Ash Coopland
9th April 2012 |
Those who claim that our poor showing is not due lack of universal health care are partly right. However, most Western countries have some form of universal access and provide it for almost half of the US cost. Other factors include the high cost of medical education and the consequently high incomes of physicians, the high incomes of " health care" executives and the fact that over 75 Percent of the world's lawyers live in the US. This last factor is very costly but, more importantly, has contributed to the widespread practice of "defensive medicine" - perhaps the major factor in our outrageously costly system
If you are going to cite more aggressive newborn care as a factor in our high rate of infant mortality, I would point out that our infant care is virtually the same as that in Canada, the UK and many other Western countries.
Take heart, though - the US leads the way in obesity and teen pregnancy! |
Mikael
30th January 2012 |
Ah, they forgot Sweden: 2,74 :)
Universal health insurance since 1955, but that has probably nothing to do with the rate. :) |
3Dee
15th October 2011 |
What abou sri lanka? |
felinar balicoco
6th July 2011 |
good day! sir/mam i am having a research on premature births. can you give me the statistics/cases of premature births in the Philippines? you response will be a great help on my thesis. thank you very much. |
Dom
6th June 2011 |
I rarely leave comments on articles, but your article encouraged me to compliment your writings. Thanks for the read, I will tweet your post and come back occasionally.
http://www.extremehealthusa.com/ |
Dawn
19th December 2010 |
John C is right, anyone with any understanding of statistics knows that one can not draw conclusions to define an entire health care system based on this list, we don't know if we are using the same definition of live birth, second in the United States we do try to keep anyones premature babies living which they may not in other countries and this will effect scores as the premature are more likely to die, also....are these countries aborting every child that shows any sign that it might have an illness? Who the heck knows. I'll stick with the United States health care system any day. If you think Cuba is better go there, but they are probably lieing to make themselves look good. North Korea can claim a low infant mortality too. |
kedir Teji
5th October 2010 |
where is Ethiopia ,I MISSED IT ,why? |
NYC mom
6th September 2010 |
Doe anyone actually knkow where the US falls in the line up? |
Luke M
29th June 2010 |
Where is the Philippines? |
Kathy
7th April 2010 |
It would be nice to show the male vs female ration is it would be easy for everyone to see that it is not women who are the weak sex but it is the MALES who are far weaker than women. Far more males die at every age and even more die before birth. In one area of cancer, so many males die before birth that the sex ration is only 1 male for every 3 girls born. This show show which gender is the superior gender |
The_Monsoon
2nd April 2010 |
To those that are comparing Cuba (or other countries) to the U.S. on infant mortality. Do some research before you just go by the numbers. The U.S. keeps very detailed records and doesn't completely follow the WHO and records births (like those weighing below a certain threshold)where as other countries do not. U.S. doctors will try to save a child that is born very premature where as other countries do not (and wouldn't even think about trying). The U.S. counts those as live births where-as other countries (like Cuba) do not. If you were to campare apples to apples the U.S. numbers would stomp those of Cuba. |
O vd Schyf
19th March 2010 |
WHY IS THE UNITED STATES NOT ON THE LIST???? |
henrik
17th March 2010 |
In 2002, a total of 28,034 deaths of children under one year old occurred in the United States, according to the National Vital Statistics Reports. The infant mortality rate was 7.0 infant deaths per 1000 live births, up from 6.8 per 1000 in 2001.
Deaths of infants aged zero to 27 days increased by 4.4 percent from 2001 to 2002. The postneonatal mortality rate (deaths to infants aged 28 days to one year per 1000 live births) remained constant at 2.3.
The 10 leading causes of infant death were: 1) congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities; 2) disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight; 3) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS); 4) maternal complications; 5) complications of placenta, cord and membranes; 6) unintentional injuries; 7) respiratory distress of newborn; 8) bacterial sepsis of newborn; 9) diseases of the circulatory system; 10) intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia.
These 10 causes accounted for 68.4 percent of all infant death in the U.S. There were significant increases in deaths attributed to low birth rate (5.3 percent) and maternal complications (14.2) percent. |
Joan
8th March 2010 |
Here is the link to the CIA factbook list, where it can be seen that The USA is 45th from the bottom/best, and Cuba's mortality rate is lower/better than ours. This is because the USA does not have universal health care.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html |
Bob Foller
6th March 2010 |
Why is the United States not on this list? I think it is considered a country too. |
Savannah
6th March 2010 |
where is the UNITED STATES????? |
Mellisa Sue
4th February 2010 |
I wonder why the United States is not on this list. Where would it rank |
Joan
23rd January 2010 |
the UK isn't there!!! |
Pauline Havelock
23rd January 2010 |
How does the US compare with Cuba? Also what is Canada's rate |
noshots4me
1st January 2010 |
The US infant mortality rate is a disgrace. But look at our vaccination schedule and then compare it to the countries with the lowest rates. They give far less vaccines, start later, and many don't do them at birth. Japan doesn't even do Hep B. And by the way, the plague disappeared WITHOUT ANY VACCINATIONS. It was called access to antibiotics and better sanitation/nutrition. Same with Scarlet Fever and Typhoid. Vaccines are not responsible for the decline of disease but are responsible for high infant mortality rates. |
Kaddi
9th October 2009 |
I understand what is being expressed here but i would just like to what are the consequences of having a high infant mortality rate in a country. |
Bobby (physician in Alabama)
7th September 2009 |
It is very important to realize that these statistics are "apples and oranges." The Definition of infant mortality varies by Countries and even States. The U. S. criteria is the most stringent in the world we count fetal death as low as 20 weeks gestation and over 350 grams if gestation is not known. Infants are not viable(able to live outside the womb) at this point! If we adjust our rate to 28 weeks or greater. Our rate is 3.1/1000. We also have more multiple gestations which increases the risk of fetal death. We also have more pregnancies at advanced maternal age and with fertility treatments. This increases mortality. Cocaine use also increases mortality.
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[7]
Historically, until the 1990s Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least 7 days.[8] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[9] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[10]
Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[11]
Another seemingly paradoxical finding is that when countries with poor medical services introduce new medical centers and services, instead of declining the reported IMRs often increase for a time. The main cause of this is that improvement in access to medical care is often accompanied by improvement in the registration of births and deaths. Deaths that might have occurred in a remote or rural area and not been reported to the government might now be reported by the new medical personnel or facilities. Thus, even if the new health services reduce the actual IMR, the reported IMR may increase. |
Steve C
31st August 2009 |
Interesting; the US ranks #148 and yet all those countries that rank ahead of us with "nightmarish" socialistic health care must be doing something right. |
Barbara Broome
23rd August 2009 |
What is considered a "live birth"? I understand that some countries wait 24 hours after birth or birth weight greater than 1.1 pounds (500 grams) before making that determination. |
carmen ceder
15th August 2009 |
Where is Sweden?? |
John C
10th August 2009 |
Ian Graham wrote below that neonatal deaths increased from 2001 to 2002 but the postneonatal death remained constant at 2.3.
It seems to me that one reason the infant mortality rate for the US is higher than one would expect is that the birth technology in place results in a larger number of critical live births that previously would have resulted in a stillbirth. A percentage of these new critical live births do not survive, thus increasing the infant mortality rate.
Is this reasonable? |
Linda Gomila
3rd August 2009 |
I did a little research...an interesting fact is that...much of the infant mortality rate in the United States, comes from the age group 15-20 year olds.
Children, who have accidentally gotten pregnant, some who want to conceal it as long as possible, and some who do whatever
necessary to rid themselves of this burden.
These youngsters are not taught to care for themselves during their pregnancy, and they have little talent or desire to care properly for their newborns.
They, I am sure, all have access to healthcare, but few,understand how important it is to take advantage of it. |
Dale Sherman
28th July 2009 |
The U.S. has 6.3 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Abortions are not part of the equation. That puts the U.S. at 148-1/2. |
Averroes
25th July 2009 |
I am surprised to see that the USA is not among the list. What is the reason for this? |
Bruce Dixon
8th July 2009 |
Kerry in Alaska is very ignorant of the facts surrounding preventive health care. It's precisely because our system focuses on treatment rather than prevention that we are behind Canada and most European countries with regard to infant mortality and longevity. Childhood vaccines PREVENT disease. When they are stopped - as many parents are doing - disease spreads and more children get sick. |
Steve
1st July 2009 |
Why no US stat? I heard the US counts death before delivery in its infant mortality which would artifically increase the stat. Do they count abortions too? |
Brett E.
29th June 2009 |
I don't see why the United States is missing. It isn't missing from the CIA World Factbook. This should be updated. Anyone know how to go about getting that done? |
Exploitation Moneynation
15th May 2009 |
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very impressed with all your comments. I hope not to burst your intellectual bubbles(or hurt anyone's feelings), but, alas, it is all about MONEY. I see many Brits have some rather snappy comments about us Yanks (if, of coarse, they are whom they claim). England is a very old country, whereas USA is still rather new. USA is a nation and culture based on capitalism. Unfortunetly, human life is also a money-making resource. It is written, "the love of money is the root of all evil". From cradle to grave, it is a grim existance how humans reap off each other. |
Betty Edwards
19th April 2009 |
Where is the United States of America in this ranking ? I must have missed it. |
m (canada)
29th March 2009 |
apart from health care, the American and Canadian infant mortality rates are due to the definition of infant mortality. It is difficult to compare countries because each has different definitions. In Canada and the US all infant moralities are reported while this is not necessarily the case in all other countries |
Art (United States)
29th March 2009 |
If you want to know the truth, Google the article "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care" by David Gratzer. I did research on Canadian Healthcare back when the Clinton administration was trying to cram through legislation. I came across many stories about Canadians coming to the United states for dialysis, open-heart surgery, chemotherapy treatment etc. I will confirm that my research led to a host of stories similar to the ones Dr Gratzer mentions above. Overcrowded ERs, unapproved treatments for cancer that are now standard in the U.S. , waiting lists in periods of months to years for "critical" surgery is what you can expect. Sure, if you are healthy most of your life, universal health care is great....but I hope you dont have a chronic ailment or need emergency open heart surgery. You may never receive it. |
Stacey (Arkansas)
29th January 2009 |
For those that think America's health care stinks. Why do they come here? And as far as the UK having excellent health care. Look up an article about a gentleman refused an ankle surgery because he smokes too much. Socialized health care will take away the patient's right to choose. He or she would then be told by the government. "You are a health risk, if you wish to be treated for this you need to eat healthier, quit smoking, or etc." And they won't treat you until you comply. Think of how hearts and livers need to be rationed out. They decide who is the most worthy to receive the organ because of the limited amount they have donated. Health care will become the same way. Every country, if you truly look that has socialized health care is bankrupt. If you think Cuba's health care is so great, go live there awhile. Or England. Talk to someone from those places that moved here for a better quality of life. If you want socialism, please move, it is not what America is. Move to a country that wants you. Because we sure don't. |
?? (hello)
1st December 2008 |
Why is the United States not on this list? I looked it up on the nation's health page and its at 6.37, right under the Faroe Islands... but it's not there anymore and only 179 countries are listed. |
Clarissa (Canada)
1st November 2008 |
The posters who think that doctors are co-related with higher infant mortality rates are living in some kind of First World hippie dreamland. The "medicalization" of childbirth led to the drastic drops in infant mortality in the West over the past 100 or so years. (And by the way, do you what used to happen before C-sections when a baby became trapped in the birth canal? The doctor would have to dismember the baby to save the mother. The countries with the highest infant mortality rates are Third World countries in which women normally don't have doctors in attendence when their babies are born. But some spoilt Western women take the advantages of Western medical care so much for granted that they cannot even connect the advantages with the medical care. |
Malcolm (England)
26th June 2008 |
Art Blair, you are yet another loudmouth right-wing Yank that knows nothing. Our healthcare if absolutely fine thank you very much. So good that even the many people who can afford private health care (such as myself) choose the NHS instead. Where are we on that list? I can't see us on there, can you? Face it, you Americans are dead opposed to the idea of people being treated for the sake of need and not cash and that's why you are the laughing stock of the whole advanced world where state-run healthcare is celebrated. |
Sanjay Das (Leeds, UK)
15th April 2008 |
Come on, people. Yes - the figures aren't great. But this isn't a simple question. Researchers are dedicating their whole lives to these questions - lets not jump immediately to a private vs public argument! |
Keith Barnett (Cardiff)
21st February 2008 |
Having spent seven years living in North America, I find that though I have many wonderful friends there, they confuse passion for their country with denial that other societies have at least some seriously beneficial qualities over the USA. In fact, loving the US as I do, I find that this approach of self-delusion does not help to generate real advances where they are needed. Sure, the USA is more advanced than most nations in many areas but in health care, child mortality rates, poverty and education, the country does lag very much behind a large number of countries, particularly Europe and Canada. In fact, Cuba has a better record by far per capita on infant mortality, health care and education and no-one lives in the squalid tenements so common in Detroit, New York and Chicago. So, whether we like it or not, it's not a lot of use Americans believing their own media hype in thinking that the USA is the very best country in the world..it's not..and that's just arrogant self-delusion. |
Maddison (Canada)
3rd February 2008 |
I love my country! They used to say that it was the perfect country. Not to brag or anything but you have to admit, people would love to live in Canada if they were living in Africa or somthing. |
Guy Francis (Denver, Colorado)
21st January 2008 |
I would like to ask the gentleman who referred to "crummy healthcare in the UK" whether he has ever received treatment in the UK? I have and I would not describe it as crummy. Furthermore, everyone has access to it and the statistics on this website suggest that the health of the UK population is at least as good as that of the US. In addition, the UK spends substantially less on healthcare both per capita and as a percentage of the GDP. Finally, the UK is just one of many countries in the world whose healthcare is more equitable and at least as effective in treatment outcomes to that of the US. I would not necessarily recommend adopting the UK system, but the evidence suggests that the US could do better. |
Kasey (Kansas)
26th December 2007 |
The answer is pretty simple actually...partially it is the intervention in the birth process. C-sections, pitocin, epidurals all have a drastic influence on the babies who die shortly after birth as does the lack of breastfeeding. The most substantial cause is VACCINATIONS. If people would spend just a third of the time researching what goes into their kids as what kind of car or tv to buy, they would be astonished. Be mindful of where the information comes from since obviously the billion dollar vaccine industry has a bit of literature out there, look for the independant studies. In 1975 Japan was ranked 17th and after there were 37 crib deaths (SIDS) determined to be vaccine related they banned vaccinations prior to the age of 2...for 13 years there SIDS rate was nearly non-existant and they shot to #1 with the fewest infant deaths in the first year of life. Sometime during the 90's they reworded the law allowing parents to vaccinate as early as 3mo. (but not requiring them to) and in the years since that change, their SIDS rate had quadrupled. Of course it's all the US Pharmaceutical companies making the vaccinations, so the US would never pass such a law. Do your homework people...doctors only know what they learn in med school and I know you will be shocked to learn the med schools are funded by, guess who? Gee, the Pharmaceutical companies!!! One more interesting stat...less than 2% of the people that workdirectly in the production of vaccines, vaccinate their own kids...don't believe me...good, RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF! |
Jacky (USA)
17th December 2007 |
Well, problem is that we haven't updated how we gather such information. Its like our un-employment, that needs to be updated also. It shows percentage way below the actual unemployment rate.
I have been not working for over six month i am looking for a job currently. I count as US workforce, but I do not count as unemployed because i have worked in the past year and i am looking for a job.
**How do i count as employed?!
Like the poster above stated, don't just believe in the figures given. Actually study how such figure is derived and you will learn that America is quite bad in many areas. |
D. Stahl (USA (Oregon))
12th December 2007 |
In point of fact, the WHO rates US health care 37th in the world. The USA does not have "the best health care in the world" by a very long shot. Morocco has better overall health care than the USA. There's a reason: the health care industries spent a record $798 million lobbying Congress since 1998; the combined health care lobbies gave $100 million to re-elect George Bush in 2004. Lawmakers are bought and paid for, and the result: those able to afford to pay private providers and insurers exorbitant sums receive excellent health care. The non-wealthy get very poor care or none at all. A poor country with a good, fair national health program ends up caring for its people better than the wealthy USA. |
Joe (Hawaii)
5th December 2007 |
Newsflash G-Grip. At 6.4 America would actually be worse off then the CIA pointed out (see Chris Deile's comment). So by actually not posting America's data they were helping not hurting. We need a NHI program end of story! Hawaii took the first step in 1974 when we demanded that employers pay at least half of the premium. This lowered overall cost leading to a 95% insured in Hawaii, well about the national average of about 86%. Still though, NHI would lower costs for everyone. Let's all take care of each other! |
IAN (BAGUIO CITY)
17th September 2007 |
WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF INFANT MORTALITY RATE IN THE PHILIPPINES |
Kerry (Alaska)
13th September 2007 |
What do you expect? In a country that pushes and forces mass vaccination of its people, you get just that, herd vaccination.
It is this flawed perception that is the underlying reason for such a high mortality rate. Wake up all of you cattle. |
Kerry (Alaska)
13th September 2007 |
What do you expect? A nation that pushes forced vaccination and mandatory compliance, all in the name of perceiced health, you can see why we have such a high mortality rate.
If you can not see that the underlying cause of poor health is listening to those people who claim it is all in the name of your health that you must be protected? Whos life is it anyway? |
H. Lawrence (USA)
12th August 2007 |
It's important to keep in mind that different countries have different criteria to classify a birth as "live". For example, some countries don't count babies born before 26 weeks and other countries have a weight cut-off. The US on the other hand counts all births where the baby shows any sign of life. Clearly this can have a significant impact on the figures. |
DWPittelli (Massachusetts)
24th July 2007 |
It is a fact that very low birth weight (VLBW) children which in the US are counted as live births, and often deaths, are not counted in other countries except for Canada and the Scandinavian countries. This skews the other nations' mortality figures downward.
The US also leads industrialized nations in obesity, illegal drug use, and lawsuits, among other negative social factors, as well as fertility treatments which increase the rates of dangerous multiple and low-weight births. These differences may or may not reflect badly on various aspects of US culture, including capitalism more broadly, but they have little to do with its method of funding health care, excepting that countries with socialized medicine do not allow fertility treatments for many couples who could get them in the US, and do not allow the sorts of malpractice awards routinely seen in the US (i.e., the US could change both of these latter factors without adopting socialized medicine).
Finally, a substantial portion of the cost differential between the US and rest of the world reflects parasitic free-riding from other countries on US technology, notably pharmaceuticals. Drugs have high fixed costs and low manufacturing costs, and so the US drug companies can tolerate the fact that other countries force them to sell their drugs cheaply overseas, but that does not mean we would not all suffer if the US undertook similar measures. |
Devin Stephens (Georgia, USA)
5th July 2007 |
I see a lot of people just screaming out statistics that they probably found out just looking on the internet for something to prove their point. I'm not sure if anyone here works in the health care industry, but I do. There's a factor that people don't pay attention to when evaluating a country's health-care system, and that's the damage the population does to itself. I see a guy who comes in complaining of heart arrythmia, then get discharged and goes to smoke a cigarette. I see people complaining of all sorts of pain, and they are so unbelievably obese that they can't even walk without support from 2 full grown men. I'm sorry, but if someone gets treated in the hospital and then walks outside giving themselves the proverbial "shot in the foot" then you can't blame the healthcare system for someone else's irresponsibility. Let's accept the fact that not everyone who becomes a statistic was one of those poor souls who just tried so hard but life gave them a bad hand, and admit that there is a terrible problem with people damaging themselves. And Doctors can't force you to change your habits. Also, "Sicko" is pretty much the biggest sham of all time. Moore himself even says some of the stuff he mentioned was wrong or misleading. If you believe that movie without doing any of your own research, those of us who actually work in the American Health-care system will just keep laughing at you and saving your life. |
joseph xuereb (malta)
24th June 2007 |
i think the idea of country versus country in health is sad.at the end of the day it is the patients who suffer and when they are denied certain drugs then humanity loses out and every country has a big problem,including france who like to paint their system as the best in the world,which it may be the case,has big problems.a child is a child and one death is sad so i think we,as people should come together and help eachother out. |
Norwood School (Bethesda Maryland)
15th March 2007 |
why is there not a turkey growth rate? |
Sam (California)
25th February 2007 |
Amazing that the chart doesn't include the USA. If any statistic is reflective of quality of life in a country it is infant mortality. |
Ben (Chicago)
9th January 2007 |
Truthseeker's Right is right on. This statistic is misleading. The U.S. is the leader in percentage of pregnancies carried to term. Just look at the leading causes of infant deaths ((1) congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities; 2) disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight). This isn't the result of a BAD healthcare system, but rather a GOOD healthcare system. I realize our system has major flaws, but the infant mortality rate is not one of them. |
Chris Deile (California)
25th November 2006 |
U.S. infant mortality rate: 42nd (according to CIA World Factbook as cited by Nicholas kristoff in his NY Times editorial of 1/12/05). Also. U.S. is first in amount of healthcare spending per person, yet 37th in healthcare performance (World Health Organization [France: 8th spending; 1st performance]). |
truthseeker's right, coopland's not (CA)
8th November 2006 |
Dr. Coopland, this is not a health system issue. In the US neonatologists routinely try to save 26, 25, and even 24 or 23 gestational age infants. Up to 50% of them die, which looks bad for our statistics, but in most other countries these infants never take a breath so they're not counted in the statistics even though 100% of them die. |
Ingrid Bagge Wiebke (IN)
23rd October 2006 |
I have lived most of my life in Sweden and it makes me upset to see that people in the worlds wealthiest country cannot provid heralth care for everybody. At least 40 million people in the U.S has no health insurance. I can not believe all mothers who does not get prenatal care in this country. We could prevent children from dying and make the mothers and babies helthier. The overall preventive care is another issue. All people that does not get preventive care end up in the emergency rooms and that is very expensive - and we taxpayers pay for it. Then is not all the suffering considered. When I meet a person in his 40s without hardly any teeth left in his/her mouth it is hard for me to appreciate the dental care I have acces too. In Sweden all health care is universal, and I have given birth in Sweden to two babies and it was wonderful! I could stay as long as I wanted. They doctors in Sweden are more restrictive with c-sections for two reasons: It´s healthier for the baby to be born the natural way and it´s costs less. I have tried both kinds and I prefer the natural way. The US needs better organized health care in order to cut costs. The doctors earn a lot o f money too. This unfare haelth system is a reason for me not to feel content by living here. This country will never score the highest points on health if we continue to have this private confusing health system! |
Adam (England)
20th June 2006 |
IF America is so advanced how come you still rely on the oldest and least advanced punishment system 'Capital Punishment' to deal with your criminals. Quite frankly im amazed there are any Americans left. |
Touche (USA)
14th June 2006 |
Soviets also said scientists were lying about their ststs. Actually, infant mortality, or rather the increase in infant mortality over the years, was actually identified as a decay in the system decades before USSR fell apart. |
G-Grip (USA)
10th June 2006 |
The US has a 6.4 infant mortality rate for 2005. It's ironic how nation master removes certain stats due to it being an anti-american biased website. |
Quester Jones (England)
1st June 2006 |
I have noticed an interesting fact in regards to the high infant mortality rate in the USA. The USA also has the highest level of obesity in the world. I belive all the fat yanks are eating their own infants. This would explain the two correlating facts. Obviously this is between shooting each other and murdering their prisoners. I believe this is called capital punishment. |
Ash Coopland MD (MA)
4th May 2006 |
A lot of the "posters" know very little of which they speak. The US spends about $4500 per capita on healthcare, while Canada spends about $2200 and the UK $1750. Yet the US ranks about 40th in infant mortality, while the UK and Canada are in the top ten. Further, 44 million people have no health insurance. They get their care in emergency rooms. Not only does this over tax the ERs but the "routine" patients get fragmented care and no follow-up. As for preventive care, forget it! The high IMR is not due to accidents or immigration; it's due to lack of prenatal care, for the most part.
Just consider the savings that could be achieved with a single payer system. No competition, no marketing, only one set of bills each month, etc. No health care system is perfect but all the other (cheaper) ones gat far better results than we do. |
TruthSeeker (Michigan)
20th April 2006 |
I have heard that different countries gather statistics differently and it makes the numbers hard to compare. For example, a 25 week-old preemie would die immediately in many places and thus would not be considered a "live birth". In the US, the neonative ICUs would keep the child alive for long enough that its eventual death would be considered a child dying rather than a failed birth. Fetuses with Downs Syndrome and other diseases may be aborted more regularly in other countries as well. Also, when the health care system is run by closed governments, they simply lie about the statistics. And finally, you should compare the rates amongst mothers of the same age and race. Having children over 40 is becoming very popular in the US and it is definitely more dangerous for the mother and child. |
Ted
7th February 2006 |
I'm not sure what Dennis is referring to. The United States has a very low infant mortality rate -- compared to Africa! But about 30 countries have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. does. Most of these 30 countries have universal health care. |
Dennis
21st January 2006 |
The USA has a very low infant mortality rate because of their superior health care system. Countries with universal health care have the worst infant mortality rates. See chart above. |
khalid jalil
24th November 2005 |
rich nations should donate 2 poorer countries for lower rate. |
Gillian
13th November 2005 |
The infant mortality rates for the US aren't included in the stats here - not sure why not. But you will find them among the stats for the CIA's World Factbook... they are not much to be proud of when compared with those of other OECD countries |
Bradley
23rd October 2005 |
I can't even find the USA listed for infant mortality rates on this page. |
Benedict from HongKong
13th October 2005 |
USA spends by far the most in healthcare, and has one of the shortest life expectancy and one of the highest infant mortality rate among the developed economy. One main reason - The rich people are over consuming (consuming many services which were not necessary) and the poor were under consuming (not consuming the health services even if they are very cost-effective) |
Lydia Loehr
11th September 2005 |
To all Americans who believe blindly that you have a wonderful health care system. I am English, I moved to America when I was 18. I am a licensed social worker with a bachelors degree; I work in child and family services. I have lived under both systems and so I believe I am qualified to say that I have never seen so much human suffering in my life, as I have in America. Even worse I have never met so many people who are indifferent to the suffering of their countrymen. The people I see every day who suffer the worst are the statistical majority, the working poor. People who work full time in miserable minimum wage jobs that have few if any benefits. Yes 85% of the American population has health insurance of some sort. However lets think about that, what if you are unlucky? I am a respectable middle class person who has had to pay $40, 000 in the last 5 years ABOVE my family's health insurance premiums in medical bills. I have managed to pay all my debts and prevent the hospitals sending me to collections. There is a large segment of the American poulation that have little education and few resources. They are unable to weather such storms. The number 1 cause of bankruptcy in Kansas is medical debt. |
Marcia
22nd July 2005 |
One of the main things which improves infant mortality is where women seek care from midwives rather than obstetricians. Midwives are more focused on aspects such as diet, often give women far more time and education and, on the whole, are less keen to intervene uneccesarily than obstetricians. |
Sara
15th July 2005 |
The reason for the high mortality rate in the USA is their overusing internentions and inductions in birth. Usa health care isn't the best in the world. they depend on medicines and procedures. American nation isn't a healthy nation. More info about the dangers of medicalized birth: http://www.birthlove.com/complimentary.html |
Sandra
4th July 2005 |
Train doctors under midwives first, wherein they learn to understand and respect physiological childbirth. Place all healthy mothers and babies under midwives care...and the U.S.A. will begin to reduce injury and death occurring among that population, save a kaboodle of money and direct it to social, educational and physical support for the at risk population.
Look to the Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative & The Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth for evidence-based care recommendations. Look at World Health Organizations recommendations to demedicalize care for lowrisk mothers, placing them outside of hospital and under midwives care for best outcome.
check out the top 5 reasons for U.S. hospital admission (http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/charts/5admiss.htm) and dovetail what you learn with the data on medical mistakes (http://www.mercola.com/1999/dec/5/medical_mistakes.html).
We had a surgical delivery rate of one out of every 4 mothers- now we face closing in on one out of every three. MERCY ! how can this be justified ?
check out the recently published study: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1416?ehom
The bottom line is, legislators and policy makers should pay attention to the fact that this study supports the American Public Health Association resolution to increase out of hospital births done by direct entry midwives (http://www.collegeofmidwives.org/prac_issues01/APHA_RecMfry01.htm).
There is a lot to learn- to gain back normalacy in childbirth. The present scare tactics of our society are quite harmful to mother and child and we are paying quite a price. |
Chris Deile
25th June 2005 |
According to literature dispersed at a (Ohio Congressman) Dennis Kucinich gathering, "of all industralized countries, the U.S. ranks 20th in infant mortality, 21st in child mortality, and 17th in life expectancy". (Sources listed are UNICEF, U.S. Dept. of Health, World Health Organization) |
Alex Priest
12th June 2005 |
In response to Art Blair, you are well out of order sonny. I live in the U.K. and happen to know the health care here is second to none. I have had nephrotic syndrome since birth and have been treated with excellent health care, FREE of charge, try getting that in the U.S. |
Geoffrey Wolf
5th June 2005 |
Responding to Yasemin: how to prevent infant mortality?
Preventing many of the causes listed above falls to prenatal care.
Also, public health in the USA is decaying. Public health is the preventative side of health care. In many of the countries with lower infant mortality there is more emphasis on prevention through access to care, education, sanitation, birth control and more. |
Sophie
1st June 2005 |
Why isn't there just a normal birth rate? |
Yasemin İlhan
27th May 2005 |
I want to know what are the ways to prevent infant mortality, if it's possible. |
Andy
9th May 2005 |
China's infant mortality rate has fallen to about 33 per 1,000 and is expected to continue decreasing in the future, health experts at the 23rd International Congress of Pediatrics said recently, according to China Daily. In some large cities, such as Beijing and Shanghai, the infant mortality rate has dropped to 5.05 per 1,000, a rate mirrored in some of the most medically advanced countries. |
SOmeonme
27th April 2005 |
I would also like to know what causes such high infant mortality rates. |
Lilian Abel
10th April 2005 |
What causes such a high infant mortality rate in Tanzania? |
Pat Ridley
5th April 2005 |
People are very quick to criticize the health service in the U.K. My husband suffered from leg ulcers for two years before his death. His doctor made a house call every week for that two years to change his dressings. Try paying for that under the U.S. system! And, as with any chronically ill person in the U.K., the medication was bought at minimal cost. |
Calaminidgus
14th March 2005 |
Are abortion figures included in figures for infant mortality? |
Carolyn
22nd February 2005 |
The United States is so 'advanced' that we have all the latest drugs to help improve our children, when in fact, we are hurting them at the same time. The rate of cesarean's has risen in the US more than anywhere else. If you notice, those countries that have such a high rate of survival are those same countries that still let birth be a natural process. |
Nick
20th February 2005 |
It's not that only the wealthy can receive health care in the U.S., 85 percent of the population has health insurance of some sort. But our relatively high infant mortality rate relative to per capita income is due to the fact that that 15-25 (un and under insured) are largely priced out of the primary care market. They let things go until they are emergency situations -- that's when kids die. With regards to Art's comment, "Socialized medicine," as he calls it, may cause other problems (or may not), but one place where it does help -- a lot -- is in preventing infant mortality. It's no accident that European countries are at the top of this list. |
ashley
17th February 2005 |
what is the number one cause of infant death? |
Adam Coddington
16th February 2005 |
Refuting Mr Art Blair, if you were to look at the statistics the "crummy health care system" of the UK would be much preferred to the current state of the US system. They are quite a bit ahead of us in nearly every index. We are, in fact, one of the worst OECD countries on infant mortality. We are 21 out of 30 in life expectancy of OECD countries (the UK is 17), and we spend MORE on our health care ($4631 per capita) versus the UK with $1764 per capita. If we have such a great health care system in the US, I would like an explanation as to how we can spend such tremendous amounts of money on health care and yet never are we able to compete in price, nor efficiency with a country having Universal Health care. |
Art Blair
13th February 2005 |
Boloney. We're 184th out of 224. You call that high? We have a great health care system. The best in the world. I'm not rich and I have access. Most everyone I know has access or could but don't bother. Our infant mortality rate is driven by our high accidental death rate and our immigration stats. Socialized medicine is not going to help. It would likely make things worse given the crummy health care you get in places like UK. |
Neala Schleuning
29th January 2005 |
Our rate is high because we have a very poor health care system. Only the wealthy can receive health care. Countries with low infant mortality rates generally have a universal health care system of some sort. |
Donna Wilberding
18th January 2005 |
I was apalled at our placement! Could you give me the causes and reasons for the high rate in the US? |
Diego Ramirez
13th January 2005 |
Do you know that Infant Mortality rate is very high in United States? |
Feeds |
Contact