Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee | Main | NY Yankees & Bernie Madoff's Prison Life »

The World's Best Medical Care

Maternal Mortality Across the World
USA, USA, our healthcare is the best, right?



Video Link
Thanks to pedantsareus for the video


 

Comments

So how can the anti-abortionists expect to get rid of a woman's right to choose when it's possibly her life on the line? Especially without universal health care. (And, let's face it, we're talking about poor and maybe middle class women because rich women can just go somewhere else to get one.)

Sorry - I know that wasn't the point of the link but it just made me think....

Guaranteeing women's survival of childbirth does not give religious wingnuts more power over women.

Poor child: don'cha know there's a place for the diseased mother in heaven, especially since she gave her life that of her unborn?

(coarse, yes)

Ok, child mortality, mother's mortality, lifespan, maybe our cancer numbers are bunk, but have you seen what our system has done for Ben Affleck's teeth!?!

Show me one British star with teeth that nice

Anyone remember the movie Cold Comfort Farm? "Oh Charles, you have the most beautiful teeth!"

We may be sick and bankrupt but we look like a million bucks.

user-pic

Yeah because "nice teeth" are so much more important that child mortality rates, health in pregnancy, and universal health care, Many people in the US seem to think they have a healthcare system that is the envy of the world, nothing could be further from the truth, most Europeans see your system as grossly expensive, utterly unfit for purpose and an example of how no to do things.

But heah your teeth look great so who cares? Grow up.

Maternal mortality is a problem everywhere, so there's problem #1. #2 is how can a country that spend soooo much on health care be so high on the mortality list?

It's nice that the Public option has been resurrected. Still, there's more than a system of paying for care that's contributing to our ills. Yes, we have many fantastic doctors. Somewhere along the line, though, the care is often not effective. I suppose the cost-benefit argument is a good one to make to bring over conservatives to the idea of something bordering on real change.

Here’s what I’d like to know: where the fuck is American media during this whole debate? If TV news* in America were showing people what kind of health care we could have if we followed the European model instead of giving wall-to-wall coverage of teabagger hicks throwing ignorant tantrums we wouldn’t even be having a debate; people would be DEMANDING change. I’m not talking about a stupid and maudlin little fluff piece like this broadcast; I’m talking about sending in film crews every day to talk with folks in Spain, France, Holland, Denmark, etc about their health care.

I have news for Americans: Europeans aren’t agonizing about what to do about health care; they already have great care and they mean to keep it that way. And sorry Rush, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, and the other chimps and retards who give the right its voice, health care in Europe isn’t on the verge of bankruptcy. Spain is in the middle of a terrible financial crisis and I haven’t heard one word about cutting back on health care.

*But to paraphrase R.Reagan: TV news isn’t the solution; it’s the problem and always will be. Could you imagine reading this crappy little news clip in print? Obama is mistaken in gong after Fox News because all TV news is shit (although some is shittier than others).

Thanks for putting the direct video link in the post! Unfortunately, the link is wrong. It should be: http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0910/besthealthcare/besthealthcare-desktop.m4v

Jeez, this is right out of Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics. Our haughty narrator tells us the risk is double in the United States, but never actually tells us what that means.

Fortunately, the article Norm posted does. The risk of pregnancy related death in the UK is 8 in 100,000. the risk in the US is 11 in 100,000. To put that in a percentage form we're talking the difference between .00008% and .00011%. Both of which are pretty damn good considering the crap we stuff our guts with in the US and UK.

Thanks for pointing that out. The 8 vs 11 out of 100,000 doesn't seem to match up with the "double the risk" statement.

The point still remains, however, that the US spends far more on health care than other Western countries, but on almost all counts it is clearly the worst at providing medical care. The US ranks #33 in the world for infant mortality, for instance. And obviously it is not the leader for maternal mortality either: "Lowest rates included Iceland at 0 per 100,000 and Austria at 4 per 100,000. In the United States, the maternal death rate was 11 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2005." (Reference)

You're off by two zeroes, it should be 0.008% and 0.011%

nope, I was right.

Doh! I get it. You were right. Abort away! It's way too risky!

I do get the point you're making though.

We have abortions here now - you don't think maternal deaths would go up if we didn't? I personally know three women whose lives were in danger because of their pregnancies (two with preeclampsia, I'm not sure about my neighbor because her husband was the one telling me she almost died.) The two I knew about delivered really tiny babies and the care was amazing - the babies definitely would not have lived in earlier times and the mother would have died if she waited any longer. They all had great insurance. None of them are going to have any more children which is just as well since one no longer has insurance, one is now on COBRA (and can afford it thanks to Obama) and, hopefully, her husband will get another job before that runs out - I think the other is on Medicaid 'cause she's had nothing but problems. But - the right would like them not to be able to have abortions and not to have universal health care.

Yeah, kids just aren't worth it. Besides, they contribute to global warming.

I don't understand. Kids (or the possibilities of having children is what I'm assuming you mean) are't worth what? Dying for? You think the odds are so slight that no woman should be afraid? Problem is, the odds aren't the same for each woman.

They make great facial cream though.

What? I'm trying to get your point. That there are more homicides, suicides and accidents to those after they have had an abortions than those that have had babies? (And I don't get at all what your post above means...)

"just having a scan"

:)

Part of the problem with maternal death rates is that not all countries have the same definition of maternal death. So who really knows what we are comparing. Also if you watch the linked video, and let me preface this by saying I am very sorry for their loss, it was horrible, however the woman had and elective primary cesarean section. The reasons the widow gives are not medically recognized reasons. In short her death may have been preventable had she been allowed to go into labor and have a vaginal birth. We need to begin to practice evidenced based medicine in this country. This is a two fold problem, doctors too often do what is convenient for them and not in the best interest of the patient, or use the excuse of defensive medicine. And patients too often attempt to direct their care and don't have any idea what they are doing. Our bodies are not like cars with inter changeable parts, your lucky to get one attempt to get it right. There are lots of problems with our health care system and no quick or easy fixes.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives