SOURCE
CIA World Factbook, 28 July 2005
 |
|
| Home | Encyclopedia | Statistics | Countries A-Z | Flags | Maps | Education | Forum | FAQ | About |
SUBSCRIBE TO NEWS Receive our NationMaster newsletter: (Privacy) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
del.icio.us| COMMENTARY |
|
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. |
|
Art Blair 14th 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Adam (England) 21st 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. |
|
truthseeker's right, coopland's not (CA) 9th 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. |
|
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]). |
|
Sam (California) 26th 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. |
|
H. Lawrence (USA) 13th 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. |
|
Kerry (Alaska) 13th September 2007 |
What do you expect? In a country that pushes and forces mass vaccination of its poeple, 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. |
|
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! |
|
Guy Francis (Denver, Colorado) 22nd 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. |
There are 29 more (non-authoritative) comments on this page
|
Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Lesson Plans | Student Area | Student FAQ | Reviews | Press Releases |
Feeds |
Contact© Copyright NationMaster.com 2003-2009. All Rights Reserved. Usage implies agreement with terms.