Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
- Thread starter
- #21
Ever been to a 3rd world nation?
The USA is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, if not the wealthiest, and yet it has the highest infant mortality rate amongst the wealthy nations.
The World Factbook
Mortality rate infant per 1 000 live births Data Table
Now why would that be?
Our infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment - The Washington Post
"Most striking," they write, "the US has similar neonatal mortality but a substantial disadvantage in postneonatal
mortality" compared to Austria and Finland. In other words, mortality rates among infants in their first days and weeks of life are similar across all three countries. But as infants get older, a mortality gap opens between the U.S. and the other countries, and widens considerably. You can see this clearly in the chart below.
Digging deeper into these numbers, Oster and her colleagues found that the higher U.S. mortality rates are due "entirely, or almost entirely, to high mortality among less advantaged groups." To put it bluntly, babies born to poor moms in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in their first year than babies born to wealthier moms.
In fact, infant mortality rates among wealthy Americans are similar to the mortality rates among wealthy Fins and Austrians. The difference is that in Finland and Austria, poor babies are nearly as likely to survive their first years as wealthy ones. In the U.S. - land of opportunity - that is starkly not the case: "there is tremendous inequality in the US, with lower education groups, unmarried and African-American women having much higher infant mortality rates," the authors conclude.
One way of understanding these numbers is by noting that most American babies, regardless of socio-economic status, are born in hospitals. And while in the hospital, American infants receive exceedingly good care - our neo-natal intensive care units are among the best in the world. This may explain why mortality rates in the first few weeks of life are similar in the U.S., Finland and Austria.
But the differences arise after infants are sent home. Poor American families have considerably less access to quality healthcare as their wealthier counterparts.
One measure of the Affordable Care Act's success, then, will be whether it leads to improvements in the infant mortality rate. Oster and her colleagues note that Obamacare contains provisions to expand post-natal home nurse visits, which are fairly common in Europe.
Research like this drives home the notion that economic debates in this country - about inequality, poverty, healthcare - aren't just policy abstractions. There are real lives at stake.
mortality" compared to Austria and Finland. In other words, mortality rates among infants in their first days and weeks of life are similar across all three countries. But as infants get older, a mortality gap opens between the U.S. and the other countries, and widens considerably. You can see this clearly in the chart below.
Digging deeper into these numbers, Oster and her colleagues found that the higher U.S. mortality rates are due "entirely, or almost entirely, to high mortality among less advantaged groups." To put it bluntly, babies born to poor moms in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in their first year than babies born to wealthier moms.
In fact, infant mortality rates among wealthy Americans are similar to the mortality rates among wealthy Fins and Austrians. The difference is that in Finland and Austria, poor babies are nearly as likely to survive their first years as wealthy ones. In the U.S. - land of opportunity - that is starkly not the case: "there is tremendous inequality in the US, with lower education groups, unmarried and African-American women having much higher infant mortality rates," the authors conclude.
One way of understanding these numbers is by noting that most American babies, regardless of socio-economic status, are born in hospitals. And while in the hospital, American infants receive exceedingly good care - our neo-natal intensive care units are among the best in the world. This may explain why mortality rates in the first few weeks of life are similar in the U.S., Finland and Austria.
But the differences arise after infants are sent home. Poor American families have considerably less access to quality healthcare as their wealthier counterparts.
One measure of the Affordable Care Act's success, then, will be whether it leads to improvements in the infant mortality rate. Oster and her colleagues note that Obamacare contains provisions to expand post-natal home nurse visits, which are fairly common in Europe.
Research like this drives home the notion that economic debates in this country - about inequality, poverty, healthcare - aren't just policy abstractions. There are real lives at stake.
Now let's use that data to address your question as to why 15% of the population would perish under a Libertarian economy.
In the article above it explains that a lack of access to healthcare is the primary reason for there being a much higher infant mortality rate in the USA. In a purely Libertarian economy the only access to any healthcare would be for those who could afford it since there would only be private healthcare and nothing else for anybody who can't afford it.
So who can't afford healthcare? The poor and the elderly without incomes. There is your 15% who would perish.
.
