Scandinavia...

[_Hoops]

LOL I have no idea other then some of your ideological views,

Actually, I think you have an idea what my theological views are. I doubt you have an idea what my political views are.

how you got this from what he said.

I didn't. But I'm quite confident that the good DrW does not hold the people I've described in high regard. And, frankly, having been blessed with attending church in the most southern states, I would prefer their company to almost anyone else. It's genuine and unpretentious. And they are uniquely gracious.

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

YEp.

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.

Yes we do. Though I was prepared to entertain what they MIGHT mean. But not working. Still I'm not disputing the facts, as DrW is wanting me to do. I'm disputing what conclusions we might draw from these facts.

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.

I would guess the answer is quite a bit more complicated than we think.

[_Quasimodo]

I would guess the answer is quite a bit more complicated than we think.

I really don't think it's very complicated, Hoops. Poor health care for a large number of Americans. All the stats support that.

Please pass along any ideas you have that could also be the problem.

[_Hoops]

I would guess the answer is quite a bit more complicated than we think.

I really don't think it's very complicated, Hoops. Poor health care for a large number of Americans. All the stats support that.

Please pass along any ideas you have that could also be the problem.

Assuming the label is justified, I'm talking about the REASON for the poor health care.

[_Quasimodo]

Assuming the label is justified, I'm talking about the REASON for the poor health care.

If you don't have access to good health care, you get poor health care (or none).

I've worked in the field most of my life. I've seen it. If empirical evidence doesn't qualify, look up the number of people in the U.S. that have no healthcare options. Especially those with no preventative care.

Most people without insurance can't afford medical checkups. Their only option is to seek emergency care once the condition becomes acute. Sadly, this can well be after the condition has gone beyond a curable state.

You're a coach. What happens to one of your players if she tears an ACL or a rotator cuff and has no insurance to pay for the very expensive operation?

[_Themis]

I didn't. But I'm quite confident that the good DrW does not hold the people I've described in high regard. And, frankly, having been blessed with attending church in the most southern states, I would prefer their company to almost anyone else. It's genuine and unpretentious. And they are uniquely gracious.

I thought it was Chap's comments you were referring to.

Yes we do. Though I was prepared to entertain what they MIGHT mean.

Your posting style suggests you wouldn't go into what they mean. You like to criticize others and their arguments without making any of your own.

[_Themis]

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.

My point is that without more information, we may not know exactly why the numbers are different, or whether there may be factors beyond human control. Whyme's comments on this are not new, and many have already shown them, with evidence, to be incorrect. You wisely put him on ignore since we all know he is not listening or ever critically evaluating any of his claims.

[_Hoops]

Your posting style suggests you wouldn't go into what they mean. You like to criticize others and their arguments without making any of your own.

Bull. I am always up for discussing something. I'm eager to learn. Instead, we usually have something like:

an atheist/agnostic/humanist posts some ridiculous, outlandish, and silly representation of Christianity or Mormonism or both, then all the other aah follow with a lot of butt-slapping and vomitous praise. Generally, one or two jump into the fray with something foul and disgusting designed to be offensive, rather than thought provoking. That post is hailed as the height of comedic brilliance and or the finest example of free speech.

There's no discussions here. There's no exchange of ideas. Which is perfectly fine, but let's not make it what it isn't.

[_MCB]

So ignore it. There is a lot more going on that is worthwhile.

[_Hoops]

And it would appear that our friends are playing fast and loose with the incontrivertible facts that should prompt us all to reject our childish religious beliefs for their more enlightened view.




From the CBO

Here's a sample:

Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates.

Here's another:

Although the infant mortality rate is universally accepted as an indicator of health status, international comparisons are problematic. Many underdeveloped countries do not have functional vital registration systems and infant mortality rates have to be estimated indirectly or through samples. In developed countries, comparisons of infant mortality rates are complicated by differences in medical practices and reporting requirements. These problems have raised questions about the validity of ranking infant mortality rates on an international scale.


Here's the link: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

[_Drifting]

Your posting style suggests you wouldn't go into what they mean. You like to criticize others and their arguments without making any of your own.

Bull. I am always up for discussing something. I'm eager to learn.

Okay, Hoops, what is your view on the doctrine of a worldwide global flood during the era of Noah?