Socialised Medicine Myth Exposed
August 4th, 2008 at 09:15am Mark Noonan
That well-famed claim that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than nations with socialised medicine? Not quite what it seems:
Q: If socialized medicine is so bad, why are infant mortality rates higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations with government or single-payer health care?
A: U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, it’s argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.
But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.
Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year.
According to research done by Canada’s Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, “Comparisons of infant mortality rates by place and time should be adjusted for the proportion of such live births, especially if the comparisons involve recent years.”
Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States.
This is entirely unsurprising - anyone who is surprised that a government-run health care system would fudge the numbers to make themselves look good is the biggest fool alive. Remember, when a government bureaucrat sits down to work, there are several factors governing the work done:
1. To do as little as possible, because you don’t get paid more for doing more work in government.
2. To have as few mistakes as possible blamed on yourself.
3. To ensure that 100% of the budgeted funds are spent each fiscal year.
4. To ensure that any information coming out from your bureaucracy reflects well upon your efforts.
The perfection of government is an agency which does nothing while spending a lot of money which has as its end product a fabulous report of how great you all did, with a pitch for increased funding because, well, you can see that we spent all the money budgeted. The perfection of government agency is not a lean, mean public service machine boldly telling the unvarnished truth and desperate to do everything it can to serve the public. Given the nature of government, it is no surprise that such things as infant mortality aren’t reported exactly fair and square. What we have here is the problem of how to reduce infant mortality in a government-run program - they could have either worked harder and done more (and where’s the upside in that?), or they could just change what is called an infant to the point where a large percentage of infants who die aren’t counted. Presto! Without any additional work, you’re doing an even better job than before…
This is the sort of incompetance Obama has in store for us if he wins. We’ll get progressively worse services by agencies who continuously tell us that things are getting better all the time. Its not because Obama is a bad man, but because by putting government in charge he’ll only be turning it over to the people who’s incentives are to not work yet spend large sums of money.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, Studies
33 Comments
1. js | August 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
thats what you call pulling a “michael moore”….
2. OhioOrrin | August 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
pls study the French health care system. it is an interesting blend of private/public service.
the us already has socialized medicine for fed employees, service members, & Medicare/Medicad
tort reform is an important component. for example, some areas of the country have no OBGYN’s because malpractice insurance has forced them into other medical fields.
it is inexcusable that we have children w no health care coverage in a nation that spends 2-3 BILLION a yr on pets.
lastly, folks w/o coverage, including illegal immigrants, simply go to the emergency room where, by law, they must be treated. this is an extremely expensive of treatment. we all pay for this expensive treatment in our increased insurance premiums.
pls do not just put on ideologue blinders & carry water for the profiteering health care industry & the paid-off members in both parties!
3. Eric T | August 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Ohio Orrin-
We just need the same health care package and benefits our politicans get.
And this issue will go away.
4. Brian (Boston) | August 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It would have been nice if author would actually cite her sources. She may be correct, but without the necessary information it is hard to take the article at face value.
OhioOrrin, the Italian healthcare system is the same way as the French.
5. Timothy Horrigan | August 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It is interesting how even as the right rails against “socialized medicine” they continue to expand it. John McCain, for example, said in NH last month that he would increase spending on VA Hospitals while also creating a single-payer health plan for vets only.
This seems paradoxical: if private-sector health insurance is so great, isn’t that what our vets should have? If government-mandated health insurance is so bad, why foist it on our bravest citizens? Shouldn’t vets’ medical decisions be made their doctors (in consultation, of course, with minimally trained call center operators located in Indis somewhere) and NOT in the halls of Congress? And, if vets deserve the best in health care, but government-provide health services are so inherently bad, then why have the VA, which is part of the GOVERNMENT, provide their care in the first place?
6. '08ama | August 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yes, excellent point!
And nothing shows the complete incompetence of our government than the US military. Even with trillions thrown their way, they STILL manage to screw things up as much as can possibly be screwed up. And not to mention the complete waste of tax payer money along the way.
If after 5+ years we still cannot control some farmers and goat herders in Iraq, we have no business trying to run a nation-wide healthcare system.
7. OhioOrrin | August 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
‘08ama - do not equate the most lethal military in world history w stupid strategy forced on them by civilian leadership.
the generals were proved prescient in warning pre-invasion that the force structure was too small for an occupation. but they certainly weren’t too small for an invasion, were they?
our combat forces dismembered the 5th largest standing army in the world, complete w front line russian equipment, in a few weeks w min friendly losses.
then, the invasion mission morphed into counter insurgency followed by nation building which is vastly different from combat.
the civilian neo cabal substituted assumptions for worst case planning.
make no mistake, clinton forced mistaken strategy on the military, just like W & Rummy, and just like obama would.
8. phnx | August 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“but without the necessary information it is hard to take the article at face value.” Brian
And yet you and others have no problem accepting at face value the charges that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than the average European rate. Or that the UN ranks the US healthcare system as substandard, without considering the method of determination, ie compliance to unlimited free government administered healthcare..
9. ld | August 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Mark - the simple fact of the matter is that all western countries do have some form of socialized health care - including the US. Take for example the case of war veterans who have benefits from the government for health care. Should we get rid of those health care benefits for injured veterans who can not afford health care or work because of their injuries? Or should we be pinko commie losers and give them socialized medicine? Answer please - and don’t do your usual monkey dance around the issue..
10. Eric T | August 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This topic leaves me scratching my head, my insurance seems to cover less and less every year. More co-pays, more out of pocket expense, perscriptions no longer covered, chiropractor no longer covered. If the insurance keeps going at this rate, everyone will want socialized health care.
The system we got ain’t bad, but it seems like it is starting to cover less and less, everytime you look at it.
Either we need better insurance or whip out a democrat plan like tariffs on all imports from countries with socialized medicine.
11. Brian (Boston) | August 4th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
phnx, The UN, US, Canada, Italy, Germany Austria and the UK define infant mortality rate is the number deaths of children less than 1 year old per 1000 children born. I did not check every country. The CIA in the Factbook lists it this way, as well. These are documented statistics, so yes I would tend to agree with them more than an undocumented article.
12. phnx | August 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Once again, you prove my point. You have no idea if the data is apples to apples or apples to oranges. Fact is that european countries routinely discount under weight babies, and some of the asia countires don’t even count a child as viable until it has lived beyond six months. But don’t bother checking this out on your own, believe what you want.
13. Stingray | August 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
One wingnut blog posting a column from another wingnut blog. No substance here, move one.
What is McCain’s health care plan. I believe it ths same as Bush Jr’s let the market dictate care? This would be a McSame.
Those that have health insurance get good care those that don’t can fill up the emergency rooms and pick up the crumbs.
14. Brian (Boston) | August 4th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“Fact is that european countries routinely discount under weight babies, and some of the asia countires don’t even count a child as viable until it has lived beyond six months. But don’t bother checking this out on your own, believe what you want.”
Where is your proof?
15. phnx | August 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Brian, as I said don’t bother checking this out on your own, believe what you want.
I have already posted the proof previously when this thread came up. I’m not doing it again. Beleive what you want. Ignorance is bliss.
16. Jeremiah | August 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
One thing is for certain, the infant mortality numbers would drastically decrease if there were no abortions.
We are definitely failing in that respect, not failing physically, and most not financially, but mentally.
17. 42 | August 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“One thing is for certain, the infant mortality numbers would drastically decrease if there were no abortions.”
Jeremiah, one has nothing to do with the other…the RATE would stay exactly the same if there were no abortions
18. Thrower | August 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Post your proof Phnx. Not everyone comes here to bash. I like well referenced dissent and learn from it.
On a somewhat related tangent, I would advise people to never walk into an emergency room for critical treatment. Call an ambulance. Waits of ten hours are not uncommon, and the ER waiting room is like a trip to a third world country. The ER is far and away the weak link in our medical “system.”
19. Brian (Boston) | August 4th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Phnx, I found a US News and World Report article that states what the author stated, but it also states that with countries that report the same way the US does, the article uses Iceland, Finland and Japan as examples, the US still has higher infant mortality rates. The US News article contributes this to a number of factors about the environment, ethnicity, etc. The US News article does not connect socialized medicine to infant mortality.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
20. neocon | August 4th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Thrower,
You just can’t generalize like that. I took my son to an ER room near our AZ home and I have to say they were very efficient. I think the reason why our ER rooms are struggling is because of the unchecked illegal immigration and once our borders are more secure this problem will begin to cure itself. Also, to those who don’t believe that we already have socialized medicine, I would ask them to look into the ACCESS program here in AZ. It actually is a good program that I is needed to help struggling American families, but I do object to the illegal immigrants that have it.
Brian,
Where is the proof that they do count those mortalities?
21. Danish Artist | August 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“And nothing shows the complete incompetence of our government than the US military. Even with trillions thrown their way, they STILL manage to screw things up as much as can possibly be screwed up. And not to mention the complete waste of tax payer money along the way.”
And yet 08ama, you are willing to trust the SAME government you just criticized with the health of every American citizen! Without question, you are lapping up whatever Obama lobs out there as a political stance. With all the failed liberal programs that have been forced on us and you acknowledge that for once (what is the matter, you had a moment of free thinking clarity?) that the government is incompetent.
I am glad the military showed you just ho incompetent the federal government is with all the trillions of dollars of programs, waste and pork.
I guess you will be voting against Obama, since all he proposes is more government programs, nationalized healthcare, big government, etc etc. etc.
I wonder…………..
22. neocon | August 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Spot on Danish,
I serve on my ciity’s financial committee and I can tell you the waste in many of these programs would shock you, and the sense of entitlement amongst many of the “civil employees” would disgust you.
And that’s just one very small component of the state and federal. The incompetent problem is nearly systemic.
23. kmg | August 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
The Government gives me a pretty good plan. My premium is $460 a year for my entire family. I don’t have a problem getting appointments. I pay nothing for doctors visits and prescriptions. If I have to see an outside doctor, it is a $12 co-pay. If I have to get my prescriptions from a civilian pharmacy, it costs $5. I can’t complain.
24. Thrower | August 4th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I spoke from personal experience on several levels Neo. I have great respect for those who work in ERs but there are not enough of them. I’ll repeat the advice. If your problem is life threatening, cal 911. That advice may save your life.
Urban hospital ERs are overwhelmed, particularly with the demise of many hospitals that had trauma centers. If you come in on an ambulance you will go to the head of the queue. If you walk in it is a crap shoot.
25. ld | August 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
not a word to answer my question from Mark, Matt, or the rest of you guys. Cowards. Absolute cowards everyone of you ..
26. js | August 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
the only reform we need is in the insurance industry
they take 31 cents of every dollar that people pay for health care for thier “overhead”
thats 20% more than other 1st world nations
20% that the health care industry never see’s
yet, if they dropped the price of health insurance 20%, most folks who do without it could afford to do with it….
considering that the top insurance companies pull 3 trillion dollars in health premiums, i am surprised that congress hasnt acted to correct the abuse
health care insurance companies keep 930 billion dollars for “overhead”, and the only product they “produce” is paper….you ever wonder how CEO’s compare salaries? look at the insurance industry….the biggest abuser
27. ld | August 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
don’t you get it js. you are making the argument for some sort of socialized medicine with your own words. The problem with having for profit health care is that the they are business men and always will be. Yes the insurance industry is bad - but you offer *NO EVIDENCE* that its any worse than any other industry. But that is exactly the point as long as it is an industry they will always do this - because by law their primary motivation for their investors is profits. Which is exactly why - just like the police department, the fire department, and the army - it shouldn’t be run by private corporations by by our government.
Would you want to live in a world where if you called the fire department they asked you to come up with cash before they would put out the fire on your house? Or the police would only find out who killed your wife if you could pay for the investigation? It would be a very very sad world wouldn’t it? So why be in a world where if your kid gets sick only those who can pay for it get medicine?
28. Brian (Boston) | August 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
neocon, the proof is that ever country that I checked out has a policy that it is stated how infant mortality is calculated. The UN, WHO and CIA also state how they calculate the infant mortality rates for countries.
29. phnx | August 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
OK lazy ones, below is an article which will help educate you on the subject of Infant Mortality:
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/docs/neonatal_perinatal_mortality/text.pdf
This paper relates to neonatal (mortality in the first 4 weeks) and perinatal infant mortality(mortality in the first week).
Many countries do not count these deaths in their Infant Mortality Statistics. It is interesting to note the following quotes:
“analysing and comparing mortality rates between countries is fraught with pitfalls, as minor differences, or similarities may be the result of real distinctions in mortlaity leels or may be due to diverging definitions and reporting systems, sources of data or leels of accuracy and completeness.”
In otherwords, for those of you from Rio Linda, comparing the stats from the US to say…France, Germany, or Japan, may not give an accurate picture of true infant mortality because of differing methods and definitions.
In addition, as the article points out, some population groups, blacks and hispanics, have a 2x to 2.5x higher mortality rates thatn western europeans or american whites. So comparing the US rate to say…Iceland is an absurdity.
“The legal requirements for registration of fetal deaths and live births vary between and even within countries. WHO (World Health Organization) RECOMMENDS that, if possible, all fetuses and infants weighing at least 500g at birth, wether dead or alive, should be included in the statistics. (The US registers ALL infants regardless of weight). The inclusion of national statistics of fetuses and infants weighing between 500g and 1000g is RECOMMENDED (but not mandatory) both because of its inherent value and because it impores the coverage of reporting at 100g and over.”
In addition the report cites that cultrural and religious differences affect the accuracy of reporting. In amny cultures, males are more sought than females, and female mortality is estimated to be significantly higher and ont reported, due to post partum abortions.
But like I said, don’t let the facts get in the way of your delusions.
30. Some Assembly Required | August 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Oh my, Phnx, now your dipping into fetal deaths (stillbirths and miscarriages). As I understand it most counties use the standard of 0 - 5 years of age for infant mortality. You are narrowing in on a single nail instead while neglecting the rest of the house. Just concede the point and move on. Sheesh.
31. Eric T | August 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
LD- #27
I think your right about the “for” profit companies,
I got Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is a non-profit company. They are trying change over to a for profit company, our state is fighting it, WE all know there will be less coverage, they’ll start skimping on everything, and then gouging the people on their premiums. While the CEO’s pay is going up 400- 500%
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a4766f29-e802-4355-94af-1dac645298ce
I think non-profit insurance like BCBS is the way to go, If we made everything for profit, imagine a for profit military, or for profit police.
32. phnx | August 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
SAR, you are a dense on earen’t you. Infant mortality is described by the UN as those infants which die within the first year of birth. Those on the left have condemned the US, using statistics showing that our infant mortality rate is higher than other countries. What you and they have failed to comprehend is that the many countries do not count babies not surving the first 4 weeks, some don’t count babies under the age of 6 months. The US uses ALL births, still births as well as those not surviving beyond 28 days, thereby skewing the stats. Try to keep up.
33. Some Assembly Required | August 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
phnx, point taken. I still think you guys are narrowing your focus to much on this issue but I’ll leave it at that.