****Re: ot: Fourth Amendment... gone forever?

[Technomage-hawke]

On Wednesday 13 February 2008 16:29, Craig White wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 14:29 -0700, Technomage-hawke wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 February 2008 11:33, Craig White wrote:
> > > As for what constitutes a socialized health care delivery system and
> > > how they behave or are funded, there are many different concepts in
> > > place throughout the world and they do differ.
> > >
> > > A simple question for those who assert that the health care system as
> > > practiced in the United States is the best, why are infant mortality
> > > rates so much higher here than elsewhere?
> >
> > looks at that one a "per capita" basis. you will find that the mortality
> > rate per percentage of population is actually about the same. the numbers
> > only appear higher because there reports that don't include the other
> > facts.
>
> ----
> I never stated 'per capita' at all with respect to infant mortality
> rates.
> ----
that is true. however, most facts dealing with such statistics are "per 
capita" and are dealt with in that conext.

>
> > your question as asked is in error Craig. I have included below a
> > representative sample of some countries. now, countries like in the EU
> > and canada are lower, but not substantially so, while in other places
> > (the upcoming economic superpowers like india and china) are
> > SUBSTANTIALLY higher.
> >
> > if you were to take a rating of the top 100 countries on the planet, you
> > would see that the US rates in the top 15 percentile for lowest infant
> > mortality rates (with japan having the lowest rate I have yet found at
> > 2.8 per 1,000 births). so? you asked "why are infant mortality rates so
> > much higher here than elsewhere?" the answer is: they aren't (at least
> > not substantially).
>
> ----
> If you look simply at the 'western' civilizations, our infant mortality
> rates are indeed substantially higher. Our rate is more than twice as high
> as that of Japan. I suppose we can quibble over what represents
> substantially but I consider 2:1 factors substantial.
problem is, you can't just look at "western civilization". the data points 
become too arbitrary and cease having any relevance. we are a global 
community these days. what affects a place like china can have a significant 
effect here (and vice versa). to a lessor extent do some other places have 
that effect. to get the best understanding possible, you *do* have to account 
for everything. 

>
> Then if you consider that as a percentage of GDP, we outspend all of those
> countries on health care and the fact that they have lower infant mortality
> rates should be a clue that something is wrong here.

true. we outspend, but, we also see a bit better return on that.
However, there are some "grey" statistics dealing with that here in the US. if 
you are talking strictly native born Americans, the actual cost per GDP is 
substantially lower than if you account for all the people here (including 
illegal aliens and documented aliens). one of the links I posted as a second 
response deals with this specific problem.