Posted on 05/09/2006 7:23:46 AM PDT by ol painless
BULLFEATHERS
And add in the ones they kill on purpose....
What a stupid article.
The US newborn survival rate is low because we can detect problems in-utero, do a C-Section, and put the babies in NICU.
In other countries they die before birth, and are thus not counted.
Dumbies.
Wasn't this debunked before as a function of foreign hospitals reporting any infant death within a certain period after birth as a stillbirth while US hospitals would report a live birth and then an infant death? I will do a little research in a bit...
See post 5.
and yet... whenever some dictator gets sick where do they come for medical care? the US.
This article is BS.
If we're tied with England, how did these geniuses determine that lack of national health care was the problem?
I'm getting about sick of these idiotic studies that insult our intelligence all to drive an agenda of national healthcare.
The high infant mortality rate can be linked directly to the crack whores, and I don't want to become any more financially responsible for their bad decisions than I already am.
Certainly not all infants who die are the offspring of drug addicts, but a truthful look at it would show that a sizeable percentage are, IMO.
What's "culturally appropriate" health care? Voodoo priestesses and medicine men?
How many babies per thousand do we kill intentionally before birth?
What's "culturally appropriate" health care? Voodoo priestesses and medicine men?
They were trying to say nicely that it's hard to persuade Quonesha who spends her pregnancy drinking and smoking crack, and Imelda who spends her last month hiking across the desert so she can deliver an anchor baby here, that their choices may be leading to the deaths of their babies. You can't get good prenatal care that will save babies to mothers who are either drugged up or aren't even in the US at the time of conception, and in either case aren't eating properly or taking prenatal vitamins and getting ultrasounds.
We have got the best health care in the world here. If that were not the case, then rich Saudis and Englishmen wouldn't be coming here for medical care when they get cancer. Even poor people in this country have access to good FREE health care (if they choose to live near civilization). But you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force him to get good health care.
The strongest predictor of infant mortality is an unmarried mother. With a rapidly-increasing illegitimacy rate, of course we have higher infant mortality as well.
Third Worlders bringing us down again.
Very well said.
I thank God that I live in the US. My son was 2 months early and might have died if it were not for the state of the art NICU unit.
While your point is taken, the chart above has an interesting statistic --- "Mexicans" have a lower infant mortality than non-Hispanic whites.
Ergo, the "anchor-baby" issue dragging the statistics down is not the issue. (Not that there are not real problems with anchor babies, just not infant mortality.)
The big thing is this ENTIRE study is bogus. In the US more C-Section are performed to try to save early-term babies that would simply die (generally taking mom with him or her.).
"Third Worlders bringing us down again."
Not according to the post above. To the extent we have any problems (we don't --- the statistics are bogus, not accounting for NICU care in the US), the problems are home grown.
This report is way too vague for my blood. It looks like creative counting to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.