IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

McGentrix wrote:

Is there a state by state breakdown of infant mortality rates?

Found this, seems the southern states bring down our average a bit.

link

0 Replies

Wow. Nice tool you found there, McGentrix.

Here's a table, by state and race of the mother:

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The latest info coming out on Medicare is that the plan will not cover mistakes made by the hospital caused while the patient is in the hospital.

That includes wrong meds, infections, mistakes in blood infusions, amputating the wrong leg or arm, etc.

The government claims these coverage will no longer exist, and will save the taxpayers some 500 billion in the future.

And the consequence will be more law suits, don't you think? Cool

0 Replies

Probably; more than likely.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How does universal health care influence infant mortality rates? How will implementing universal health care in America reduce infant mortality rates?

I wonder about this too.

At issue with infant mortality is the age, education, ethnicity, social status, etc...of the mother. When a girl of 12 gives birth to a baby, can she be educated to take care of that baby, and not to have any more until she's married and an adult.

Will Universal Health Care educate those who need this education?

In several major cities of the USA, Public Health Nurses ( RN) make home visits to mother and baby immediately after arrival home following a live birth. RN then has a role of evaulating the baby and the home. A common problem in the slums is of course rats. One RN made a home visit to see mother and baby. She looked at the dinner table that contained a large ham on a plate. What else did she see? She saw a big rat sitting on the table, eating the ham...

A major fear is of course that rats will attack, bite and attempt to eat the babies.

Problems in the past have occurred in this approach, however, when individuals receiving this FREE MEDICAL CARE became unhappy about the RN visiting their homes. Physical abuse of the nurse, such as throwing her down 3 flights of stairs to get rid of her, is all too a common occurrance in large cities such as Chicago and NY.

My question: Why waste tax payer money on human animals such as those who murder social workers and throw RNs down 3 flights of stairs? Why does anyone think that these types of people can be educated and reformed...? Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Here's an interesting report from Wiki between the US and Cuba.

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

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Wow. Nice tool you found there, McGentrix.

Here's a table, by state and race of the mother:

Thanks for the link to the table, oe.

The following site asserts the following:

http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/73/Infant-mortality.html

"Infant mortality is the name given to the number of infant deaths in the first 12 months of life per every 1,000 births. In 1996, the primary causes of infant mortality were congenital disorders related to immaturity (premature births), low birth weight (LBW)(infants weighing less than 5lb. 9oz or 2,500 grams)."

"Currently in the United States, the greatest risk factors for LWBs include smoking while pregnant, and teen pregnancies. More than 12% of smokers give birth to LBW babies, and LBW is the primary cause of neonatal infant mortality.Also, the U.S. has a higher teen pregnancy rate than almost any other developed country, and 95% of these pregnancies are reported to be accidental. (In fact, more than 52% of all pregnancies in the U.S. are reported to be accidental.) According to a report by "Healthy Start" in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, approximately one in eight babies born to teens will be LBW, and more than one in every five babies who die in the U.S. are to teen mothers.

Increasing the risk of infant mortality in teen births is the fact that teensare least likely to access medical care during the first trimester of pregnancy, during the remainder of their pregnancy, and after their baby is born. Teenage women using drugs and/or alcohol are more likely to experience pregnancy outside of marriage than teen women who do not use drugs and alcohol."

Infant mortality is just one example of health care that clearly demonstrates one of the most important factors in health care, such as infant mortality, is cultural. Perhaps the debate is misplaced in terms of priority. The main stream media is not interested in citing the startling statistics of the drastic growth of single parent families and children born to and growing up without married parents. This has clearly been a root problem of poverty and at least some health factors, such as infant mortality. It is my opinion that this issue should become one of the hot issues in the country that should be addressed. It is one of the most startling of all cultural trends in this country in the last 50 years, yet it receives little or no attention from politicians. It is affecting everything in this country that is basic, such as education, crime, health, the economy, poverty, the list goes on, yet it is virtually ignored.

0 Replies

okie, One of the few times I must agree with your well thought out commentary.

0 Replies

Quote:

one of the most important factors in health care, such as infant mortality, is cultural.

And culture includes: ethnicity, education, social status, race, religion, etc.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is one of the most startling of all cultural trends in this country in the last 50 years, yet it receives little or no attention from politicians.

I don't agree with you on this. You are aware, aren't you, that gay couples have pushed and pushed in recent years for the RIGHT to marry and yet, in only one State of the USA is it legal for homosexuals to marry?

If marriage, and two parent households are important to health of children, why then, is there so much resistance to homosexual marriage?

One other thing to mention, is that most of the single parent homes are those derived from divorce, not widowhood or singlehood.

0 Replies

Well, some very interesting points.

My opinion might be of minor interest, but here every mother/child gets the support by their health insurance - children are either insured by the mother or the father; if only one is employed, by the insurance of that parent (which covers the health care of the other parnt as well).

And every has is been looked by several specialists in 10 different medical examinations, from birth to the age of 68 months, and than again at the age of ten and twelve.

I had thought that such was reducing infant mortality. But thanks for pointing out the race factor.

0 Replies

Oh, and I can't give figures for different for Germany - we stopped that race thing after 1945.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Quote:
It is one of the most startling of all cultural trends in this country in the last 50 years, yet it receives little or no attention from politicians.

I don't agree with you on this. You are aware, aren't you, that gay couples have pushed and pushed in recent years for the RIGHT to marry and yet, in only one State of the USA is it legal for homosexuals to marry?

I think this is a totally separate issue, plus it would have little impact on the statistics, and what impact it had is not at all a tried and true outcome as compared to traditional families.

Quote:

If marriage, and two parent households are important to health of children, why then, is there so much resistance to homosexual marriage?

Again, a totally separate issue. Besides, how come such has been resisted since civilized man appeared, and along with this resistance is the recognition by most cultures to encourage marriage and family comprised of man and woman, not of man and man or woman and woman.

Quote:

One other thing to mention, is that most of the single parent homes are those derived from divorce, not widowhood or singlehood.

Whatever the cause, children in single parent homes have increased from about 6% in 1900 to over 20% currently, and it is much higher in some cultural groups. The following graph clearly illustrates the problem of health to newborns, as impacted by single mothers.

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/YouthIndicators/indfig07.gif

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, some very interesting points.

My opinion might be of minor interest, but here every mother/child gets the support by their health insurance - children are either insured by the mother or the father; if only one is employed, by the insurance of that parent (which covers the health care of the other parnt as well).

And every has is been looked by several specialists in 10 different medical examinations, from birth to the age of 68 months, and than again at the age of ten and twelve.

I had thought that such was reducing infant mortality. But thanks for pointing out the race factor.

Much of the same happens here, Walter. If the wife has a better health care policy through her job, often the husband is covered, or vice versa. This is one big reason why a husband wife team enhance the chances of children to be taken care of. If a single mother has children and no skills, the child care can cost more than she can make at a minimum wage job, so her prospects are hopeless without help.

Children here also typically receive all the exams, preiodically, before birth to after birth, with decreasing frequency with age.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Oh, and I can't give figures for different for Germany - we stopped that race thing after 1945.

Good for you. I think alot of the profiling here that is carried on by the Census Bureau and other bureaucracies, plus politicians, and all of that really is a net negative. Besides, how many people are 100% purely one race or another anymore anyway?

Another note of something I turned up is that apparently number of children in single parent households, or number of single parent households, has declined slightly here in the U.S. since 1996 after steady rise from previous decades. This appears to be a good argument for another one of the positive effects of the Republican welfare reform at that time, led by Newt Gingrich.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, some very interesting points.

My opinion might be of minor interest, but here every mother/child gets the support by their health insurance - children are either insured by the mother or the father; if only one is employed, by the insurance of that parent (which covers the health care of the other parnt as well).

And every has is been looked by several specialists in 10 different medical examinations, from birth to the age of 68 months, and than again at the age of ten and twelve.

I had thought that such was reducing infant mortality. But thanks for pointing out the race factor.

What about the crack addicts living in the slums that is unemployed. Which insurance covers them and their children?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What about the crack addicts living in the slums that is unemployed. Which insurance covers them and their children?

If they are unemployed they can get unemployment benefits from the state. Out of that money, they will have to pay for some kind of health insurance (provided by one of the statutory health insurance companies). They would not be able to avoid paying for health insurance, paying for costs out of their own pockets or choose out of one of the private health insurance companies. Children would be covered by their parents' insurance.

0 Replies

Quote:

traditional families.

OKIE: With a divorce rate equal or greater than 50%, I'm inclined to believe that "traditional families" are a thing of the past. Sad

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
What about the crack addicts living in the slums that is unemployed. Which insurance covers them and their children?

If they are unemployed they can get unemployment benefits from the state.

Whether or not they qualify for unemployment benifits depends on the reason for their unemployment and whether they were employed in a full or part-time basis.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
What about the crack addicts living in the slums that is unemployed. Which insurance covers them and their children?

If they are unemployed they can get unemployment benefits from the state. Out of that money, they will have to pay for some kind of health insurance (provided by one of the statutory health insurance companies). They would not be able to avoid paying for health insurance, paying for costs out of their own pockets or choose out of one of the private health insurance companies. Children would be covered by their parents' insurance.

Not sure i follow that, can you explain it better please?

Looks like there are 3 points you listed.

A) they will have to pay for some kind of health insurance (provided by one of the statutory health insurance companies).

B)They would not be able to avoid paying for health insurance, paying for costs out of their own pockets or choose out of one of the private health insurance companies.

C)Children would be covered by their parents' insurance.

So, point A) is that an unemployed crack addict living in an abandoned hovel will get some sort of public assistance, and out of that money, they HAVE to pay for some sort of healthcare insurance, is that right?

Point B) is that there is no way for them to avoid paying that? What if they just want to buy more crack? If they do not wish to spend their unemployment benefits on insurance, there is no out for them?

Point C) Doesn't seem clear at all considering point A) and B).

Maybe Walter can clear it all up as he has the answers.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know