Scandinavia...

[_Hoops]

The numbers indicate that if you have a baby in the US, the chances that it will die in the first year of life are more than twice as large as they are in Sweden, and that the US is also well behind other developed countries, including Britain, France and Germany, and certainly all Scandinavian countries in the task of keeping babies from dying.

Since keeping a baby alive is a pretty basic aim of the care one provides for it, it is reasonable to conclude that, taken as a whole, the systems that provide for the care and nurture of little children in countries where fewer babies die are better than those where more babies die.

So, contrary to what whyme asserted, there are rational grounds for doubting that the child-care situation in Scandinavian countries is worse than in the US, and indeed there are grounds for thinking that it is probably a lot better in important respects.

Really? I never could have gotten there without your help.

Actually, even this dumb jock was able to draw that line ...

My question is....

Why is our health care system, or, specifically, the natal/pre-natal care system causing these numbers? What are we doing or not doing that makes this so?

This is the real question that requires some heavier lifting. Not just trotting out numbers as if they prove something.

[_Chap]

Really? I never could have gotten there without your help.

Actually, even this dumb jock was able to draw that line ...

I responded with two rounds of further explanation because you asked for them.

My question is....

Why is our health care system, or, specifically, the natal/pre-natal care system causing these numbers? What are we doing or not doing that makes this so?

This is the real question that requires some heavier lifting. Not just trotting out numbers as if they prove something.

The numbers (which stack up to quite a few dead babies who would not be dead in several other countries) make it plain that the US faces a serious issue in the field of provision for early child care. To that extent, they prove there is an issue to confront. That is useful, is it not?

It is far outside the topic of this thread to start suggesting what the Federal government might try to do about this problem. But, within the general topic area of this thread (the success of relatively godless and gay-tolerant societies in Scandinavia in providing good lives for their citizens), it seems likely that there are some policies that will probably not help make US babies less likely to die - and these may include paying more attention to a deity and making the lives of gay people less comfortable.

[_Hoops]

I responded with two rounds of further explanation because you asked for them.

Then next time I'll be more clear in what I'm asking.

The numbers (which stack up to quite a few dead babies who would not be dead in several other countries) make it plain that the US faces a serious issue in the field of provision for early child care.

Oh? Please explain.

To that extent, they prove there is an issue to confront. That is useful, is it not?

It does. But what is the issue?

It is far outside the topic of this thread to start suggesting what the Federal government might try to do about this problem.

Interesting that you reflexivel go there. Who says the Federal government should do ANYTHING?

But, within the general topic area of this thread (the success of relatively godless and gay-tolerant societies in Scandinavia in providing good lives for their citizens),

Success as defined how?

it seems likely that there are some policies that will probably not help make US babies less likely to die -

I'll grant you this one. I have no idea what this means. The two negatives are throwing me off.

and these may include paying more attention to a deity

Amazing. What could this pobbivly mean?

and making the lives of gay people less comfortable.

Ridiculous sophistry.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

This is awesome. Gays, atheism, no marriage: the keys to a healthy society!

[_Chap]

....

The numbers (which stack up to quite a few dead babies who would not be dead in several other countries) make it plain that the US faces a serious issue in the field of provision for early child care.

Oh? Please explain.
....

American babies are (as shown in my previous post which cited data from an American government source) more than twice as likely as Swedish babies to die in the first year of life, and Hoops needs me to explain why that means that the US faces a serious issue in the field of provision for early child care?

I choose this one sample from the list of bizarrely mistyped one-line interjections in her post, to illustrate why I think I had better now leave the readers of this board to decide whether it is me or Hoops who has staked out the more reasonable, coherent and evidence-based position on the issue we are discussing.

[_Hoops]

I choose this one sample from the list of bizarrely mistyped one-line interjections in her post,

It must be exhausting being on stage all the time. Take a break.

to illustrate why I think I had better now leave the readers of this board to decide whether it is me or Hoops who has staked out the more reasonable, coherent and evidence-based position on the issue we are discussing.

pardon me, your eminence, but it's quite obvious, even to me, that there is SOME issue with the US health care system. Maybe I won't be able to follow your reasons for WHY this happens, but maybe give it a try and lets see how we do. I'm asking you what that issue is. The higher death rate for babies in the US is attributed to what?

It would seem that your position is that babies die because of gay-hating conservative fundamentalist Bible thumping "sayin the pledge" gun rack in the window pick up drivin go huntin' and makin elk jerky atv ridin' pro wrasslin' watchin' religionists who live in the South and who are not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be.

Do I have this right?

[_Chap]

...

Do I have this right?

No. Re-read my posts if you want to know more. I am bored with talking to you.

[_Themis]

It would seem that your position is that babies die because of gay-hating conservative fundamentalist Bible thumping "sayin the pledge" gun rack in the window pick up drivin go huntin' and makin elk jerky atv ridin' pro wrasslin' watchin' religionists who live in the South and who are not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be.

Do I have this right?

LOL I have no idea other then some of your ideological views, how you got this from what he said. I think the problem is whyme, as usual, is asserting things without evidence. I do agree with you that when looking at these numbers, we need more information to figure out what they mean and where potential problems are. In the case of infant mortality, having numbers that indicate leading causes of death would provide significantly more information. Some of these cases could be religious, social, environmental, etc.

[_Quasimodo]

I do agree with you that when looking at these numbers, we need more information to figure out what they mean and where potential problems are. In the case of infant mortality, having numbers that indicate leading causes of death would provide significantly more information. Some of these cases could be religious, social, environmental, etc.

Here's one suggestion.

At a hospital I worked many years ago it was quite common for women to show up in the emergency department in full labor having had absolutely no prenatal care. This resulted in many unnecessary problems for the mothers and babies. Some of them fatal.

The hospital was located near a poorer neighborhood where many of the residents had no medical insurance and no access to prenatal care.

[_Chap]

It would seem that your position is that babies die because of gay-hating conservative fundamentalist Bible thumping "sayin the pledge" gun rack in the window pick up drivin go huntin' and makin elk jerky atv ridin' pro wrasslin' watchin' religionists who live in the South and who are not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be.

Do I have this right?

LOL I have no idea other then some of your ideological views, how you got this from what he said.

That's why I could see no point in continuing that particular dialogue. All I get back is faux-naif one liners, followed by the ascription to me of views I do not hold.

I think the problem is whyme, as usual, is asserting things without evidence.

That is why I have whyme on ignore. However from time to time people quote him, and then I may be tempted ...

I do agree with you that when looking at these numbers, we need more information to figure out what they mean and where potential problems are. In the case of infant mortality, having numbers that indicate leading causes of death would provide significantly more information. Some of these cases could be religious, social, environmental, etc.

My point, in the context of this thread, is that since a country like Sweden which is notoriously irrreligious, devalues traditional marriage, and treats gays on equal terms does much better than the US in stopping babies dying, then whatever the answer to the US baby-death problem is, it will probably not consist of more attention to religion, more insistent on marriage, and more limitation on the rights accorded to gays.

In other news - thinking of where babies, and particularly potentially neglected babies who may die young, come from - it is notable that the statistics on teen pregnancy, expressed as the number of births per thousand women aged 15-19, look like this:

Denmark and Sweden: 7 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002

United States: 53 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002, the highest in the developed world.

Again, doesn't it seem improbable that the US will manage to make this disastrous figure any lower by making itself even more unlike those other two societies in dealing with sexual matters than it is already (by for instance more stress on religious teaching, limiting teaching about human sexuality in schools, insistence on abstinence, restricting access to contraception)?

Just asking.