Linking through Matthew Good, we have a depressing piece in the Daily Mirror, which asks you to ponder things like this:
America, which has the world's costliest health care, had, it turned out, higher infant mortality rates than the broke and despised Cuba.
You're just noticing that now? Remember, Cuba offered to send 1500 doctors to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Couldn't have that, could we?
Tom De Lay, Republican enforcer in the House of Representatives, was indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. The leader of the Republicans in the Senate was under investigation for his stock dealings. And Osama bin Laden was still on the loose.
Well, sure, Osama's still out there. But Bush's crack team of military experts did catch his number three man. For the twenty-seventh time, if my arithmetic doesn't fail me.
The war costs $6billion a month, driving up a nose-bleed high $331billion budget deficit. In five years the conflict will have cost each American family $11,300, it is said.
Enjoy those vaunted tax cuts while you can, folks. That piper's going to need paying real soon now. And then there's this gem:
Mr Bush says blithely he'll cut existing programs to pay for the war and fund an estimated $200billion for hurricane damage. He won't, he says, rescind his tax cuts. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says Mr Bush is "disconnected from reality"
No. Shit.
1 comment:
I'd wonder about this factoid.
Look.. I've seen the healthcare systems of both Canada and the US on this really upclose and personal.
Pretnatal care in Canada is a bit of a joke, compared to pre-natal care in the US. By the time you are 5 months along in the US, you've had multiple ultra-sounds (performed in your doctors office), if there's any problems they uncover with the massive amounts of bloodwork testing, you get an amnio done on a routine basis. If there are any problems at all, your prenatal check-ups will catch it, and the likelihood of you or your baby dying (pre-birth) because of the common problem of pre-eclampsia, is next to nil.
Ok.. so there is a whole lot of monitoring of the mother and baby in utero, which costs thousands of dollars, in the US, but ensures that the doctor knows exactly what's going on with you, and your body, and as much as they can about baby as well.
In countries that don't do that kind of rigourous and expensive testing and monitoring (like say... Canada), I am guessing that there is a higher number of still-births, which are not (I believe) counted as infant mortality deaths...
Ok... now, then, also consider the amazing facilities they have to take care of preemie infants in the US. I'm sure they have something similar to this in Canada, but I doubt that it's anywhere as accessible as the neo-natal care is down here.
Premies, who are born, (are added to the results of infant mortality) and despite one's best efforts, it's often very touch and go for premies.
Baby's that are born alive prior to say 7 months are going to have a tough time of it... and a LOT is involved in keeping these babies alive.
So... I can see how this would skew the infant mortality stats.. in that in countries without these kinds of advanced treatments,testing and cutting edge innovation, you will find more still-births and overall death rates of pregnant women... If the baby doesn't make it long enough to be born alive... they aren't counted in the infant mortality stats.
However... the US, having this tech for premies then has to deal with the fact that a substantial number of premies aren't going to make it, even if they are born alive.. which means it would show up as higher-infant mortality rate, simply because the baby was born premie before it died of complications related to a difficult pregnancy.
See what I'm saying here?
Post a Comment