Comments about ‘U.S. slips in world ranking as a great place to have a baby’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 11 2014 4:20 a.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, June 11 2014 5:09 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
SAS
Sandy, UT

The U.S. health care system produces prenatal care outcomes amid the lower ranks of developed countries.

Do we:
a) look at the world's most successful countries, and do what they do?
b) pontificate about how America is the greatest country in the world, la la la, I can't hear you....

Comments below: I'm not holding my breath.

vern001
Castle Rock, CO

This one line from the article says it all:

"A black woman in New York has a worse mortality rate than a woman in Iraq"

How can the richest country on Earth treat allow this to happen?

Ironhide
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh lookie, it's another article about how awful the US healthcare system is. I am so weary of being trashed by "numbers" that from the outset are not reflective of what is really occurring. The US treats patients that in other countries are considered "unfit" to treat, meaining they are moderate to high risk and essentially are told to go have their babies in the weeds. If they are treated and the mother and/or baby die, their death doesn't count towards these figures because they were extreme circumstances. More often than not, we get the highest risk patients from all over the globe as well as treating expectant mothers that other countries don't even let in the door. It's the same with infant mortality rates. Other countries act so smuggly about how the states can't keep babies alive but we are held to an entirely different standard. Babies that die at less than a year don't count against mortality rates in the rest of the world, but they do here. Improvements need to be made, that is for sure. But let's maintain real perspective on the context of these rankings and numbers.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "vern001" here is something you didn't consider. New York is a city full of liberals/Progressives who say they care about the poor and needy. So, why is it that with all of those bleeding heart liberals they don't have better funding for the hospitals and programs for the poor? Why is it that a poor person in SLC will get better care during childbirth than they would in NYC?

Ralph
Salt Lake City, UT

Yes, Ironside refutes those pesky "numbers" and facts, with feelings and hunches.

I totally buy into Ironside's beliefs and anecdotes as the true measure of performance of our health care system.

Facts and statistics are overrated.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Redshirt - Speaking of things not considered, please extrapolate your theory by comparing the totality of conservative states to liberal states in the US, health care, overall health of the populace, bankruptcies resulting from inability to pay medical bills, percentage of citizens covered, etc, etc.... I wonder what the results will be?

Then, please provide input back to us by comparing America's healthcare circumstances when compared to evil, socialist regions like Canada, Europe, etc.... Again, I can't wait to hear back you find.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Redshirt: Not to defend NYC. The statistics really are disgraceful. But there are some massive challenges here. Half of the people here are pretty poor. High housing costs mean the poor will never build any assets. There are a huge number of homeless, living in shelters, and uncountable undocumented immigrants, surviving as best they can in the shadows. All your runaways and kids you've kicked out of your families for one thing or another -- they're here, too, living on our streets.

NYC consists of five complete counties. It's quite conservative in parts. Meanwhile, much of those federal taxes we pay are spent elsewhere by Congress, leaving us a far lower percent of our tax money spent in our city than you get. Same is true of our state taxes. Albany uses much of that to keep upstate afloat. Even our regional transportation taxes mostly go to subsidize suburban counties. Which leaves city taxes to support all the homeless, all our infrastructure, the disgracefully overcrowded municipal hospital system and everything else.

This nation does not do right by any of its large cities.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
" So, why is it that with all of those bleeding heart liberals they don't have better funding for the hospitals and programs for the poor? "

Mississippi in particular and the south in general is home to the worst states for healthcare in this nation. As for better funding for the poor to access healthcare well... what do you think the Obamacare premium support and medicaid expansion were going towards?

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Why should I care about women issues, I am a man. Oh, on second thought I have a mother, a wife, and three daughters. Enough said

JasonStevenson
Salt Lake City, UT

@Ironside - You might want to read the actual report before you shoot from the hip.
You have it backwards.
Many of the "unfit" women and children in the U.S. don't receive adequate preventive or pre-natal care because many are uninsured. They lack the health insurance that would give them access to doctors, hospitals, and medications. Sure, you might say, they can get Medicaid or go to a hospital for free. But Utah moms lose their Medicaid two months after giving birth, and the hospital is no place to get quality or consistent care.
Also, this report is 100% clear that the infant mortality data is consistent across all the countries surveyed [Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000 live births]. Reading page 81 would tell you this 2012 data comes from the United Nations Interagency Group for Child Mortality Estimation.
Just because some facts and statistics are uncomfortable or inconvenient, doesn't mean they can be dismissed by back-of-the-envelope anecdotes or imaginings. The "weeds" you mention are a lot closer to home than you imagine.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments