Health care reform supporters: Read this

Post Reply New Topic

Even taking into account a 10% difference in this specific ethnic group, you are still left with the reality that this differential will not account for the 25% difference in infant and early childhood mortality.

Further, your comparative analysis is not normalized to take into account access to health care. Since all Canadian women have access to pre-natal care, and all Canadian infants have access to neonatal and paediatric care, you need to normalize your analysis of black and caucasian data to account for the higher level of access that exists in the latter population. Otherwise, you may simply be making my point for me. Black are excluded from health care to a greater degree than caucasians, and therefore have a higher infant mortality rate.

Finally, if you are going to break down statistics into racial categories you cannot limit yourself to one chosen race. You need to look to Asian, South Asian and Aboriginal populations as well.

I'll repeat this that I saw somewhere about mortality rate measurements:



There is as far as I've seen full access to health care, all you have to do is go get it - all over hospitals there are signs saying, in 2 or 3 languages that it is illegal to turn away pregnant women if they have no insurance.

If you are low income, or no income, all you have to do is go to your local social services office and sign up for Medecaid.
I've done that 10 years ago.
My daughter in law has done that.

Now, acces to health care, and getting health care are two different things: while there were plenty of general practicioners in Kansas City who took Medecaid, there was only one Orthopedic specialist who took Medecaid, the others didn't want to f**k around with the government.
My wife never did get in to see him in 3 years.

Could make as many trips to the ER as she wanted, but get her knee fixed, fat chance.


I think, not 100% certain, but think, a while back there was a regulation that if a Doctor's office took Medecaid, they could not take paying patients as well. My mother was office manager for some chest and cancer consultants during that time. Again, I think I have that correct but wouldn't bet my wife on it.
Would bet my daughter in law though, and hope I lose.




How are blacks excluded, you ever been to Truman West in Kansas City?
Us white boys are outnumbered 3:1
(that's the only place I comment because that's the only place I have first hand knowledge of, and ocer a decade's worth of it)

Hospitals do not generally provide prenatal care. Sure if a pregnant woman shows up at the ER with a signaificant medical issue (bleeding, seizure, labor, etc.) she will be treated, but the issue should be prevented by regular prenatal care and monitoring. It is also important to recognize that just because a hospital will treat you accute symptoms, the underlying problem often remains without regular care. Many also avoid or refuse treatment because of the fear of the bill. The hospital always sends out the bill, and in many if not all states, you are responsible and can literally lose your house over it.

It is true that the very poor are eligible for Medicaid and have the responsibility to sign up, but it's changed a lot in the past 10 years. To my knowledge, there are extensive waiting periods and proof of eligibility requirements making it somewhat prohibitive for some people. Also, the gap between those who qualify for Medicaid and those who can afford private insurance has grown substantially (hence the rediculous amount of uninsured people), not to mention pre-existing conditions which can and often do include pregnancy, obesity, hypertension, migraines, and even acne.

Our current status is unacceptable, regardless of the statistics from other countries, including those about race.

Well that serves to reinforce my point--the more universal the access in the US, the more that the infant and early childhood mortality numbers become an indictment of the US health care system.