US Ranks 41st worldwide in infant mortality, 42nd in life expectancy

[DeadCanDance]

Disgraceful. Richest nation on the planet, and our infant mortality and life expectancy is on a par with developing countries:

US 41st in infant mortality worldwide, 42nd in life expectancy

A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics....

Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812/ap_on_he_me/life_expectancy;_ylt=Agwppw4i.DB5NoDGSqNEvX9I2ocA

 

[dilloduck]

Disgraceful. Richest nation on the planet, and our infant mortality and life expectancy is on a par with developing countries:

That's must be because America is full of bad people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's must be because America is full of bad people.

Actually it has a lot to do with the fact people like former Senator Edwards sue doctors that deliver babies and drive them out of buisness with frivilous law suits.

There are places in the US with no doctors of that specialty for hundreds of miles, and in some cases nearly whole states are devoid of the specialty because lawyers convince Juries that downs syndrome and other birth defects were somehow caused by doctor malpractice.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually it has a lot to do with the fact people like former Senator Edwards sue doctors that deliver babies and drive them out of buisness with frivilous law suits.

There are places in the US with no doctors of that specialty for hundreds of miles, and in some cases nearly whole states are devoid of the specialty because lawyers convince Juries that downs syndrome and other birth defects were somehow caused by doctor malpractice.

I'd like to see a case where down syndrome was blamed on medical malpractice considering its cause is purely genetic. Got a link there RGS?

 

[eots]

its the all you can eat buffet of crap mentality of the USA

 

[Dirt McGirt]

So 5 and a half years separates the 42nd ranked country from the 1st? The life expectancy ranking is no big deal in my eyes. I'd rather live 78 years in the US rather than 83 in bumfuck Andorra. So ze Germans (79.0) and the Brits (78.7) pay a significant amount of taxes for socialized healthcare but only outlive us by a few months in the long run? Pffft, I'd rather die a few months earlier than give 10% more of my wages to the government for 70 years.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbagg

The infant mortality rate is actually the only figure worth noting in the article. I think the article is over reactive. We're still on par with the rest of the developed Western world as far as the numbers go, but I will agree that we can do better. I don't support socialized medicine but I would support a uniformed, national health insurance that covers all working Americans. The current system has so much fraud, waste, and abuse as a result of being in the pockets of big pharma and insurance companies.

 

[Alpha1]

Over-reactive is an understatement....and only the moron hacks like DCD see it as some kind of disgrace....
Dirt said it best...."I'd rather live 78 years in the US rather than 83 in bumfuck Andorra." (with dumfuck dcd as a neighbor)
Eating fuckin' steak and lobster with a cool brew is my problem, and one that I can't wait to enjoy again and again....
DCD is some is such a hack shes beginning to sound demented .....

Americans might be killing themselves with the good life....but thats our choice.....when I go...it will be with a smoke in one hand and a lager in the other, hopefully with a bloody New York strip in front of me ....and fuck your anti-American propaganda.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh DARN, it wasn't Downs, it was Cerebral palsy. Edwards potentially drove doctors out of buisness and created a false need for cesearian sections for fear of frivilous lawsuits that idiotic Juries would buy into.

The Judge in his landmark case even called it ridiculous.

Horrible source I am sure, but here is a quick eye opener....

Legal career
Four Trials by John Edwards
Four Trials by John Edwards

Before running for political office, John Edwards was a personal injury trial attorney, specializing in representing people who were alleged victims of corporate negligence and/or medical malpractice.

After law school, he clerked for a Federal judge and in 1978 became an associate at the Nashville law firm of Dearborn & Ewing, doing primarily trial work, defending a Nashville bank and other corporate clients. The Edwards family returned to North Carolina in 1981, settling in the capital of Raleigh where he joined the firm of Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove.[12]

Edwards' first notable case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. As a young associate, he got the assignment because it was considered a losing case; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.[13] In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.[12]

In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's settlement, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.[12] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[13]

After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. His fee, as is customary in "contingency" cases, was one-third of the settlement plus expenses. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"[12]

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.[12] The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl[14] who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured. In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."[15] The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.[13] The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the settlement was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the settlement was unprecedented and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment[12] that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.[12]

In December 2003, during his first presidential campaign, Edwards (with John Auchard) published Four Trials, a biographical book focusing on cases from his legal career.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Legal_career

 

[Gem]

I wonder about the statistics that go into the infant mortality rate.

Does the fact that our nation is giving birth to an increasingly large number of multiples (twins, triplets, quads, quints, etc.) that often are premature and come with serious health difficulties adding to this rate?

 

[Larkinn]

Ohh DARN, it wasn't Downs, it was Cerebral palsy. Edwards potentially drove doctors out of buisness and created a false need for cesearian sections for fear of frivilous lawsuits that idiotic Juries would buy into.

The Judge in his landmark case even called it ridiculous.

Horrible source I am sure, but here is a quick eye opener....

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Legal_career

So now instead of driving them out of business its "potentially drove them out of business"? And where did the judge call it ridiculous? If the judge truly thought it was ridiculous the judge could have overturned the verdict, which he did not.

Besides the fact...here is an actually decent article on why there is a shortage of physicians...not the partisan bullshit you like to post. http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/print.cfm?content_id=59315&parent=103

 

[ReillyT]

Actually it has a lot to do with the fact people like former Senator Edwards sue doctors that deliver babies and drive them out of buisness with frivilous law suits.

There are places in the US with no doctors of that specialty for hundreds of miles, and in some cases nearly whole states are devoid of the specialty because lawyers convince Juries that downs syndrome and other birth defects were somehow caused by doctor malpractice.

Malpractice claims do not rob communities of doctors. The possibility of being sued for malpractice is as great in urban centers as rural areas. The difference is that urban centers have greater concentrations of wealth, so there are more people that have private insurance, as opposed to a greater percentage of Medicaid recipients such as in places like the Appalachian valley. Medicaid pays at lower rates, so there is a monetary incentive to move towards cities. If it were as simple as malpractice insurance being too expensive, this wouldn't keep doctors from moving to areas where there are few competitors, as the greater demand for their services would allow them to charge higher prices. In any event, the whole premise of malpractice insurance reducing doctor salaries and hence, being responsible for the lower life expanctancy/ higher infant mortality rate makes little sense when US doctors make considerably more than French doctors, but France has a higher life expectancy rate/ lower infant mortality rate.

Perhaps it is a combination of fewer insured people, resulting in a decrease in frequent diagnostic checkups (including during pregnancy), combined with things like the relatively poor diets of Americans compared to persons in other countries (i.e., the prevalence of fast food as a dietary staple). Of course, it could also being something completely different we haven't considered (more smoking/drinking/drug use during pregancy, for example).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess since I did not highlight or brighten this part your inability to read and comprehend took over...

Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict."

 

[ReillyT]

Just to take a moment to stand up for the lawyers, malpractice, product liability and negligence claims serve a very useful purpose. It is a sort of ad hoc approach to safety regulation that responds to dangers as they arise, instead of with overly burdensome regulation. If you have ever travelled in a developing country, you become amazed at all of the everyday dangers that exist there, that don't exist in developing countries - everything from teeth protruding escalators to open construction sites just waiting for children to play in. Even though individual decisions may be a little distasteful, I think the country is better off due to contingency lawyers.

 

[CSM]

Disgraceful. Richest nation on the planet, and our infant mortality and life expectancy is on a par with developing countries:

Good, I like it that way!

 

[Larkinn]

I guess since I did not highlight or brighten this part your inability to read and comprehend took over...

None of which says ridiculous. Merely that he disagreed with the verdict, and the amount given. He did NOT disagree with it enough to overturn it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of which says ridiculous. Merely that he disagreed with the verdict, and the amount given. He did NOT disagree with it enough to overturn it.

He probably could NOT overturn it, would depend on the State and the laws of said State. In some States a jury verdict can not be set aside but the damages can be. He most assuradely DID state there was not any legal grounds for the award and the verdict. Try reading comprehension 101.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The infant mortality rate isn't the end-all be-all indicator of health stats. Countries that have higher abortion rates (or other reasons why fewer fetuses survive) will have less infant mortality for example. Cuba has a lower infant mortality (assuming they aren't using fabricated statistics, heh), even though their health care system is a horrendous shithole for ordinary citizens.

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

Now if you're talking about adult lifespans, the case for big government to roll up its sleeves and "do something" are even weaker.

* Comparisons don't take racial differences or diet into account;

* Comparisons probably don't filter out the high murder rate, or deaths due to self-inflicted drug use;

* The US federal government has already rolled up its sleeves, and the results have been disasterous. First, you've got an arcane system of farm subsidies which promote grains, along with the FDA food pyramid we all learned about in school. Seen all the carb-control diets out there lately? Guess what, there's a reason for that--high carb diets are deadly! Plus, you've got protectionist sugar tariffs, which mean that food and beverage makers use the more fattening corn syrup instead of sugar. Ever notice that Coke from Mexico (or your local Mexican grocery store) tastes better? It's not the glass bottle, it's the sweetener!

On top of that, the average american gets less exercise than ever. Why? Read a book about new urbanism and you'll understand. Thanks to federal/state/local subsidies, regulations, zoning laws, etc. we have created a nation whose cities are automobile sewers. Walkable towns are either discouraged or outright illegal. Thanks, government.

 

[Larkinn]

He probably could NOT overturn it, would depend on the State and the laws of said State. In some States a jury verdict can not be set aside but the damages can be. He most assuradely DID state there was not any legal grounds for the award and the verdict. Try reading comprehension 101.

Before advising me to try reading comprehension 101, take it yourself, dumbass.
YOU quoted this part, if you are going to quote something read it first. As he sustained it, he obviously felt there was some legal grounds for the verdict.

the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Before advising me to try reading comprehension 101, take it yourself, dumbass.
YOU quoted this part, if you are going to quote something read it first. As he sustained it, he obviously felt there was some legal grounds for the verdict.

The DUMBASS is you OR did you just not see this part?...

adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict."

 

[manu1959]

Disgraceful. Richest nation on the planet, and our infant mortality and life expectancy is on a par with developing countries:

two words......illegal imigrants