really? great.Freenhult wrote: That website was very re-assuring. D:
~Beatles..."I'm sorry, but I really can't see anything redeeming in your philosophy other than that dinosaurs are cute."
K then, sounds interesting.fine by me Volkov.
oh, we are using a birthing pool too! smile.gif
I did read it. I was already aware of most of it.oh and Volkov, im not trying to insult you, but really, read the statistics.
its the whole problem with intervention on behalf of the nurses and doctors who did all that went through the training and schools and the procedures they have to follow that makes birth in a hospital not worth it.
Bollocks! "infant" here means at birth! The parent doesn't even get a chance to stuff a Big Mac down the kid's throat. And parent lifestyles are actually safer in America than in most places due to the FDA's very strict control.Infant mortality has EVERYTHING to do with parent lifestyle. If you mother is a fat lazy American who eats crap all day, chances are the child will be receiving that crap as well. If your mother is coke-whore, chances are, she's not going to be taking good care of you. If your mother took drugs or drank alcohol while pregnant, you have a MUCH higher chance of dying as an infant than other children. It's complete and utter BS to say that the parents have no effect on the health of the infant.
You said we were better in some areas and I called BS and stand behind it until you show me areas in which we were better than average. Now had you said we ranged from average to worst I would agree with you, although it would admittedly be misleading since we had 1 flyer that was average and all other stats were 2nd to last or dead last.I'm calling BS on you Nuke, you stated you were calling BS, and then went on to prove my very point. Middle of the road with nurses is part of what I was claiming. But ok, you have a point, we are a bit behind in some of those statistics, especially the important ones like doctor-patient ratio. But we aren't THAT far behind. And we do lead the world in medical research and development of new medical technologies. So we must be doing SOMETHING right. It's certainly not SHODDY! (Sorry, I'm just getting tired of hearing people denigrate our healthcare system, it's not perfect, and there is room for improvement to be sure, but it's not a BAD system. A bad system is what they have in China, or Russia, or one of many many African countries, compared to those countries, even Canada is a shining jewel.) (Russia's system used to be quite good, but then the government collapsed, China's would be better if not for the 2 billion inhabitants of that country)
Oh come on, if African nation's healthcare systems are equivalent to Hitler, the US healthcare system is equivalent to Gorbachev, at WORST. It's patently not a BAD system, because we have a bunch of examples OF truly bad systems. Trying to say the US system is bad because it's a little bit worse in some statistics than European ones is like saying a CD player is bad because it skips every third Wednesday that happens to coincide with the full moon. (If you get to use ridiculous metaphors, I do too.)Dude, trying to say our healthcare isn't bad because it's better than African nations' is like saying Saddam was a good guy because he wasn't as bad as Hitler.
"In all the statistics in the second list, the US is a little worse or a little better in all the areas given." = AVERAGE, or is my grammar messed up? I do not see this statement as saying we were better than average. YOU are the one who brought that in. And even in the areas where we were the "worst" the difference wasn't that great. I believe the country with the most doctors per 1000 only had 2 more per thousand than we do. And there are areas that we excel at the the Europeans do not. (Admittedly they are not on that list)You said we were better in some areas and I called BS and stand behind it until you show me areas in which we were better than average. Now had you said we ranged from average to worst I would agree with you, although it would admittedly be misleading since we had 1 flyer that was average and all other stats were 2nd to last or dead last.
First: Go look up the definition of infant mortality, it's deaths that occur within the first year of life. Now try and tell me that the parents are going to spend less time with the child than the healthcare professionals will. Go ahead, I'll run out of breath laughing. Now, from the moment the child is conceived, the average American has a much worse lifestyle than almost every European. Then, after the child is born, until a year after that, the American is still living a much less healthy lifestyle than the European, and that is passed directly on to the child, both before and after birth. It might, and I repeat might, not account for ALL of the difference, but I'd say it's pretty damn obvious that it would account for most of the difference, if not all.Our infant mortality is damn near double everyone elses average, are you really gonna try to convince anyone that that can be contributed entirely to lifestyle? Lifestyle *may* account for .5 per 1,000 at the absolute worst. There's no way in hell lifestyle accounts for anywhere near as much as you seem to be arguing for.
Since that got skipped I'll chime in, the industry surrounding a death has often been accused of preying on people unscrupulously. The whole situation is pretty ripe for abuse since people are stressed, emotionally drained, usually in shock, and there's a short timeline for getting arrangements taken care of. Coffins, funerals, morticians, plots, etc all have huge profit margins.Unethical? Huge profits? Where do the profits come in? The coffins? The flowers? The funeral procession? I'm a bit confused on this on, but then this is one area I'm not very familiar with. Could you explain this a bit, or give me a few good links?
That's just playing games with statistics. It's not 75% anyway, it's 50%, but the fact remains, it's not a large difference. Yes 4 is twice as much as 2, but they are still both really good numbers. Yes, 7 infant deaths is a bit over twice as much as 3 infant deaths, but they are both really low numbers. If you wanna say it's a bad system, then use something other than a quality basis. You can say it's bad because it doesn't serve everyone, or anything else really, but on a quality basis it is not a bad system. I'm getting really tired of saying that.2 more doctors per 1,000 doesn't seem bad, until you realize that's 75% more. Keep in mind that they also only spend just over half as much as we do.
Better than 90% of the other systems in the world. Christ. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US are the world's elite when it comes to healthcare. As Beatles has said over and over, we are comparing apples to apples, the best of the privatized systems against the best of the socialized systems. The US comes up a little short, yes, I admit that, but compared to the rest of the world, we are much much MUCH better.Well what exactly did you mean by better then? Better than the absolute worst?
I never EVER said that change was not needed in our healthcare system, I'm not here arguing for the status quo. In my very first comment, I said that I think there are areas that we can improve. I just do not think socialized healthcare is the route to take.Look, I'm an American and I hate seeing those numbers just as much as anyone, but we can't ignore them or brush them off because it fails to fit our "America beats everyone else in every area" mentality that soothes our collective egos. Until we be honest with ourselves about reality and work to change that we will always be on the outside looking in.
Fine, you know what it is then, I had assumed that you were mistaken as Beatles was. My apologies.Infant mortality is anything in the first year, and reread these entire thread 1,000 times and if you can find any post where I said anything differently I'll fly out there and kiss your ass.
So all infants eat Dippin Dots on a daily basis? I was not aware of this, I was under the impression that Europeans did not feed their kids the same crap American parents do. ( I work at Dippin Dots, and I watch the same people with infants come back day after day and get it for them and their child, maybe my sample is a bit small, but I'd put even money that the parents unhealthy choices for themselves translates directly to the child's ill health)Infants don't get a lot of excersize for the first part since they can't walk or crawl, once they learn to crawl American and European kids both crawl like hell.
They all eat the same foods, they all play the same games, they all laugh most of the day, there's really no lifestyle differences great enough to be statistically significant. And considering the leading causes of infant mortality are diarrhea and pneumonia I think you're facing an uphill battle in trying to argue that most of those are lifestyle issues.
I was not aware of this, but it does sound rather unethical. However, I do not think it applies much to the healthcare argument. There's a fairly substantial education difference between doctors and this in the industry surrounding death. I still stand by my statement that doctors are not just in it for the money.Since that got skipped I'll chime in, the industry surrounding a death has often been accused of preying on people unscrupulously. The whole situation is pretty ripe for abuse since people are stressed, emotionally drained, usually in shock, and there's a short timeline for getting arrangements taken care of. Coffins, funerals, morticians, plots, etc all have huge profit margins.
The thing about the industry built around death? OK then.The reason I brought that particular one up was personal experience really. But I've read articles about it too. It's just something you can safely trust me on.
~Beatles..."I'm sorry, but I really can't see anything redeeming in your philosophy other than that dinosaurs are cute."
