NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi guys. Long time no see.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515

Universal Health Care. US doesn't have it. That's why yer babies are dyin'.

Half the cost (at least!) of the total economic cost of the US system and with all the services as well as cheaper prescriptions.

Isn't it about time the people of the US demanded that their politicians protect their electorate instead of the drug and insurance lobbies that buy their votes? Nasty bit of "business can do it better" lobbyist propaganda you've been fed over the years so they could make more cash. The old line of "Socialist" Health = dysfunctional = Communism = Americans dying and having their country taken over by the Russians; that's just classic. Funny how a 'weakened' America is being conquered by the at least EQUALLY weak communists since they would have such a health system too. Whatever.

"But Upitatanium," you may say,"socialist medicine isn't directly noted as a cause in the article."

"Howson attributes much of this improvement to enhanced vaccination programs, improved nutrition and public hygiene, and a safer environment for families."

Actually, it does mention it tangently. Private systems don't provide outpatient services or prevention education like government-run systems do. It is a detriment to government to have taxpayers too sick/disabled/dead in order to work, so they choose the ounce of prevention route. Private companies are like this because they want you to get sick since they are in it for the pound of cure. Good luck getting Congress to run against insurance and drug companies.

What this means that the average person will not know about the availablilty of vaccines or may believe the nonsense about vaccines causing autism due to the media hype and their lack of education about them. They are also less likely to know about other risks and prevention techniques even as simple as washing your hands (I'm not kidding) when you are sick to prevent the spread of flu, among other diseases. Then there is proper nutrition which is definitely a problem in the US.

For instance...DID YOU KNOW that antibacterial soaps actually PROMOTE bacterial/fungal/protozoan/viral/lilliputian infections and even generate antibiotic/antiviral resistant strains of these organisms since many of these soaps contain antibiotics/antivirals? (I'm not talking about just body soaps either. Hand soap, too.)

I do think we can avoid partisanship in this issue since both Dems and Repubs are woefully corrupt.

(Back tomorrow. Study time.)

As an additional:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthology/story?id=1160529

With medical technology extending lives longer, should universal health care have a funding section that is managed like social security/insurance where dollars invested today compound interest and take care of your health when you get older?

AND because I'm a procrastinator when I know I have to study, one more point of debate:

In light of growing drug costs and Tamiflu availability concerns, should drug companies be disbanded and the drug system be anarchized?

1) Recipes would be registered on a collective commons liscence (like Creative Commons except for a physical product and not artistic work) so no one entity own the rights to their manufacture. Needs UN cooperation so it will get through the trademark-protecting polices they have in place. I predict few objections, especially from poorer nations.
2) Old management and rank and file would still have jobs since someone has to run the factories (subject to efficiency audits of course, less CFOs/CEOs no doubt although having them on a Health Authority Board could be useful).
3) Government would increase grants to make up for the feeble amount of R&D money contributed by the now-defunct drug industry (estimated at $110 million last I heard. They notoriously overstate their contribution. Most of R&D cash is provided by government grants and charities with most drugs being made in university labs).
4) All governments and companies would be free to make any drug their country needed cheaply or trade it with other countries at cost or for other drugs they do not have the facilities to produce. Why no charge? So other countries would do the same for them. Besides, it isn't like they hold the rights. A government could simply make its own should it feel it was being swindled. As long as they provide proof of quality, I see few problems.
5) Cures and treatments that the old drug companies buried since they were unprofitable to make will now be made.
6) Cures will be more likely because treatments were more profitable in the old system ;).
7) Foriegn aid and emergency medical care just got cheaper and more reliable. The whole world would not have to worry about Tamiflu (and future) shortages since they would no longer have to be pumped out by a single source strained by demand and a production bottleneck.

Any more?

Interesting point. A little incensed but poignant in a way. Although, the problem with countries that have Univeral Healthcare is they must prioritize in order to have the system run smoothly. For example, if you have ovarian cancer in Sweden and treatment could help, you may not get it if you are in your 80's because in their opinion, you are old and likely to die soon anyway. So they let people die.

A happy medium would be nice. I don't care for the fact that the big Drug Co.s run the FDA.

interesting article but it does not lay the blame for a higher infant mortality rate at the feet of lack of government run health care

poor people in the united states are covered by medicaid. they dont go without obstetrical care.

According to health care experts, there is no simple explanation for the increase in U.S. infant mortality.

"But there are a number of factors that could contribute," said Dr. William A. Engle, neonatologist with the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis.

"The number of babies born pre-term has increased in general, and pre-term populations are at a higher risk for morbidity and mortality," Engle said.

Births of two or more babies are often associated with prematurity, and, Engle said, "the number of multiple births has increased." Some of these multiple births are the result of fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization procedures.

Engle explained that while a normal, healthy gestation period is 40 weeks, because of the increased number of pre-term deliveries, the gestation period in the United States now averages just 39 weeks. "The 34- to 37-week gestation group has increased over the last 10 years," he said. "There are fewer births after 40 weeks than there were even a few years ago."

Within the United States, there are important differences in the infant mortality rates between racial groups and across geographic boundaries.

"Infant mortality rates tends to trend with socio-economic status," said Dr. Nancy Green, medical director for the March of Dimes. "African-Americans have much, much higher rates of infant mortality than other groups."

The rate among African-Americans is nearly double that of the general population: 13.9 versus 7.0. Rates among some other ethnic minorities also tend to be higher: the infant mortality rate among Puerto Ricans is 8.2, and for Native Americans, the rate is 9.1.

"Some of that is due to poverty but it doesn't track perfectly with poverty," said Green. The infant mortality rate among Central and South American immigrants, for example, is only 5.1.

Infant mortality rates also vary from state to state. "The states in the Southeast tend to have higher infant mortality rates than others," said Green. Most of the Southeast has rates exceeding 7.5, while most West Coast and Northeast states have rates below 6.2.

Part of the reason U.S. infant mortality is rising in comparison to other countries is because while the U.S. rate has remained fairly stable, many other countries have greatly improved their health care systems.

...

Howson attributes much of this improvement to enhanced vaccination programs, improved nutrition and public hygiene, and a safer environment for families.

interesting article but it does not lay the blame for a higher infant mortality rate at the feet of lack of government run health care

poor people in the united states are covered by medicaid. they dont go without obstetrical care.

A good point. And pre-natal care classes are suggested, but not a mandatory portion of the pre-natal process. In countries with Universal Healthcare, they are required as part of the process. I think if there were better health care and education (including sex ed in schools) you would see improvement in infant mortality rates.

Ummm, no. The reason we have a higher mortality rate for infants is because we try to save a hell of a lot more infants in the 5th, 6th, and 7th months of gestation, while other countries don't. Since most of those babies don't make it at all in other countries and never survive on their own for any length of time, they are not classified as infants in the CDC's survey. The one's in the US are because they can survive outside the mother for a couple of days at least. Had you bothered to read your own frigging article it alludes to this phenomenon



Premature Births Increase in U.S.

According to health care experts, there is no simple explanation for the increase in U.S. infant mortality.

"But there are a number of factors that could contribute," said Dr. William A. Engle, neonatologist with the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis.

"The number of babies born pre-term has increased in general, and pre-term populations are at a higher risk for morbidity and mortality," Engle said.

Births of two or more babies are often associated with prematurity, and, Engle said, "the number of multiple births has increased." Some of these multiple births are the result of fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization procedures.

Engle explained that while a normal, healthy gestation period is 40 weeks, because of the increased number of pre-term deliveries, the gestation period in the United States now averages just 39 weeks. "The 34- to 37-week gestation group has increased over the last 10 years," he said. "There are fewer births after 40 weeks than there were even a few years ago."

Most of those babies woud die in womb in other countries.

Ummm, no. The reason we have a higher mortality rate for infants is because we try to save a hell of a lot more infants in the 5th, 6th, and 7th months of gestation, while other countries don't. Since most of those babies don't make it at all in other countries and never survive on their own for any length of time, they are not classified as infants in the CDC's survey. The one's in the US are because they can survive outside the mother for a couple of days at least. Had you bothered to read your own frigging article it alludes to this phenomenon



Most of those babies woud die in womb in other countries.


That might be true as compared to much of the less-developed world, but I have not seen any empirical evidence to support this assertion when stacking US stats up against the EU countries or Canada - where you still lag behind in most cases.

That might be true as compared to much of the less-developed world, but I have not seen any empirical evidence to support this assertion when stacking US stats up against the EU countries or Canada - where you still lag behind in most cases.

The article specifically mentions Cuba. Cuba reports deaths from premature births as miscarraiges whereas the US reports them as infant deaths. This, to me, takes away some of the credibility of the source.

However, can anyone show what the reporting standards are in the EU and Canada?

The article specifically mentions Cuba. Cuba reports deaths from premature births as miscarraiges whereas the US reports them as infant deaths. This, to me, takes away some of the credibility of the source.

However, can anyone show what the reporting standards are in the EU and Canada?


Well, that takes care of one country. I am not sure if you'd have to go to each EU country to get their methodologies, however in Canada each live birth is recorded as such.

From statistics canada (http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3231&lang=en&db=IMDB&dbg=f&adm=8&dis=2)

Since the registration of births is a legal requirement in each Canadian province and territory, reporting is virtually complete. Under-coverage is thought to be minimal, but is being monitored. Under-coverage may occur because of late registration, which, if not completed soon after birth, is needed for school registration. Statistics Canada does receive late registrations (typically 1,000 to 1,500 cases, five years after the year of the event), and consideration is currently being given to including late registrations and late amendments on the data file for subsequent publication. Incomplete registration is also a source of under-coverage. For example, some provinces require that a notarized statement be completed when a mother declines to name the father on the application for birth registration. Until the statement is notarized, the application is not registered.

Out-of-country births are incompletely reported. There is no reporting of births to Canadian resident women occurring in countries other than the United States; although there is a reciprocal agreement with the U.S., some states may not report births to Canadian resident women occurring in their state.

Non-registration is minimal, except in Ontario where provincial health officials have noted a rise in the number of physician notices of birth that do not have a matching registration from the parents. This may represent up to 4,000 births in 2000, or 3% of all Ontario births, but is probably less because of duplicate or late registrations being included in this total. This is apparent especially in districts of Ontario that charge a service fee for birth registration (e.g. the City of Ottawa charged a $30 service fee in 2003 to register a birth), and for infants who die within days of the birth (25% of Ontario infant deaths do not have a matching birth registration). These quality concerns have been discussed several times with the Ontario Office of the Registrar General (ORG). Labour disruptions and backlogs have limited ORG resources available for follow-up. For missing birth registrations for infant deaths, it is recognized that collection of these data from the grieving families is difficult.

Over-coverage is minimal. Births to non-resident women in Canada are registered but are excluded from most tabulations. Duplicate birth registrations are identified as part of the regular processing operations on each provincial and territorial subset, as well as additional inter-provincial checks, and comparisons between the birth and stillbirth databases for multiple births. Possible duplicate registrations are checked against microfilmed registrations or optical images, or by consulting with the provinces and territories.

For information on response rates and other accuracy issues, refer to the following link .



So they recognize some registration issues exist with quick fatalaties, however they are also collecting physician notices and compensating for this possible data deficiency. So the mortality rate calculations should be in line with US standards.

Indeed, if you think about it, if you have the death registrations but not the associated birth registrations then this would tend to skew the mortality rate to appear HIGHER in Canada than it actually is.

Well, that takes care of one country. I am not sure if you'd have to go to each EU country to get their methodologies, however in Canada each live birth is recorded as such.So they recognize some registration issues exist with quick fatalaties, however they are also collecting physician notices and compensating for this possible data deficiency. So the mortality rate calculations should be in line with US standards.

Indeed, if you think about it, if you have the death registrations but not the associated birth registrations then this would tend to skew the mortality rate to appear HIGHER in Canada than it actually is.

That is interesting. Something I noticed in the OP article was the breakdown by "race". When the wife and I were going through Lamaz classes, the nurse that was teaching it mentioned that she had previously worked in Chicago. She stated that it was very difficult to get AA's to attend health classes, take vitamins, etc. She stated that when asked, a common response was variations of "It's a white thing".

Does Stats Canada break it down into those demographics?

That is interesting. Something I noticed in the OP article was the breakdown by "race". When the wife and I were going through Lamaz classes, the nurse that was teaching it mentioned that she had previously worked in Chicago. She stated that it was very difficult to get AA's to attend health classes, take vitamins, etc. She stated that when asked, a common response was variations of "It's a white thing".

Does Stats Canada break it down into those demographics?

I don't belive so, but I haven't dug through the raw data - some of which requires a paid subscription to access. We also don't have that same divide of a large african population that you have. Our divisions tend to be the regional/language ones.

Not that we don't have a higher rate of voluntary immigration than you, but the sociological phenominon of a large community descended of ex-slaves brought to the country against their will who have since fought their way towards equality is just not a big part of the Canadian cultural history.

interesting article but it does not lay the blame for a higher infant mortality rate at the feet of lack of government run health care

poor people in the united states are covered by medicaid. they dont go without obstetrical care.

Ahh but what about neonatal care?

Ahh but what about neonatal care?

Also covered.

Nothing to do with nationalized health care, everything to do with more individuals making foolish decisions. At this level America does have universal health care, it just doesn't have universal prudence.

Nothing to do with nationalized health care, everything to do with more individuals making foolish decisions. At this level America does have universal health care, it just doesn't have universal prudence.
yeah. we have too many teen pregnancies, too many addict pregnancies, too many religious nutcases who spurn medical care.

Nothing to do with nationalized health care, everything to do with more individuals making foolish decisions. At this level America does have universal health care, it just doesn't have universal prudence.

That brings up another question. Which of the countries have mandatory neo-natal screening/care etc. ?