Lets keep IMRs in perspective.


Behind the Baby Count
By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted 9/24/06

from the article:

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

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

The above is not to say the US is equal to or better than any other country.  But it is obvious that the way the US figures its IMR, it will be higher than most European and Scandinavian countries.

Freedom is purely about choices.  Period.

When those choices are restricted or taken away in any form, we lose them.  It is true in any and all aspects of American life.

In some countries, they have few choices.  Iraq, will, with great hope, have many, many more choices in their future, ergo more freedoms.

Any tax on your dollar restricts your freedom and in some ways removes that freedom.  This is true EVERYTIME.

As it relates to healthcare, government control of not only your healthcare but your healthcare dollars through taxation is an absolute travesty and pillaging of your freedoms.

Today, if my healthcare provider doesnt fulfill what I need in terms of healthcare, I fire him.  Today.  I get to vote on my healthcare choice every month with the current system. I vote by paying my premium.  To some that thought would be abhorrent, the very idea something as vital as healthcare I would associate with something as vulgar as money just rips your shorts.

But understand what I mean.  Right now, I havea choice.  Many choices.  I just changed my healthcare plan last month and saved $93.00 (of which 60% was to be an increase from the last insurance provider's policy).  So I essentially fired that company and hired another. 

I have the freedom to do that.

You cannot do that in the current (but rapidly changing) Canadian system.  Once government healthcare is in place, that is your healthcare.  You cannot fire (as much as we might like to sometimes) the government.  Suddenly THEY control what is approved or not.  In Canada you cannot (if the waiting list is long) in your province go to another province for treatment.

Here, if I cannot get in to see my cardio doctor, I can CHOOSE to go to another.  If he is the best in town, I can CHOOSE to wait.  My choice, my freedom.  Socialized anything does not afford you that.  It takes away your freedoms.  Most liberals are ok with that as long as those freedoms get redistributed to others.

If great healthcare was listed at a 10 and the worst at a 1, I dont see attempting to arrive at a 5 for all Americans a logical goal.

I am curiuos.

The reply #26 appears that I posted that in that way, but I did not.

I put the I tried prostitution and nearly starved quip, but the rest of that regarding moral and social choices I didnt.  I am assuming it is quadry. 

What does it post like that?

Good for you. But my employer (thank God) pays my health insurance premiums -- otherwise I couldn't afford it -- but I don't get any say in what plan they provide. It's nice that you have the wealth and independence to make these choices. Good for you. But that doesn't mean that everything is so rosy and wonderful for everyone else.


And this is no different from the situation of those whose employers dictate their health insurance options. And you're overlooking the fact that Canada is at least nominally a democratic nations. People vote for their representatives in Parliament and the majority party form the government. The government is not an alien entity imposed from outside but derives from the people. If one doesn't like what the government is doing -- and if one has enough support from others of like mind -- then one can campaign for change.


Again, the picture you paint about socialized medicine is more or less identical to the situation of many people in this country already. I don't have any of these freedoms you boast about -- a choice you cannot afford to take is not a real choice.


Why do a few deserve to have 10 while so many have to deal with 1 or even 0?

You seem to have some strange fixation on what people "deserve."

The fact is that nobody "deserves" help from others. It is given not out of obligation, but out of charity. Deserve, yet again, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And, sometimes (or usually, as the case may be) the best, most effective charity is to withhold handouts and focus on changing lives...



What blame? There are people who encourage all manner of strange notions (such as universal health care! )

People who encourage all manner of strange notions don't share blame for the country actually LISTENING to their foolish ideas. Neither do snake oil salesmen or slimy used car salesmen truly share the blame for people not doing their homework and getting some facts before making a decision.

Following the track, though... do you believe that those who encouraged adjustable rate mortgages should now pay for the difference for someone else's poor decision? How about the car salesman who sold that gas guzzling sports car or SUV a few years ago? Are they responsible now that gas prices are high enough to seriously impact the family budget? Should they have to pay for the difference in gas costs now, since they made a profit by encouraging someone to buy the gas guzzler?


Except that you have 300,000,000 people drawing from it.

Actually, no... you have more like 400,000,000 people drawing from it, because people who don't pay taxes also draw. So if 300M contribute, you're going to have a notably greater number with access to it...

And why is there a 40% cut in the first place? That's practically extortion.


You would be surprised at that last sentence... I really don't think you know what the plans currently in circulation look like. The plan the State of Wisconsin is considering bears some startling resemblance to Canada's...

But regardless, Canada is our closest example, but the objections posed are present in EVERY "universal" health program. That was likely something of an upgrade for some of the countries involved, but here in the US, we're spoiled. Implementing something that creates such lengthy wait times and bureaucratic red tape would be extraordinarily painful to Americans... implementing steps designed to contain costs, like tort reform, would be, in my opinion, more logical and palatable moves.


Calling it a myth is a fascinating response, but it's NOT a myth.

I am getting so confused... are you ignoring me, or not?


And not a single one of those has one IOTA to do with that the other PEOPLE "deserve." It has to do with what the LORD deserves and expects of His people. Our obligation is not to other people in this scenario, but to God. I have no quarrel with that... but as some are so fond of noting, we don't live in a Christian or Jewish nation, and even if we did, other people would not be "deserving" of our help.


You don't seem to have a very good grasp on what "conservatives" want... but regardless, these so-called "social betterment" programs certainly do not *NEED* to ential handouts. But that's pretty much what they are, nonetheless. Popular belief notwithstanding.

Even when these so-called "social betterment" programs try to implement some standard, like welfare reform attempted in Wisconsin a little over a decade ago, certain groups work REALLY hard to find ways around the standards so that the programs become, once again, a series of "entitlements" and/or handouts.


I don't remember saying anything having anything to do with deceit.


And they'd be drawing more than $1 a year, and they'd be drawing every year. What's your point?


There are 300,000,000 million taxpayers in this country? Really?

You made up a number out of the blue, and you're seriously going to be critical that I took your number and estimated illegals/tax avoiders/nonworkers/kids/people who don't pay taxes for other reasons/etc...??

Really?


I have a pretty good idea why Tenac used it... but fine. Let's stick with your 300M figure. Where, exactly, does that one come from? You don't seriously think everybody in this country pays taxes, do you?


You should... the federal government has a history of applying programs that are run first by the states... and Wisconsin has a solid track record of being one such "social betterment" program test state.


Not yet, anyway. Have you looked at the details of his proposed plan, btw?


I speak for everyone on this one... not recognizing that you are spoiled, and not being spoiled are two very different things.


In actuality, there is no real plan on the table at all, using your standard. But rest assured, it may start as an "opt-in," but it won't end that way.

[quoteI agree. I don't see what it has to be either-or, though.[/quote]

It doesn't HAVE to be either-or... it's more of a "makes sense-doesn't make sense" series of steps.


Now, see? I don't recall anybody saying that "everyone has unlimited opportunities to better themselves and, if they fail to do so, it is their own fault for lack of effort or poor choices."

It's awfully convenient when you have no problem re-framing the statement to suit your purposes... but it most certainly is *NOT* a myth that people have numerous opportunities and methods available to them to improve their situation. The opportunity *IS* there - without question. And it is *NOT* a myth that the one thing that will consistently prevent success is lack of effort.