Can you explain the health care thing to a non-american

[Miss Chicken]

Infant infant mortality rates are determined per live births. If the child is born live and dies within a year it is counted in the infant mortality rates. As far as I know this is what the US rate determines. If you have proof it is done differently can you give me an authoritive site that explains it. Explain what live babies the rest of the world decides to ignore.

Explain how, despite the terrible state of Aboriginal health which is appalling the Australian figures are still better than the USA's.

Australians also 'smoke like chimneys' and are about as obese as Americans.

 

[Miss Chicken]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has stated that the figure of 17 year difference between the average life span for Aboriginal man and a non-Aboriginal man is unreliable. They put the difference at 11.5 years.

Aboriginal male life expectancy - 67.2
Non-aborigianl male life expectancy - 78.7

Compare that to black males in the USA who I believe have a life expectancy of around 70 years.

Native American men are said to have a life expectancy lower than black males so I imagine it is quite close to the Aboriginal male life span.

 

[gturner]

Infant infant mortality rates are determined per live births. If the child is born live and dies within a year it is counted in the infant mortality rates. As far as I know this is what the US rate determines. If you have proof it is done differently can you give me an authoritive site that explains it. Explain what live babies the rest of the world decides to ignore.

Explain how, despite the terrible state of Aboriginal health which is appalling the Australian figures are still better than the USA's.

Australians also 'smoke like chimneys' and are about as obese as Americans.

And what is a live birth? In Europe and most countries it means the baby was older than 22 weeks and was breathing. That's not true in the US, where any sign of life at any age is counted as a live birth. In most other industrialized countries they would be listed as still-born or as spontaneous abortions.

This artificially increases the apparent infant mortality rate in the US, which drops the US life expectancy figures, which are only slightly shy of Australias as it is. The Aboriginal life expectancy has almost no effect on Australia's life expectancy figures because there are so few Aboriginals.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Infant infant mortality rates are determined per live births. If the child is born live and dies within a year it is counted in the infant mortality rates. As far as I know this is what the US rate determines. If you have proof it is done differently can you give me an authoritive site that explains it. Explain what live babies the rest of the world decides to ignore.

Explain how, despite the terrible state of Aboriginal health which is appalling the Australian figures are still better than the USA's.

Australians also 'smoke like chimneys' and are about as obese as Americans.

And what is a live birth? In Europe and most countries it means the baby was older than 22 weeks and was breathing. That's not true in the US, where any sign of life at any age is counted as a live birth. In most other industrialized countries they would be listed as still-born or as spontaneous abortions.

I want you to give me an authoritative site that states that.

 

[gturner]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has stated that the figure of 17 year difference between the average life span for Aboriginal man and a non-Aboriginal man is unreliable. They put the difference at 11.5 years.

Aboriginal male life expectancy - 67.2
Non-aborigianl male life expectancy - 78.7

Compare that to black males in the USA who I believe have a life expectancy of around 70 years.

Native American men are said to have a life expectancy lower than black males so I imagine it is quite close to the Aboriginal male life span.

Native American males have a life expectancy of 71, with a 6.5 times higher rate of death from alcoholism. They also depend on government health care.

Australia's life expectancy should be boosted by the high percentage of Asian-Australians, about 8%, whereas the US has about a similar number of black Americans with a slightly lower than average life expectancy. (The life expectancy of Asian women in New York, New Jersey, and Florida is past 90).

 

[Miss Chicken]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has stated that the figure of 17 year difference between the average life span for Aboriginal man and a non-Aboriginal man is unreliable. They put the difference at 11.5 years.

Aboriginal male life expectancy - 67.2
Non-aborigianl male life expectancy - 78.7

Compare that to black males in the USA who I believe have a life expectancy of around 70 years.

Native American men are said to have a life expectancy lower than black males so I imagine it is quite close to the Aboriginal male life span.

Native American males have a life expectancy of 71, with a 6.5 times higher rate of death from alcoholism. They also depend on government health care.

Australia's life expectancy should be boosted by the high percentage of Asian-Australians, about 8%, whereas the US has about a similar number of black Americans with a slightly lower than average life expectancy. (The life expectancy of Asian women in New York, New Jersey, and Florida is past 90).

And the reasons for the low Aboriginal life expectancy are the same as that of Native Americans.

Why is the life expectancy of black Americans lower? I imagine that the average black lives just as close to the providers of health care as the average white.

 

[gturner]

And what is a live birth? In Europe and most countries it means the baby was older than 22 weeks and was breathing. That's not true in the US, where any sign of life at any age is counted as a live birth. In most other industrialized countries they would be listed as still-born or as spontaneous abortions.

I want you to give me an authoritive site that states that.

Congressional Budget Office report

A clearer discussion of the differences in reporting is here.

To summarize, in Canada, Germany, and many other countries a baby less than 0.5 kg isn't considered alive for statistical reporting. In Belgium, France, and most EU countries a baby born before 26 weeks isn't considered alive (and the exact age is just a guess, leaving a wide lattitude for fudging stats to make the hospital look good). Also in Europe, babies shorter than 30 centimeters aren't considered alive. In Hong Kong and Japan a baby that dies within 24 hours of birth is classified as a miscarriage.

We count all those!

 

[gturner]

And the reasons for the low Aboriginal life expectancy are the same as that of Native Americans.

Why is the life expectancy of black Americans lower? I imagine that the average black lives just as close to the providers of health care as the average white.

There are a variety of reasons and factors. Poverty is traditionally blamed, but that doesn't explain it all, especially in contrast with poor Hispanics. There is a predisposition toward high blood pressure, along with greater reluctance to see a doctor, and myriad other factors.

Here's some CDC data on the statistics of it (8.23 MB PDF), along with all sorts of other health statistics, including international comparisons and such.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Is theer corresponding proof that those countries who are listed with a low infant mortality rate have a higher miscarriage rate than the USA?

The report is very long and it would take a while for me to read though it to see if this question is answered. I assume that you have read the entire report and that is why you are quoting it.

 

[gturner]

Yes, there is evidence. Norway, for example, corrects to the same infant mortality rate as the US. In some other cases there's not a good enough paper trail to make a definitive statement. This also affects all other cross-country comparisons, making it a dicey data set to study.

 

[Miss Chicken]

You are also quoting a 1992 study which only uses statistics up to 1988. It is not good to use such an old study to make your point.

 

[gturner]

The reporting procedures haven't changed since then, so it should still be an accurate indicator.

Other factors affecting the US rate are a slightly higher teen pregnancy rate, plus counting the extreme premies from in-vitro. My sister-in-law's last three kids were premature triplets that cost $900,000+ before coming home, and I think over $100,000 after that.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Can you prove that the reporting procedures haven't changed much since then?

Many more prem babies now survive in Australia than they did 20 years ago and that includes babies under the 28th week gestation period mentioned in that report. I suspect in all Western coutnries efforts are now made to save babies born well before 28 weeks. In fact recent abortion laws in Australia recognise that a baby can be born alive at 22-23 weeks.

 

[gturner]

The CDC's 2009 report says:

The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States.

But a preterm baby is much more likely to survive in the US than anywhere but Norway or Sweden.

It's a good rundown on the issues, and confirms that the reporting differences still exist (at least as of 2004).

 

[Brent]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm responding to the Op. A few of the problems I see are as follows. First is the fact that they want to force us to use this, and fine us if we don't. Personally, I want the option to be under the healthcare plan or not, I don't want to be forced into it. I think as Americans, one of the greatest things we have is our freedom to choose, and I don't want to lose this. If they make a national healthcare plan, fine, just give me an option to opt out of it if I choose, or to opt in if I choose.

Second, another issue are all the details inside it that people disagree on. I don't know everything about it fully, but I do know it is the details about the plan that are being debated.

And there are some that don't like the idea because they feel that the elderly are going to be given the shaft with national healthcare. They feel that hospitals, doctors, what have you, will turn elderly sick people away or not really be enthusiastic about caring for them. This, in my opinion, is a valid concern, and we should certainly ask questions about this, and stay vigilant. I don't want to see a loss of care for people.

So, those are some concerns, making it optional, debating the details, and worried about care.

 

[Brent]

Hey, Im all for Health Care for all US Citizens, I just dont think that the United States Government is capable of doing it, and doing it efficiently.

This is also another reason, just look at what they've done to social security. The government isn't really that good at running business, which is what the healthcare plan would be.

If they make us have to use this plan, and not give us options, what happens if they run out of money for the healthcare system, and the whole thing just falls through the floor. I really fear that things could get bad here, cause I don't think they are able to run this thing well, i'm sorry.

I really don't want to see the government gain more control over us, really really. Let them govern, not run or own corporations.

 

[chrisspringob]

Hey, Im all for Health Care for all US Citizens, I just dont think that the United States Government is capable of doing it, and doing it efficiently.

This is also another reason, just look at what they've done to social security. The government isn't really that good at running business, which is what the healthcare plan would be.

If they make us have to use this plan, and not give us options, what happens if they run out of money for the healthcare system, and the whole thing just falls through the floor.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they run out of money". The Obama proposal makes use of private health insurance, not public health insurance. There would be no government run health insurance that everyone would buy into. Rather, there would be a mandate that everyone has to buy private health insurance (and in exchange for getting all these new customers, the health insurance companies would be forced to stop discriminating based on pre-existing conditions).

Now, because not everyone can afford health insurance, there would be government subsidies for the lower and lower middle class. Maybe you're worried about *that* running out of money? But for the average middle class person, the government wouldn't be spending any $ on you anyway. They'd just be forcing you to buy private health insurance, and forcing the insurance company to take you regardless of pre-existing conditions.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm responding to the Op. A few of the problems I see are as follows. First is the fact that they want to force us to use this, and fine us if we don't. Personally, I want the option to be under the healthcare plan or not, I don't want to be forced into it. I think as Americans, one of the greatest things we have is our freedom to choose, and I don't want to lose this. If they make a national healthcare plan, fine, just give me an option to opt out of it if I choose, or to opt in if I choose.

Second, another issue are all the details inside it that people disagree on. I don't know everything about it fully, but I do know it is the details about the plan that are being debated.

And there are some that don't like the idea because they feel that the elderly are going to be given the shaft with national healthcare. They feel that hospitals, doctors, what have you, will turn elderly sick people away or not really be enthusiastic about caring for them. This, in my opinion, is a valid concern, and we should certainly ask questions about this, and stay vigilant. I don't want to see a loss of care for people.

So, those are some concerns, making it optional, debating the details, and worried about care.

Soon after UHC was introduced in Australia there was an option that allowed Australians to opt out of paying the Medicare levy and go into private health care instead. I used this option for 7 years.

Now days it 1.5% levy is compulsory but one can decide to get additional health care for healthcre beyond the basics.

Do Americans always have the option of opting out of employer based healthcare?

 

[Miss Chicken]

The CDC's 2009 report says:

The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States.

But a preterm baby is much more likely to survive in the US than anywhere but Norway or Sweden.

It's a good rundown on the issues, and confirms that the reporting differences still exist (at least as of 2004).

That is the report you should have posted because it is relevant.

Does it explain why the Norwegian and Swedish infant mortality is so low if they are making just as big effort as the USA to save preterm babies?

EDITED TO ASK

One in 8 births in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 births in Ireland and Finland.

Why would this be? Isn't havimg such a high rate of preterm births a health issue in itself?

 

[gturner]

EDITED TO ASK

One in 8 births in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 births in Ireland and Finland.

Why would this be? Isn't havimg such a high rate of preterm births a health issue in itself?

Not really. It's just a reflection of our fast-paced lifestyle. American women don't really have time to waste, so why take nine months for something they can do in seven? There are places to go, people to see, and important business to take care of. That's why we have so many drive-throughs, drive-ins, and drive-bys.