Another Universal Healthcare Success Story

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...ospital-after-baby-born-in-waiting-room-dies/

Well, I'm convinced.

This sort of stuff happens in the US, Latin America, and South Africa all the time so how do you tie it to universal care?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

The UK actually has a better infant mortality rate than the US, by almost 50%. Most of the top countries with the lowest mortality rates are socialized medicine countries.

CPURick will now ignore the evidence because he KNOWS he's right and the numbers don't mean anything to him because they mean he's wrong.

In the interest of fairness, let me point out the difference in methodology between the USA and other countries in computing "infant mortality".

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

This has little to do with how healthcare is funded. Precisely the level of idiocy one expects from Fox News.

Without knowing how their emergency room operates, it is difficult to tell if it is due to healthcare funding or some other healthcare behavior (ie administration)

The article itself - originally from Sky News (also News Corp, tho) - made no mention of funding.

QFT

The article had nothing to do with healthcare systems or funding or comparisons.

Once we're finally scammed into accepting single-payer, you can bet the libs will switch how this is calculated so scumbags like Demi can trumpet the "success" of letting preemies die.

Sorry, CD, didn't mean this as a 'gotcha' moment for you, was waiting for CPURick to chime in his little breath of evil.

Research as of last month:

Who are these evil researchers that fly in the face of the facts of Fox News?

The Congressional Research Service, a subset of the Library of Congress.

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf

Pages 15-16:
Economic Status

Hard to argue the economic factors aren't a prime instance of IMR. Of course, it is probably those poor people's fault in the first place that they are more likely to have kids DIA. Its the Market and God's judgement upon them.

We could also talk about the thousands of great things that happened within universal health care systems on that same day, but something tells me the op isn't interested in that.

No one's going to get a perfect medical system. Ever. Things like this unfortunately happen.

You're right; there is no perfect health care system.

But this shouldn't have happened. She should have been examined to determine how far into labor she was and if she could safely wait in the waiting room.

The child might still have been born with a nucal cord and not survived, but we'll never know now.

As far as the IMR being higher for poorer folks, it's usually because they don't get the prenatal care they need, even if there are free or low cost clinics for them to go to. And many (not all) may have other things going on in their life which is counterproductive for a growing fetus.

MOre facts that will be ignored, hooted at and/or dismissed...

From an anecdotal viewpoint my cousin received a decade of on and off treatment for recurring leukemia under the evil socialist UK system. While she eventually passed I have only ever heard good things about the treatment she received and it didn't bankrupt her parents.

Single payer health care is a topic in which facts do not matter to some people.

But ... but ... I have an anecdote!

This topic guarantees a noticeable lack of rational discussion.

More bullshit, Demi. I just went and checked some old posts, and I found stuff going back five years pointing out that blacks have poorer infant mortality figures worldwide -- and regardless of economic status -- with the US having a disproportionate number of blacks among civilized western nations. And the demographics don't end there -- in areas of the country heavily populated by ethic groups, there's a trend toward health similar to that enjoyed in the old country.

The bottom line is that the US is the place to be if you're facing a difficult delivery, or if you've got cancer or a dozen other treatable conditions -- as long as the best treatment has actually been approved by the FDA.

And I don't believe the CRS even has access to accurate infant mortality figures from other countries because most of those countries' governments have a political incentive to under-report deaths, just as you libs have an incentive to over-report ours.

It's truly amazing, what complete fucking idiots you libs are. Seriously.

And yes, to those of you who wonder how universal healthcare can be linked to this: When's the last time you saw expectant American mothers giving birth in a waiting room because a doctor couldn't be found?

This is what rationing looks like. Even people who could afford their own medical insurance in the US are waiting in line for basic care behind the indigent. The success of public education comes to healthcare. What a fucking marvel of progress.

Your assumption that the FDA always approves the "best" treatment, and in a timely manner, is touching. Really.

And you know this because -?

Hang around ERs, do you?

cpudick!!

And do you?
Have you been observing how US ERs are triaging their patients?

The article lacks any commentary.

CD's link was to US News & World Report.

The issue is not Fox News.

No, not lying, just knew you'd jump all over it when I posted that wiki stat, and would be proven wrong when I posted the latest research shows definitively that's NOT what causes the discrepancy in IMR.

And I then predicted you'd explicitly say you didn't believe it, because what I posted contradicted your ideological imperative that rationalizes your amoral behavior.

Oh look:

You did exactly what I said you'd do - what a shock. LOL.

So at this point, should I believe the research done by a non-partisan congressional body funded by the Library of Congress for the express purpose of informing legislators on the issue - oh, and not normally released to the public?

Or should I believe the random guy on the internet that over and over again has taken ridiculous stances based on his inability to view the world from any other manner than his ideological standards?

I think I'll believe the professional non-partisan researchers that are paid to conduct metastudies by both parties.

But thanks for your 'insightful' comments. Oh, and nice Joker avatar.

All I see is a graph, no sign of the "why" from the title.

So, a cost/life expectancy graph by nation. No accounting for comparably unhealthy lifestyles that in no way speak to the quality of our health care. No mention of why the cost of prescription drugs is lower for some other nations. No accounting for external factors and shell games played at either the income or expenditure side.

Just an overly simplistic, superficial "less money, live longer, therefore better."

I hoot at you.

Prescription drugs are higher here because the drug companies have lobbied it so we don't have access to the international market. No reason they should be so expensive.

We also pay more by far in administrative costs. Why is it so much more expensive for the private health care insurers to provide health care than it is for the government providers in other countries? I thought privatization was always more efficient? (Bullshit, of course, but sure a mantra among the less intelligent out there).

And is our lifestyle considerably less healthy than Mexicos? So why does it cost us TEN TIMES the amount for our insurance per year for marginal increases in life expectancy?

Even when dealing with per capita adjusted by GDP, in other words, looking at the fact we are a richer society than say Mexico and adjusting for that, we still are ridiculously inefficient in administering health care.

And of course single payer isn't the elimination of private health care. You can have baseline coverage with supplemental provided by private institutions. We already have it in medicare, and most international single payer programs work that way, including the most efficient and effective in the world, Austria.

Of course, maybe it is lifestyle. Maybe that's why 'socialized' countries with the free market but effective regulation and tax policies work less, commute less, have more time to eat healthy and exercise, enjoy more vacation time, and consistently score higher in happiness, standard of living, and live longer.

But nah. Who would want that when we could remain ideologically pure?

No one argues the current system is good or viable. Just that there are better options for changing it than total govt control.