
    Barsoom
    The criteria is not the same.

  4. #24
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42,034
    Thanks
    44251

    From
    Nashville, TN
    The right has a million excuses why our healthcare sucks, and none of them include UHC as any part of a solution.
    Thanks from labrea, Panzareta and Friday13

  5. #25
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,242
    Thanks
    27965

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    People should be embarrassed for our country. Instead they think income inequality and the difference in health care and life expectancy between the wealthy and everyone else is a sign of freedom, baby! Freedumb!
    Oh gosh, yes.

    It should be a national source of shame, but instead of feeling shame, republicans blame the victims.
    Thanks from Panzareta and Friday13

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,242
    Thanks
    27965

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
    Of course, youd have to have had access to medical care to get a diagnoses to put on your go fund me page.
    Thanks from Coyote and Friday13

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,242
    Thanks
    27965

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    That is inline with the deductable for Obamacare. The article is an indictment on the $6000 dollar out of pocket for Obamacare.
    Things are all better now that the mandate is gone.

    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #28
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,242
    Thanks
    27965

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The US infant mortality rate cannot be compared to other countries because the definition used for infant mortality is not the same.
    That is the talking point.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,242
    Thanks
    27965

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    When you import poverty in large numbers it drags down all statistics. This adds to problems we already have.
    if the poor had access to housing in safe neighborhoods, healthy food, and health care, would that change the numbers?
    Thanks from Friday13

  10. #30
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,266
    Thanks
    504

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    That is the talking point.
    You are welcome to make a comparison between countries using the same criteria and account for the heterogeneity difference. The Gates Foundation tried and spent a lot of money, and conceded failure because it cannot be done.

    The US is the only country that uses the full WHO definition of live birth and other countries eliminate several of the criteria. Switzerland uses only two of the four criteria. Italy uses only three of four criteria, etc. This allows other countries to use weight, gestation period, and length to classify a baby as not being born alive, and the US counts all as a live births. Other countries do not count premature births as live births if they die afterwards. The U.S. counts them as live births. The U.S. does more for premature infants than most countries, which also skews the numbers when they do not survive. When factoring in all the criteria, the US has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

    The data regarding Infant mortality rates in the US compared to the rest of the world come from the CDC, and the CDC gets their information from the OECD and the United States Children’s Fund. The data is brutally skewered and misleading.

    There is no standard or continuity regarding the registration of babies born too early, too light, and too short in the other countries.

    There is no standard or continuity regarding the registration, or preventing selective registration, of pre-term infants who survived in other countries.

    There is no standard or continuity regarding the systematic under-registration of infants who did not survive in other countries.

    There is little to no data from the cultures that do not attempt to save prematurely born infants with birth defects. The US always does its best to save any baby born regardless of its condition, and those that do not survive are added to the misleading statistic used by the OECD.

    When infants born before 24 weeks are subtracted from the CDC report, the mortality rate decreases by 30%. This accurate data puts the US equal or lower than any other developed country.

    Many countries do not consider an infant that dies at birth weighing less than 500 grams as a live birth. The US considers an infant that weighs less than 500 grams and dies at birth a live birth. Eighty percent of these births in other countries do not survive and are not counted, but are counted in the US.

    Many countries classify a baby as stillborn or as a miscarriage if it survives less than 24 hours regardless if it is breathing and has a beating heart. The US classifies these infants as live born. Forty percent of all infant deaths happen within twenty-four hours.

    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.

    In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. The U.S. counts these infants as live births.
    Thanks from Kallie Knoetze and THOR

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. US life expectancy falls due to opioid crisis
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27th September 2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Life expectancy rises in Russia
    By The Man in forum World Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th June 2017, 09:27 AM
  3. Life expectancy to break 90 by 2030-but not for the US
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 23rd February 2017, 06:57 AM
  4. Life expectancy drops in the US, startles experts
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 10th December 2016, 03:03 AM
  5. US Life Expectancy Stagnating/Going Down
    By Rasselas in forum Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 17th June 2011, 09:17 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed