The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Canadouche]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

[Brownie]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity.

[ChuckD]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity.

Reductio ad absurdem is fun.

[Tank]

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)

Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.

[Quality Start Machine]

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)

Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.

Eliminate the US Government, replace it with one of the exact same size and scope, then eliminate its funding?

It's just crazy enough to work!

[HST Redux]

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)

Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.

Eliminate the US Government, replace it with one of the exact same size and scope, then eliminate its funding?

It's just crazy enough to work!

We have to protect our phony baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We need to something about this immediately. Immediately. Immediately! Harumph! Harumph!

[CT III]

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)

Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.

Eliminate the US Government, replace it with one of the exact same size and scope, then eliminate its funding?

It's just crazy enough to work!

We have to protect our phony baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We need to something about this immediately. Immediately. Immediately! Harumph! Harumph!

Harumph!

[Chuck to Chuck]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity.

So, the Canadian system was inefficient by not having enough supply to meet demand.  But the US system was also inefficient by having more supply than demand.

[Canadouche]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity.

Nobody said the Canadian system is perfect, but pound-for-pound Cannucks prefer theirs to America's by a large majority. 

The good news in this situation is that, while it must be tremendously stressful, the Stinsons won't have to pay for the care their child is receiving in Buffalo.  Imagine if they'd been in the States when she went through her premature birth ... would it just be thousands of dollars that they'd owe the hospitals, or tens of thousands?

[Canadouche]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity.

So, the Canadian system was inefficient by not having enough supply to meet demand.  But the US system was also inefficient by having more supply than demand.

Our friend from Addisonst wanted me to know that the lack of universal health care in the States doesn't matter ... America is still the hot spot for all immigrants everywhere, you don't see anybody going to Cuba, and Canadians sure should be grateful for the American missile defense system. 

[Wheezer]

So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work? 

I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity.

So, the Canadian system was inefficient by not having enough supply to meet demand.  But the US system was also inefficient by having more supply than demand.

And, indeed, the US outcomes aren't particularly better.  The problem with looking at "efficiency" of the "system," though, is that it can't adjust in real time.

[RV]

In case you missed last night's press conference:

http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-press-conference-july.html

[Quality Start Machine]

In case you missed last night's press conference:

http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-press-conference-july.html

Ho. Lee. Shit...that is motherfuckin' GOLD

[Tank]

And, indeed, the US outcomes aren't particularly better.  The problem with looking at "efficiency" of the "system," though, is that it can't adjust in real time.

For those who don't care to (or bother to) click through, from the first link...

The study compares prenatal and neonatal care and outcomes between the US, Australia, Canada and the UK.

Mortality Outcomes

No country has consistently better mortality outcomes (Tables 5 and 6). As reported elsewhere,2 crude infant and neonatal mortality rates rank the United States behind the other 3 countries (US infant mortality rate [IMR] is 7.1 deaths per 1000 live births, compared with 4.3–5.5; US neonatal mortality rate [NMR] is 4.7 compared with 3.0 –3.8).24,26,39 – 41 Stratifying these rates into birth weight specific categories significantly narrows these observed differences.

As shown in Table 5, all 4 countries have statistically similar birth weight-specific IMR for newborns <500 g.26,39 – 41 For infants above 500 g, statistically significant differences were observed, but no country had consistently better outcomes. The exception was for infants weighing above 2500 g, where the United States has statistically higher mortality (2.6 per 1000 live births) compared with all 3 countries (1.3–2.3).

NMR measures outcomes during the period where neonatal intensive care is most influential. Like the IMR data, (Table 6) no country can claim better survival.24,26,39,40 With the United States as the reference, (relative risk [RR]: 1), Australia has significantly better outcomes for infants born <1000 g, (RR: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75– 0.94). In contrast, the Canadian infants seem to have a relative disadvantage for infants born between 1000 and 2499 g, (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 –1.45) and those infants born in England and Wales above 2500 g likewise have higher mortality (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.07–1.24). Although the non-US countries administer neonatal care with fewer available physicians and neonatal hospital beds, their infants do not suffer greater mortality.

Comment

This report examines both reproductive care and mortality across 4 developed countries and finds that the United States commits greater resources to neonatal intensive care, although its infants do not have proportionately better survival. The other 3 countries' health care systems, in contrast, place more emphasis on preconception and prenatal care. These findings suggest that additional expansion of neonatal intensive capacity would not result in proportionate benefit in mortality. Our data support this view for the following reasons: First, birth weight, a reflection of socioeconomic context and the quality of medical care before birth, is an important predictor of mortality that is not influenced by postnatal medical interventions including neonatal intensive care.6,42,43 Second, even for low birth weight infants, it does not seem that higher US neonatal care capacity is associated with improved survival.44 Finally, there are unmet needs in other areas of preconception and prenatal care that may affect birth weight and, in turn, neonatal mortality.43,45

...

One unexpected finding of our study is that the US infant mortality rate for infants greater than 2500 g is significantly higher than those of the other 3 countries. If the United States were able to reduce mortality in this group to the rate in Canada, (2.6 –2.3 per 1000 live births) this would prevent almost 3000 deaths. Neonatal mortality rates (<28 days) were similar, indicating that the higher mortality risk for the normal weight infants occurs after the first month of life. Only 23% of postneonatal mortality is attributable to perinatal causes,73 and perinatal events are less important in these normal birth weight newborns. More frequent causes of mortality (eg, sudden infant death, injuries, and infections) are not directly influenced by neonatal intensive care, but may instead reflect social disadvantage or access to medical care.74 These findings merit additional investigation.

[Tank]

Cont'd...

CONCLUSION

This report finds that Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom provide more consistent access to preconception and prenatal care than the United States, and although the United States has more neonatal intensive care capacity, birth weight-specific mortalities are no better. These findings question the marginal benefit of allocating additional resources to neonatal intensive care. Because decreasing neonatal intensive care resources may have unintended consequences, a possible alternative for the United States is to maintain level resources in neonatal intensive care while improving funding for preconception and prenatal care.10,47,75 Unintended pregnancies in particular remain an important determinant of infant outcomes that merit policy interventions.76 Furthermore, many authors endorse the promotion of prenatal care as a means to reduce low birth weight and improve infant mortality,4,42,45,77– 80 although research is needed to identify which prenatal interventions are most effective.81

The recognition that improved infant outcomes requires consistent care from preconception through early childhood should stimulate policies directed toward a more equitable distribution of resources across the domains of reproductive care. The 1976 document, Toward Improving the Outcome of Pregnancy (or TIOP I), provided a conceptual framework for the present hospital-based regionalized system of care and may have facilitated much of the earlier improvements in perinatal outcomes.46 The report of a second committee on perinatal health (or TIOP II) in 1993, made additional policy proposals that focused beyond hospital based care into preconception and perinatal care, public education, data management, accountability and financing.47 These recommendations have not been effectively implemented in the United States. As the current study shows, the outcomes of the total US birth cohort lag behind similarly developed countries, despite the best-funded system of neonatal intensive care in the world.