Posts filed under 'Studies'
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.
Tags: health care
August 4th, 2008
No surprise - and it entirely explains why the social structure of the United States, in spite of many glaring problems, is fundamentally one of the healthiest in all the Judeo-Christian West:
In preparation for the next gathering of the Catholic bishops around the world, the Catholic Biblical Federation has conducted an extensive survey regarding how the Bible is read in 13 different countries. The survey reports that the U.S. is the one of most Bible-believing nations and the one that is most interested in the Scriptures.
The survey was held to obtain a sense of the influence of the Scriptures to assist the bishops in their October 5-26, 2008 synod on “The Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church”.
Thus far, 13,000 interviews have been held in the United States, the United Kingdom, Holland, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Russia. According to Vatican analyst Sandro Magister, the results released on April 28 “cover the entirety of the adult population” and the results pertaining solely to Catholics will be published at a later date. Results from Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines, and Australia are still being collated.
In Magister’s view, the results of the survey show that, “the Bible is not present and influential in all countries in the same way. The wave of secularization produces very different effects from region to region. In the United States and in Italy, these effects appear to be more contained than in other countries of Western Europe, among which France emerges as the most de-Christianized nation.”
The Bible is present in many houses in Italy and the U.S., 75% and 93% respectively, but in France less than half of the people have a Bible at home.
However, the only place where the Scriptures have been read in the last year is the United States, which comes in at 75%. Despite high ownership, Italian Bible reading is reported at 27%, and in Spain the number falls to 20%.
All Christians owe a debt of gratitude in this to our Evangelical brothers and sisters who have been intense in their missionary zeal to get the Bible into as many hands as possible, and getting people to actually read it; I think the ready availability not only of the Bible, but of people willing to take the time to teach it explains why the United States is so deep in the scriptures - and our depth of religious knowledge is what keeps us from the worst aspects of the post-Christian Culture of Death. I think, also, that our liberal friends understand this, and understand that the greatest stumbling block to remaking us in the image of the EU is that too many Americans have access to truth, and thus don’t fall for the left’s siren song.
In the ongoing and intensifying culture war, the best defense for our civilization is a citizenry ever more informed about who we are, where we come from and what is the basis of our civilization. The rock of our way of life is The rock, as it were, and just so long as a majority of us know this, so will we be well-positioned to beat back the efforts of the left to destroy our civilization.
Tags: Bible, Christianity
May 5th, 2008
Interesting and rather alarming article over at First Things by Steven W. Mosher about the collapse of birth rates around the world - the article is written in the form of an argument between Mosher and a lefty who insists that the concerns about the brith rate are actually just racists worried there aren’t enough white babies being born, but as Mosher points out, the demographic winter is spreading rapidly around the globe:
The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe.
Take Latin America, for example. The image of the loving Mexican mamacita surrounded by a passel of barefoot children remains scratched on the minds of Americans, even when it has largely vanished in the dusty pueblos of Mexico itself. Government-enforced sterilization campaigns, along with simple modernity, have dramatically shrunk family size south of the border in recent years. When I speak to American audiences, they are invariably surprised to learn that the average young Mexican family now numbers no more children than its American counterpart.
But Central and South American countries, too, are seeing their birthrates fall. Most Latin American countries are now rapidly approaching replacement rate fertility, if they are not already there, according to the United Nations Population Division (UNPD). Women in Brazil, the largest South American country, currently average only 2.3 children. The inhabitants of Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile are even less fertile.
Across the Pacific, China has become a byword for forced-pace population control. Since the early eighties, Chinese women have been allowed an average of only 1.7 children, a birthrate so low that by 2020 China’s median age will be older than that of the United States.
India’s de facto two-child policy is neither as well known nor as brutal as China’s. But this policy, in conjunction with simple modernity, has effectively brought the fertility rate down to about 2.8 or so. India is projected to reach replacement rate fertility in a decade or so.
The voluntary childlessness of the Japanese exceeds even the forced-pace population reduction of China’s one-child policy. With a total fertility rate of only 1.25, Japan is on the brink of a major demographic meltdown. Its population of 127 million has stopped growing and—if the birthrate continues at this low level—will soon begin to shrink at an alarming pace. A population bust, like an explosion, proceeds in geometric progression.
The old-age tsunami that is about to hit Japan will not spare other Asian countries. The Four Tigers—Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore—are already getting long in the tooth.
Wherever we turn in the world, we see the same general picture. The only seeming exception is Sub-Saharan Africa, where birthrates are still fairly robust. But Africa has another problem: It languishes in the grip of an HIV/AIDS pandemic, which is sending some nations, such as South Africa, into absolute population decline.
The latest forecasts by the UNPD show the number of people in the world shrinking by mid-century, that is, before today’s young adults reach retirement age. I am speaking here of the UNDP’s “low variant” projections—historically the most accurate—which show that the population of the world will continue to creep up until about the year 2040, peaking at around 7.6 billion people. This is only a fraction more—one-sixth or so–than the 6.5 billion that the planet supports at present. Then the global population implosion, slow at first, but accelerating over time, begins. We fall back to current levels by 2082 and then shrink to under five billion by the turn of the next century.
I first took note of this around the year 2000 - when I came across the “low variant” projection and noted that the global population in 2150 could be 3 billion people, less than 50% of what it is today. From what I understand, the “low variant” revolves around whether or not birth rates will continue to fall at their current rate - and since that time, I’ve seen no indicators of a reversal of the demographic trends. In short, the “low variant” does seem to be the way things are going - though we must always keep in mind that things may change.
But, of course, things won’t change just by accident - it took a consistent effort by governments and pressure groups to bring us to this condition, and it will take a similar effort to swing things the other way. In my view, we live in a pretty wrecked world - a century or more of leftwing influences have entirely destroyed the basis for civilization; and not just our civilization, but all civilization. That we still have a semblance of civilization is akin to the way the Romans had civilization in the late 4th century - only because the final crash hadn’t happened, yet.
We’ve bought a lot of lies over the past century - that we can in the normal course of events engage in uncommitted sexual liasons; that we can in the normal course of events divorce for the most trivial of reasons; that we can in the normal course of events consume massive amounts of pornography; that we can in the normal course of events use abortion and birth control to decouple sex from its procreative aspect; that we can in the normal course of events farm out the raising of children to day care and public schools…the net result of all this lying to ourselves is what you see in front of you: random school shootings; massive illegitimacy, serial divorce when people even bother to marry…and, most devastating, the lack of willingness to produce the next generation. And, by the way, how do I plead? Guilty - I bought the lie, too.
We can rebuild our world and reclaim our civilization from the ruins - but for us to do so, it will take a conscious decision on our part to stop lying to oursleves, and to start acting like real men and real women.
Tags: demographics, population decline
March 14th, 2008
Or, at least, so some people claim. To restore American greatness and our position in the world, we need a strong dose of liberalism to make us more tolerant, just, kind and, for all I know, warm and fuzzy. But, just what hath liberalism wrought? Ask a liberal, and he’ll answer that just short of making the sun rise each morning, liberalism is responsible for all that is good in the world…freedom, science, intellectual growth, tolerance, etc, etc, etc. How about we take a look at the record?
Liberalism, from its glad morn in the 1930’s to its demise between 1980 and 1994, gave us the following:
War:
A bloody stalemate in Korea. A bloody defeat in Vietnam. 444 days of national humiliation in Iran.
Peace:
A half-century long nuclear stalemate. Cuba still under the same tyrant who ruled when Ted Kennedy’s older brother was a mere Senator from Massachusetts. A cease-fire in the Arab-Isreali war…in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1974, etc, etc, etc…
Econony:
From the world’s predominant manufacturing nation in 1945 to Chrysler looking for a bailout in 1980. From a stable currency and low interest rates to double digit inflation and interest rates. The Pittsburgh Steelers are so called because Pittsburgh used to make a lot of steel. No, really.
Social issues:
Easy access to pornography; not that anyone other than a few perverts were clamoring for this, but liberalism felt sure that what America needed is more pictures of naked people having sex. We just weren’t complete without it.
Breakdown of the family; the cure for the problems in a marriage? Divorce, naturally - ’cause no one can really be expected to keep a life long promise and, anyways, if an individual isn’t perfectly happy all the time, then the whole thing is a failure. The kids? Oh, don’t you remember - they told us that it’d be better for the kids to have divorced parents rather than parents who stayed together and worked past the rough patches.
Massive increase in illegitimate children; Once upon a time, we unfairly shamed those girls who got pregnant out of wedlock…now its much better; heck, in some places we’re even providing maternity leave for high school girls so they can have their out-of-wedlock children with the least amount of trouble. Don’t worry - we’ll pass out condoms in school, teach kids how to masturbate and for crying out loud not even mention that, hey, it might be inapproriate for young, unmarried people to have sex.
Massive increase in violent crime; we got rid of all that unfair punishment stuff starting in the 1950’s and going on through the 70’s…perfection was reached when a first-degree murderer could, at one point, expect to spend all of 6 years behind bars with good behaviour. That this turned whole sections of America’s cities over to a criminal element which held in contempt a weak-kneed approach to crime isn’t important - rich, white liberals don’t live there, ya know? That the pathologies bred by leniency towards criminal - most notably the continued existence of extraordinarily violet street gangs - continue to this day is also not important…what is important is that all that conservative reform of criminal justice must be slowly chipped away…how else will we get Mumia out of jail?
Physical decay of the cities; we have to prioritise here, and when we’re faced with either filling in potholes or funding the transgendered assistence agency, we have to take care of the far more important matters. Anyways, things like clean streets and well maintained public areas are just manifestations of middle class American bigotry against the alternative lifestyle of bums…errrr…I mean, homeless persons, sex workers and differently sober individuals…
Abortion; all those pesky children! Who needs ‘em? Having a child can entirely mess up your demonstration schedule and leave you no time for filing lawsuits against the productive members of society.
Education:
Ah, the crown jewel of liberalism - everyone can go to school! Don’t worry that they don’t learn all that much…such knowledge is too difficult for the unwashed masses. As long as they tolerate gays, know how to use a condom and can apply for welfare, what more do they need? And don’t forget college! Everyone can go, even if they aren’t qualified for it…can’t keep a Prof on 100 grand a year without a steady supply of students, now can we? Nifty for the bankers who donate to liberalism, too - they get to provide the loans which pay for the education. The only people getting it in the shorts here are the students, so no worries.
Conclusion:
Another decade or two of liberalism and we’ll have an abortion clinic at Hugh Hefner middle school…
Tags: Iraq Campaign
February 2nd, 2008
A Gallup poll released today shows that more Republicans rate their mental health as excellent than Democrats.
Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.
Read the whole thing, it is quite interesting. Especially this part:
One could be quick to assume that these differences are based on the underlying demographic and socioeconomic patterns related to party identification in America today. A recent Gallup report (see “Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health” in Related Items) reviewed these mental health data more generally, and found that men, those with higher incomes, those with higher education levels, and whites are more likely than others to report excellent mental health. Some of these patterns describe characteristics of Republicans, of course.
But an analysis of the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health within various categories of age, gender, church attendance, income, education, and other variables shows that the basic pattern persists regardless of these characteristics. In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.
The reason for this relationship is not known.
The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel).
This report seems to confirm my longheld belief that in order to vote Democrat, you have to be somewhat crazy.
Tags: Polls
November 30th, 2007
