Infant Deaths

Troglodyte27 said:
I doubt your conclusion in the third paragraph.
Click to expand...
How do you figure? Seriously: you know I respect you as a conservative of both integrity and intelligence. No, AHZ, that's not an oxymoron. Almost, but not quite ;)

Our federal spending per child is, while obscured for political purposes by politicians of all parties, clearly less than that of almost any European democracy. One can dispute the efficacy of such spending but I don't see how we can quibble with the amount. And that spending is, I submit, at least a rough guide to the level of importance we ascribe to the matter.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
How do you figure? Seriously: you know I respect you as a conservative of both integrity and intelligence. No, AHZ, that's not an oxymoron. Almost, but not quite ;)

Our federal spending per child is, while obscured for political purposes by politicians of all parties, clearly less than that of almost any European democracy. One can dispute the efficacy of such spending but I don't see how we can quibble with the amount. And that spending is, I submit, at least a rough guide to the level of importance we ascribe to the matter.
Click to expand...
If we compare total spending, then we need to include the spending that comes from private insurance as well as Federal sources. Yes, if we compare "State" spending on a per capita basis to socialized medicine, we will "fall short."
 
Darla said:
The same week that religious fanatics gained the right to make medical decisions for women in the United States of America, also brought us this news.

Now, if I were a cynical person, who sneered at the "sanctity of life" claims of religious fanatics, I might question why their loud mouths weren't down in Mississippi trying to save the lives of those outside of the womb. I might question why so many of them vote for the party responsible for these cutbacks. I might question a lot of things, including the role of race.

But since I'm not cynical and I take religious fanatics at their word, I eagerly await the massive campaigns they are going to mount to combat the tragic results in the below article. Eagerly, I await it! In fact, I'll stay inside this week, so I don't get run over by the stampede!

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
By ERIK ECKHOLM
HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers, some of whom tip the scales here at 300 to 400 pounds.

“I don’t think the rise is a fluke, and it’s a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast,” said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005.

Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average.

Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.)

The overall jump in Mississippi meant that 65 more babies died in 2005 than in the previous year, for a total of 481.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/h...gin&adxnnlx=1177255561-7OS7Yn5XRWJDfFBnvq8WqA
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that anyone interested in this discussion read the entire article at the given link.
 
Ornot is right.

Judging from the friends I've had from Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands, parents there get universal subsidized day care, much, much longer paid maternity leave, universal pre-natal healthcare, and much more vacation time (read: more time to spend with the kids)

In short, those countries are more family friendly, to a large extent.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
I'd suggest that anyone interested in this discussion read the entire article at the given link.
Click to expand...


What is it that has caught your eye? There is behavior in there that is inexplicable to me too. But what are the causes? Poverty and lack of education are big ones. This kind of poverty shouldn't exist in this country today. Why does it? Why have we failed here? There is a correlation between medicaid spending and poverty and infant mortality.

I don't know why a 20 year old who has three kids she can't support, is having another baby either. The fact remains that if religious zealots were truly worried about life, then every life would be precious to them. I don't think it is. I dont know what gives me that idea. Maybe it's the fact that by and large, they're war-mongers? Or that by and large they vote for a party that chips away at the social safety net?
 
Troglodyte27 said:
If we compare total spending, then we need to include the spending that comes from private insurance as well as Federal sources. Yes, if we compare "State" spending on a per capita basis to socialized medicine, we will "fall short."
Click to expand...

These are the poorest among us Trog. They don't have private insurance, and the states are feeling the federal cuts in their social programs.
 
I don't know why a 20 year old who has three kids she can't support, is having another baby either. The fact remains that if religious zealots were truly worried about life, then every life would be precious to them.

If religious theocrats were truly worried about out of wedlock pregnancies, they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against contraception, like plan B. They fought against Plan B like it was the end of the world.

And they would support some sort of system, of universal healthcare, so young women could have easy access to contraceptions and other forms of women's healthcare.
 
If the south is such a terrible place to raise kids why is it people are fleeing Liberal Northeastern states and moving to southern Conservative ones?
Infant mortality rate only includes death (ok obviously) but it does not include children damaged for life like crack babies which are far more prevelant in Liberal Democrat run inner cities.
 
ProfDanoVonManough said:
If the south is such a terrible place to raise kids why is it people are fleeing Liberal Northeastern states and moving to southern Conservative ones?
Infant mortality rate only includes death (ok obviously) but it does not include children damaged for life like crack babies which are far more prevelant in Liberal Democrat run inner cities.
Click to expand...

Who said the south is a terrible place to raise children? Mississippi is the poorest state in the Nation. This is about poverty and its effects, not whether or not the south is a good place to raise children.

Some people move from the Northeast to more southern states because of cost of living. They bring their values with them. How long these stay conservative states, remains to be seen. Virginia, for instance, is considered a purple state these days, and you may see it go Democratic for the Presidential race in 08. However, they aren't moving to MS, so you can count the poorest state in the nation safely red. If that's any consolation.
 
Darla said:
Some people move from the Northeast to more southern states because of cost of living. They bring their values with them. How long these stay conservative states, remains to be seen. Virginia, for instance, is considered a purple state these days, and you may see it go Democratic for the Presidential race in 08. However, they aren't moving to MS, so you can count the poorest state in the nation safely red. If that's any consolation.
Click to expand...

The bolded part of your post scares the crap out of me. I know I'll be dead and gone before there is no conservativism but my kids will have to live in such a world, even here in conservative Oklahoma. I think you are absolutely right in what you say and I hate that Dano celebrates the fact that people are leaving the cities for more rural, sub-urban areas......and most do bring their values (or lack thereof) with them. Some see the light when they get here but many do not.

I do not intend for what I have said to imply in any way that there are no people in urban areas with values. The implication is that their value system as a whole tends to be very different from mine.
 
leaningright said:
The bolded part of your post scares the crap out of me. I know I'll be dead and gone before there is no conservativism but my kids will have to live in such a world, even here in conservative Oklahoma. I think you are absolutely right in what you say and I hate that Dano celebrates the fact that people are leaving the cities for more rural, sub-urban areas......and most do bring their values (or lack thereof) with them. Some see the light when they get here but many do not.

I do not intend for what I have said to imply in any way that there are no people in urban areas with values. The implication is that their value system as a whole tends to be very different from mine.
Click to expand...

Leaning, according to this article MS is the poorest state in our nation. I don't know to which values you refer, but it remains a source of amazement to me that people in red states, which by and large are poorer than the blue states (there are exceptions), fear liberal values. We do have them! Many of these values revolve around alleviating poverty, which directly affects people in red states. I just don't understand it.
 
leaningright said:
The bolded part of your post scares the crap out of me. I know I'll be dead and gone before there is no conservativism but my kids will have to live in such a world, even here in conservative Oklahoma. I think you are absolutely right in what you say and I hate that Dano celebrates the fact that people are leaving the cities for more rural, sub-urban areas......and most do bring their values (or lack thereof) with them. Some see the light when they get here but many do not.

I do not intend for what I have said to imply in any way that there are no people in urban areas with values. The implication is that their value system as a whole tends to be very different from mine.
Click to expand...
Leaning MOST people move out to somewhere because they want those values for themselves.
I was mostly a city boy and moved out to the country because I like the lifestyle, values, lower taxes/regulation, politics, etc...
I'm sure some move for a job or retirement but most of those could get jobs or retire elsewhere and they chose that place because they liked it better.

And don't worry too much, all Demographic charts show Conservatives having more kids than Liberals. For all Liberals like Darla blather on about being concerned about children, not too many of them bother having more than 1 if that. They just want to say how children are raised without taking any of the responsibility themselves.
Get big government Liberals out of my rec room!
 
Dano, you mean those liberal democratic run cities like a Republican presidential candidate used to be mayor of ?
 
Darla said:
Leaning, according to this article MS is the poorest state in our nation. I don't know to which values you refer, but it remains a source of amazement to me that people in red states, which by and large are poorer than the blue states (there are exceptions), fear liberal values. We do have them! Many of these values revolve around alleviating poverty, which directly affects people in red states. I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...
Poorer by INCOME, which is as mentioned multiple times, a terrible way to measure a standard of living. Housing is anyone's biggest expense and it is far cheaper in more rural states and lower regulation/lower tax states/cities.
Also, how much is the average Mississippian's heating bill compared to yours?
Plus what I've found is that people with more traditional lifestyles tend to grow more of their own food and mend/make more of their own clothes, which are the next 2 biggest expenses.

I've driven through some poorer areas (by income) almost all of those people still own houses, have vehicles, have leisure goods compared to peopel in Liberal Democrat run inner cities. I'd take that lifestyle over the other anyday.
 
ProfDanoVonManough said:
Leaning MOST people move out to somewhere because they want those values for themselves.
I was mostly a city boy and moved out to the country because I like the lifestyle, values, lower taxes/regulation, politics, etc...
I'm sure some move for a job or retirement but most of those could get jobs or retire elsewhere and they chose that place because they liked it better.

And don't worry too much, all Demographic charts show Conservatives having more kids than Liberals. For all Liberals like Darla blather on about being concerned about children, not too many of them bother having more than 1 if that. They just want to say how children are raised without taking any of the responsibility themselves.
Get big government Liberals out of my rec room!
Click to expand...

That's why you moved. So you therefore believe that's why "most people move" there. I know a lot of transplanted NY'ers, in North Carolina, Maryland and VA. Many of them from my extended family, others are friends. Every one of them moved for financial and/or career considerations. Some were transferred. Some because they couldn't afford a house in NY.

Now, I have just given you what's called anecdotal evidence, which is what you gave me. Though in your case, you gave only one example.

I am watching Virginia with interest. It appears to be moving blue. It gave us the Senate this year. That's the result I care about, so none of this other anecdotal evidence means anything, in the end.
 
ProfDanoVonManough said:
Leaning MOST people move out to somewhere because they want those values for themselves.
I was mostly a city boy and moved out to the country because I like the lifestyle, values, lower taxes/regulation, politics, etc...
I'm sure some move for a job or retirement but most of those could get jobs or retire elsewhere and they chose that place because they liked it better.

And don't worry too much, all Demographic charts show Conservatives having more kids than Liberals. For all Liberals like Darla blather on about being concerned about children, not too many of them bother having more than 1 if that. They just want to say how children are raised without taking any of the responsibility themselves.
Get big government Liberals out of my rec room!
Click to expand...
Having 5 or 6 kids is not being responsible, Bubbi. And liberals are made, not born. A dose of crappy conservative parenting will turn half those connie kids into libs by college age.

:tongout:
 
ProfDanoVonManough said:
Poorer by INCOME, which is as mentioned multiple times, a terrible way to measure a standard of living. Housing is anyone's biggest expense and it is far cheaper in more rural states and lower regulation/lower tax states/cities.
Also, how much is the average Mississippian's heating bill compared to yours?
Plus what I've found is that people with more traditional lifestyles tend to grow more of their own food and mend/make more of their own clothes, which are the next 2 biggest expenses.

I've driven through some poorer areas (by income) almost all of those people still own houses, have vehicles, have leisure goods compared to peopel in Liberal Democrat run inner cities. I'd take that lifestyle over the other anyday.
Click to expand...

Dano, seriously, take a look at indicators of standards of living, you will find MS in the bottom two on nearly every single one. Don't tell me you don't know this.

I am not claiming that money equals a happy or satisfying lifestyle. However, there is little doubt, that neither does its direct opposite; poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top