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.
