British officials tells right wingers in America to stop lying

[Parker]

But they still died, so you can't not count them.

You missed this part. This does not reflect upon the quality of health care in the U.S., in that these events almost universally occur independently of the condition of health of the individuals who die as a result of these factors.
Because we have alot of gun related deaths that has to do with health care?

We are still high on prenatal deaths so that is out too. See you missed a important part that "The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S."

The problem is that do to the reasons that we have issues with low birth weights could be say poor diet, but more likely is poor medical treatment leading up to the birth that leads to it.

Poor medical treatment? Based on what? Do you have an article backing this up?
Did you miss this part? The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries increases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. Do Americans have a poor diet for their children but not for themselves? No there is a relationship between fat parents having fat kids.

So using the same technical analysis that they used in your article, 'if' they had not dealt with the issues earlier they would have far more cases of what would be healthy low weight babies that should have been normal, they would have an easier time saving them, just like us. Instead when most their babies are healthy the small amount of underweight infants are in a far worse situation due to a much more severe sickness. And hence much harder to save then the malnutritioned infant here in the states, that is due to not having neonatal meds.

Again I ask, based on what? Where did you get this info?

See people don't want you to scratch the surface, and expect you not to to get that these things are just poking holes in a medical research paper. So they try to poke holes using the information that they had used. They don't expect their viewers to do some dilligance and question what they say. When you don't you miss the facts that we still suck when it comes to the health of our nation.

lmao But you didn't do ANY due diligence. All you did was make comments based on zero facts. You big stoner.

 

[hanimmal]

You missed this part. This does not reflect upon the quality of health care in the U.S., in that these events almost universally occur independently of the condition of health of the individuals who die as a result of these factors.
Because we have alot of gun related deaths that has to do with health care?

Not being able to have a ambulance get to your home to pick you up and you die for not having treatment would be one way.

Poor medical treatment? Based on what? Do you have an article backing this up?
Did you miss this part? The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries increases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. Do Americans have a poor diet for their children but not for themselves? No there is a relationship between fat parents having fat kids.

You can be fat and still be malnurished. And I linked a bunch of good sources on the Obama looking good thread. This was the abridged version, the things you posted were already talked about there.

The fact that most of the food we eat has very little nutrition but high fat and calories is how this can happen. So malnurishment still stands.

Again I ask, based on what? Where did you get this info?
lmao But you didn't do ANY due diligence. All you did was make comments based on zero facts. You big stoner.

lol no problem, I guess I can just repost it here since it is sometimes hard to find a day old thread.

 

[hanimmal]

Quote:
So you couldn't figure out what skewed the numbers.... I am not surprised...not surprised at all.

sigh*

www.google.com, then type in infant mortality rate + conspiracy, scroll a couple threads, find a podcast by some guy, download the 48 minute of liberal conspiracy, listen to some flavor flave that he has for backround........ hear his lip smacking and condesending voice, and you are not considered a infant until you are passed 30 days.

What happens in countries that have really crappy health care, babies die before then.

Thank god got the story so that I can now delete it.

Ok so now I look up some of the other stats that are a little harder to find since there is not a nice clean report from the WHO on it:

Quote:
In 2002-2004, Oregon’s neonatal mortality rate was nearly 20 • percent lower than the 2004 U.S.13 average (3.8 versus 4.5 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births, respectively). Although Oregon’s rate has remained consistently below the U.S. average over the last ten years, Oregon has not achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 2.9 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births.

Do a little more digging for some UK numbers.

Quote:
The latest figures from the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report 2007 show improvements in the stillbirth and neonatal death rates in the UK.
The main findings are:


• The lowest neonatal death rate since 2000 (3.3 per 1, 000 live births).

&#8226; Teenage mothers (< 20 years old) had the highest neonatal mortality rate (4.4 per 1,000 live births) when compared to other maternal age groups. Teenage maternities contributed to 9.5% of the overall neonatal mortality rate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Researchers suggest that the high rate may be a result of other associated risk factors such as social deprivation and a higher preterm delivery rate amongst this group.

- So the UK has s lower rate, and they are ranked 18th, and their highest death rate of neonatal is teenagers who are still lower than the american average.


Trying to find one from France, but I cannot read any of the ones I am seeing.

Found one from Thailand.
Quote:
JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF THAILAND = CHOTMAIHET THANGPHAET Vol. 92 Issue 5 May 2009

.....and the early neonatal mortality rate was 3.97 per 1,000 live-births

So again lower than America.


Anyway just because something sounds plausable, does not make it right.

Here is a very good article I came across that explains why they count the infant mortality rate and not the other types of still borns. Mostly it comes down to non reliable sources. Women that lose their babies before they are born tend not to get reported, where as once infants are 7 days old they can be tracked much easier. And since they made it out of that first week it tends to let you know they should be healthy enough to live. So if they die it means something went wrong.

Not like that guy said and that means that all the weak are already dead in the other countries so it skews our numbers. Look at that list again, we are 33, so the same logic that guy uses would mean that Croatia is better than us, as is all the next 100 behind us on that list.

Here is a good link: http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_...s/neonatal.pdf


And then in a later post:

Quote:
Do I have to do everything????

I love that you recently are told something and then you pretend that it is your own hrd work and knowledge that this comes from. How am I supposed to know what your being told on a day by day basis?

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

Quote:
Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.

So we have an issue with low birth weights that other industrialized nations don't have. And we still have a higher neonatal death rate than them.

Cut and pasted your words in google and found that article was cut and pasted from about a dozen different ones.

And came across this on one of them:

So this helps us see we are number 1! In Perinatal, maternal, and congenital condition, surgical cond. and medical errors, infectious diseases among men and women.


Anyway so the writer goes onto say:

Quote:
Let&#8217;s take the data for men. The study makes a big point of saying that France is much better than the US, so we will use those two countries. In 2003, France has an "amenable disease" death rate 56 points lower than the US. But we can see that almost this whole gap, or 42 points of it, comes from heart and circulatory diseases. The incidence of these diseases are highly related to diet and lifestyle. In fact, it is well established that the US has a comparatively high incidence rate of these diseases, much higher than France. This makes it entirely possible that this mortality difference is entirely due to lifestyle differences and disease incidence rates rather than the relative merits of health care systems. In fact, this study is close to meaningless. If they really wanted to make a point about the quality of health care systems, they would compare them on relative mortality with a denominator of the disease incidence rate, not a denominator of total population.

So we have the number one health system because we are so unhealthy as a nation?

What... Huh? had a great thread where he talked about the 2nd hand smoke report and how it was basically written before the science was done. This is exactly what this guy wants done. He does not want any numbers to be used because it could be that people are more healthy, which means that very few numbers would be done outside of medical procedures. But that would only be looking at half the medical field.

So in essence handicap the report so that it can be skewed to Americas favor. Here we treat the issues after they arise, so are much better at reactive care, there they are far better at preventative care and so the system is not as taxed and they are able to give the care needed and not have as taxed a system. This way when people have issues it is far more serious and deadly. And not like America where we are extremely unhealthy and therefore have many unecessary procedures that are completely survivable, that never would have gotten as bad in other countries.

So you are saying that the actual things like surgery may be better here, and that indeed may be the case. But by that point the medical system has already failed.



That is the problem that you fail to see, sure the numbers can be skewn to show us being the best, but as a whole our system is seriously flawed because we do not do enough to stop the problems before they start.












There is the due diligence.

 

[Parker]

Not being able to have a ambulance get to your home to pick you up and you die for not having treatment would be one way.

Agreed a timely reponse can save lives. I have no idea how many deaths are related to slow response time. I am guessing it is minute.

You can be fat and still be malnurished. And I linked a bunch of good sources on the Obama looking good thread. This was the abridged version, the things you posted were already talked about there.

Agreed. I should have phrased it as there is a relationship between parents with a bad diet and their kids having a bad diet.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

sigh*

www.google.com, then type in infant mortality rate + conspiracy, scroll a couple threads, find a podcast by some guy, download the 48 minute of liberal conspiracy, listen to some flavor flave that he has for backround........ hear his lip smacking and condesending voice, and you are not considered a infant until you are passed 30 days.

What happens in countries that have really crappy health care, babies die before then.

Thank god got the story so that I can now delete it.

Ok so now I look up some of the other stats that are a little harder to find since there is not a nice clean report from the WHO on it: Do a little more digging for some UK numbers.

- So the UK has s lower rate, and they are ranked 18th, and their highest death rate of neonatal is teenagers who are still lower than the american average.


Trying to find one from France, but I cannot read any of the ones I am seeing.

So again lower than America.


Anyway just because something sounds plausable, does not make it right.

Here is a very good article I came across that explains why they count the infant mortality rate and not the other types of still borns. Mostly it comes down to non reliable sources. Women that lose their babies before they are born tend not to get reported, where as once infants are 7 days old they can be tracked much easier. And since they made it out of that first week it tends to let you know they should be healthy enough to live. So if they die it means something went wrong.

Not like that guy said and that means that all the weak are already dead in the other countries so it skews our numbers. Look at that list again, we are 33, so the same logic that guy uses would mean that Croatia is better than us, as is all the next 100 behind us on that list.

Here is a good link: http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_...s/neonatal.pdf


And then in a later post:

I love that you recently are told something and then you pretend that it is your own hrd work and knowledge that this comes from. How am I supposed to know what your being told on a day by day basis?

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

So we have an issue with low birth weights that other industrialized nations don't have. And we still have a higher neonatal death rate than them.

Cut and pasted your words in google and found that article was cut and pasted from about a dozen different ones.

And came across this on one of them:

So this helps us see we are number 1! In Perinatal, maternal, and congenital condition, surgical cond. and medical errors, infectious diseases among men and women.


Anyway so the writer goes onto say:

So we have the number one health system because we are so unhealthy as a nation?

What... Huh? had a great thread where he talked about the 2nd hand smoke report and how it was basically written before the science was done. This is exactly what this guy wants done. He does not want any numbers to be used because it could be that people are more healthy, which means that very few numbers would be done outside of medical procedures. But that would only be looking at half the medical field.

So in essence handicap the report so that it can be skewed to Americas favor. Here we treat the issues after they arise, so are much better at reactive care, there they are far better at preventative care and so the system is not as taxed and they are able to give the care needed and not have as taxed a system. This way when people have issues it is far more serious and deadly. And not like America where we are extremely unhealthy and therefore have many unecessary procedures that are completely survivable, that never would have gotten as bad in other countries.

So you are saying that the actual things like surgery may be better here, and that indeed may be the case. But by that point the medical system has already failed.



That is the problem that you fail to see, sure the numbers can be skewn to show us being the best, but as a whole our system is seriously flawed because we do not do enough to stop the problems before they start.












There is the due diligence.

3.3 in 1000 and 3.9 in 1000 and 4.5 in 1000

That's .33%, .39% and .45% As the difference between those numbers is less than 1% they are what would be considered as not statistically significant.

Then there is an issue in size. Texas, by itself, is larger than most European nations. There are more rural areas in the United States than in Europe and thus common sense would dictate that the United States is going to have its numbers skewed upward, because it simply takes a portion of our population longer to get to whatever hospital they need to get to.

 

[hanimmal]

That's .33%, .39% and .45% As the difference between those numbers is less than 1% they are what would be considered as not statistically significant.

In these type of discussions it is a large difference. Over our population it is the difference of 990,000 lives.

Which I am not complaining about this. I am just saying that the people that attack the WHO reports on the health system already decided that it has to be wrong and are just trying to pick it apart without looking at why they think that it is wrong, just that it has to be.

Our medical system is ass backwards, and that is all there is to it. Instead of someone being able to help us out by telling us (on mass, not everyone) eat better, they say you cant tell me how to live my life. Instead of when being told to walk more and take the bus/train (that are non-existent) we say give me an SUV and don't give me shit about a hybrid.

We fight shit too much, when it is good for us to listen.

Then there is an issue in size. Texas, by itself, is larger than most European nations. There are more rural areas in the United States than in Europe and thus common sense would dictate that the United States is going to have its numbers skewed upward, because it simply takes a portion of our population longer to get to whatever hospital they need to get to.

I strongly agree that the spread of our country is a contributing factor to all the mess that we are in. And not just the hospital travel. But it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle and get us into city living from the suburb living that we are used to now.

It is scary to think that we will not be able to change until too late sometimes.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

In these type of discussions it is a large difference. Over our population it is the difference of 990,000 lives.

Which I am not complaining about this. I am just saying that the people that attack the WHO reports on the health system already decided that it has to be wrong and are just trying to pick it apart without looking at why they think that it is wrong, just that it has to be.

Our medical system is ass backwards, and that is all there is to it. Instead of someone being able to help us out by telling us (on mass, not everyone) eat better, they say you cant tell me how to live my life. Instead of when being told to walk more and take the bus/train (that are non-existent) we say give me an SUV and don't give me shit about a hybrid.

We fight shit too much, when it is good for us to listen.

I strongly agree that the spread of our country is a contributing factor to all the mess that we are in. And not just the hospital travel. But it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle and get us into city living from the suburb living that we are used to now.

It is scary to think that we will not be able to change until too late sometimes.

Suburbs are not the problem. I do believe I specifically said rural areas, not suburban areas. Suburban areas are typically areas around major cities, where care can quickly be gotten to, except in cases of great emergency, but in many of those cases nothing short of being able to teleport the person to the hospital would suffice.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

In these type of discussions it is a large difference. Over our population it is the difference of 990,000 lives.

Which I am not complaining about this. I am just saying that the people that attack the WHO reports on the health system already decided that it has to be wrong and are just trying to pick it apart without looking at why they think that it is wrong, just that it has to be.

Our medical system is ass backwards, and that is all there is to it. Instead of someone being able to help us out by telling us (on mass, not everyone) eat better, they say you cant tell me how to live my life. Instead of when being told to walk more and take the bus/train (that are non-existent) we say give me an SUV and don't give me shit about a hybrid.

We fight shit too much, when it is good for us to listen.

I strongly agree that the spread of our country is a contributing factor to all the mess that we are in. And not just the hospital travel. But it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle and get us into city living from the suburb living that we are used to now.

It is scary to think that we will not be able to change until too late sometimes.

What scares me is the fact that there are people like you who think we should change. Humanity will still face the same problems we face now regardless of how densely we pack ourselves, and I for one do not really desire to live like a bunch of sardines.

There is also the fact that higher density would result in higher crime rates of all kinds. People have decided of their own free will that they do not desire to live in cities. I am not about to state that I believe that might makes right and argue that some mindless apparatchik should be able to dictate to people where they live.

 

[hanimmal]

Suburbs are not the problem. I do believe I specifically said rural areas, not suburban areas. Suburban areas are typically areas around major cities, where care can quickly be gotten to, except in cases of great emergency, but in many of those cases nothing short of being able to teleport the person to the hospital would suffice.

I never said you said suburbs, I said suburbs.

And hospitals aside, I mean the fact that we have to take cars everywhere. The option to walk to the store, or movies, or work, usually is not an option in the suburbs. Nationwide it is about 25 minutes per trip to work, so everyday we sit in the car for about an hour.

What scares me is the fact that there are people like you who think we should change. Humanity will still face the same problems we face now regardless of how densely we pack ourselves, and I for one do not really desire to live like a bunch of sardines.

There is also the fact that higher density would result in higher crime rates of all kinds. People have decided of their own free will that they do not desire to live in cities. I am not about to state that I believe that might makes right and argue that some mindless apparatchik should be able to dictate to people where they live.

You really go off the deep end a lot. I have never told anyone that they have to move to the city. But to deny that it would be better to move around and become healthier instead of spreading out further and further and having to be in the car more and more, enjoying life less and less because you go fro home to car to work to car to fast food, to home to bed and do it over and over again, is asinine.

We are becoming an alienated society and are becoming further and further removed from family and friends.

For the paranoids out there this would be a great way to weaken the people. Since you no longer trust anyone you live around (because you don't know them) it is harder to organize in case of an actual emergency. So in essence it is easier for the government to control you.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I never said you said suburbs, I said suburbs.

And hospitals aside, I mean the fact that we have to take cars everywhere. The option to walk to the store, or movies, or work, usually is not an option in the suburbs. Nationwide it is about 25 minutes per trip to work, so everyday we sit in the car for about an hour.

You really go off the deep end a lot. I have never told anyone that they have to move to the city. But to deny that it would be better to move around and become healthier instead of spreading out further and further and having to be in the car more and more, enjoying life less and less because you go fro home to car to work to car to fast food, to home to bed and do it over and over again, is asinine.

We are becoming an alienated society and are becoming further and further removed from family and friends.

For the paranoids out there this would be a great way to weaken the people. Since you no longer trust anyone you live around (because you don't know them) it is harder to organize in case of an actual emergency. So in essence it is easier for the government to control you.

Actually, I believe part of the problem is that due to government intervention in the housing market it is impossible to be certain that the people in any neighborhood actually have the same ideals.

What is a working class neighborhood may find itself engulfed by urchins uprooted from their slums by government largesse and thus no longer be able to rest assured that their neighbors are in fact people they'd want to associate with.

Actually, I'll go even further and assert that the entire problem is a result of government interference in the markets through taxation.

Though speaking of going off the deep end, how does it feel to still be in the shallow safety of the infant wading pool?