PDA

View Full Version : US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity



troung
04 May 10,, 17:25
US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity
Tue May 4, 4:58 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States has scored poorly on a campaign group's list of the best countries in which to be a mother, managing only 28th place, and bettered by many smaller and poorer countries.

Norway topped the latest Save the Children "Mothers Index", followed by a string of other developed nations, while Afghanistan came in at the bottom of the table, below several African states.

But the US showing put it behind countries such as the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; and eastern and central European states such as Croatia and Slovenia.

Even debt-plagued Greece came in four places higher at 24.

One factor that dragged the US ranking down was its maternal mortality rate, which at one in 4,800 is one of the highest in the developed world, said the report.

"A woman in the Unites States is more than five times as likely as a woman in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece or Italy to die from pregnancy-related causes in her lifetime and her risk of maternal death is nearly 10-fold that of a woman in Ireland," the report said.

It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.

"At this rate, a child in the US is more than twice as likely as a child in Finland, Iceland, Sweden or Singapore to die before his or her fifth birthday," the report noted.

Only 61 percent of children were enrolled in preschool, which on this indicator made it the seventh-lowest country in the developed world, it said.

And it added: "The United States has the least generous maternity leave policy -- both in terms of duration and percent of wages paid -- of any wealthy nation."

Norway headed the list of developed countries at the top of the list of best places to be a mother, followed by Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

At the bottom was Afghanistan, followed by Niger, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Sudan, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea.

"While the situation in the United States needs to improve, mothers in the developing world are facing far greater risks to their own health and that of their children," said Save the Children's Mary Beth Powers.

"The shortage of skilled birth attendants and challenges in accessing birth control means that women in countries at the bottom of the list face the most pregnancies and the most risky birth situations, resulting in newborn and maternal deaths," she added.

Save the Children compiled the index after analyzing a range of factors affecting the health and well-being of women and children, including access to health care, education and economic opportunities.

Thus Norway came top because women there are paid well, access to contraception is easy and the country has one of the generous most maternity leave policies in the world.

Afghanistan however came last because of its high levels of infant mortality and the fact that it had the lowest female life expectancy and the worst rate of primary education for females in the world.

The report recommended more funding for women's and girls' education and better access to maternal and child health care, particularly in the developing world.

In the United States and other industrialised nations, it called on governments and communities to work together to improve education and health for disadvantaged mothers and children.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

bigross86
04 May 10,, 17:54
That's extremely offensive: Israel is placed on their Tier II: Less Developed Countries and Territories list. And it's not as if the PA is dragging Israel down into a lower group, the PA has a listing of it's own on the same Tier II list.

Which raises one of two possibilities: Either I've been living in a slum with the same living conditions as Kenya, Botswana, Azerbeijan and Bolivia (among others) - not likely. Or, the Palestinians are living in an extremely well developed country, and therefore all the Human Rights groups' bitching is just pure nonsense.

gunnut
04 May 10,, 18:08
The US also houses a huge 3rd world population. More than 10% of Mexicans in the world live in the US. They have many more children than the population of the advanced European economies. More child births per woman = greater chance of maternal mortality.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

YellowFever
04 May 10,, 18:44
Do they still give birth to babies in Europe?

I thought they just imported babies from the Arab states. :confused:

BD1
04 May 10,, 21:28
the report also considers benefits :

Save the Children compiled the index after analyzing a range of factors affecting the health and well-being of women and children, including access to health care, education and economic opportunities.

Thus Norway came top because women there are paid well, access to contraception is easy and the country has one of the generous most maternity leave policies in the world.

i guess that´s one of the reasons why Estonia is so high (17th) - goverment pays the Mother´s Pay (for 16-18 months your previous year´s monthly medium income), similar systems are in place in other Eur. countries AFAIK

kato
04 May 10,, 22:19
BD1:

In Germany the government pays 60% for 12 months, minimum 300 / maximum 1800 Euro.

bigross86:

Blame the UN, they're using their definition (see page 37). The separation by the UN is based on GDP, per capita GDP, industrialization level, and some ambiguous technology/know-how level. Kofi Annan said something a couple years ago that the "real-life" difference between MDC (Tier I) and LSC (Tier II) is virtually irrelevant in many cases.

gunnut
04 May 10,, 23:52
BD1:

In Germany the government pays 60% for 12 months, minimum 300 / maximum 1800 Euro.

Is that per month? :eek:

Julie
05 May 10,, 00:57
Is that per month? :eek:That's what I say !!! :eek: Man that's definitely where to be when having a baby...a damn fine paid vacation !!! ;)

kato
05 May 10,, 06:45
Is that per month? :eek:
Yes.

You can also take off from your job for up to three years, and have a guarantee that the employer will have to take you back afterwards. You can't be fired if you announce you're pregnant, even for any other reasons. And there's a 3-month protection period around the birth (6 weeks before to 8 weeks after) where you're not allowed to work and get 100% of your previous salary paid. Oh, and in Germany you get about 250 Dollar per child per month from the state. Until the kid hits 25.

Germany has way too low birth rates - the state i live in is expecting to have its population decline by 15% over the next 40-50 years, with the share of people in "working age" slipping from current 55% to 45%. Even the "migrant population" tends to adapt to this low birth rate way too fast. The above is in order to get it up, but it's not really working.

Tarek Morgen
05 May 10,, 07:14
Until the kid hits 25.

If the child is disabled this can continue indefinitely, though only if the disabled person own earning do not exced a certain limit.

Bigfella
05 May 10,, 07:19
The US also houses a huge 3rd world population. More than 10% of Mexicans in the world live in the US. They have many more children than the population of the advanced European economies. More child births per woman = greater chance of maternal mortality.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.


The moment I saw the thread title I made a bet with myself that it would take less than 5 posts for an excuse involving 'illegals'. I know this place too well.

You are doing worse than places like Bosnia, an ex-communist country which spent the 1990s having its infrastructure destroyed & its population devastated. The problem isn't Mexicans, it is systemic.

kato
05 May 10,, 07:51
If the child is disabled this can continue indefinitely, though only if the disabled person own earning do not exced a certain limit.
And only if the disabled person owns less than about 20,000 Dollar.

Iirc conditions in France are even better overall. The comparison between Germany and France is interesting in the study, because it shows that in the MDC they're waaay overstating the political participation of women and the risk of death in childbirth compared to other indicators (France scores better on all other indicators except those two, but is ranked quite a bit lower).


You are doing worse than places like Bosnia, an ex-communist country which spent the 1990s having its infrastructure destroyed & its population devastated. The problem isn't Mexicans, it is systemic.
As for the USA, the situation in the study is:
- pretty high risk of death in childbirth (0.02%)
- crappy maternity leave benefits (12 weeks unpaid)
- low political participation of women (17% of elected are female)
- relatively high risk in child mortality (0.8%)
- low preschool enrolment (61%)

For the most part the US situation is comparable to about any Eastern-European country (ie say Poland, or the Czech Republic) - except for the maternity leave, in which the USA runs pretty much at the very bottom of the 43-country MDC group, and the mortality in childbirth for the mother, in which the USA is on par with the former Soviet Union or ex-Yugoslavia, and the rest of Eastern Europe surpasses it easily.

edit: Basically, compared to Germany in the USA the mortality is four times as high for the mother and twice as high for the child. That can't be simply waxed over with "but we have 10% mexicans".

Tarek Morgen
05 May 10,, 08:39
And only if the disabled person owns less than about 20,000 Dollar.

since that amount is limited to the disabled person and not the parents or the rest of the family that is not really that much of a limitation.

YellowFever
05 May 10,, 08:46
So this study was done by a group calling themselves 'Save The Children'.

Australia for instance is ranked number 1 in "Women's Index Rank" and ranked number 28 in the "Children's Index Rank", giving them a rank of number 2 in the "Mother's Index Rank.

Japan is ranked number 38 in "Women's Index Rank" and ranked number 6 in the "Children's Index Rank" giving them overall "Mother's Index Rank of 32.

Cuba is ranked number 1 in the "TIER 2 :Less developed countires"

Israel, and S.Korea is in this second category.

For a group that pulls at our heart strings with a name like 'Save The Children', it seems all you need to be ranked high in the "Mother's Index" is to have alot of of females represented in the government and get alot of dough for maternity leave. :rolleyes:

It's a "Motherhood Index" but they should've called it a "Women's Index".

YellowFever
05 May 10,, 09:01
The moment I saw the thread title I made a bet with myself that it would take less than 5 posts for an excuse involving 'illegals'. I know this place too well.

You are doing worse than places like Bosnia, an ex-communist country which spent the 1990s having its infrastructure destroyed & its population devastated. The problem isn't Mexicans, it is systemic.


So how did gunnut make an excuse involving "illegals"?

He did not say one word about the illegals.

The only mistake gunnut made is that he said over 10% of all Mexicans in the world live in the United States. It should've been closer to 20% actually.

Seems like you know this place pretty well..or rather what you preceive it to be.

And can you explain yourself when you say our (The US) problem is systemic?

gunnut
05 May 10,, 18:35
As for the USA, the situation in the study is:
- pretty high risk of death in childbirth (0.02%)
- crappy maternity leave benefits (12 weeks unpaid)
- low political participation of women (17% of elected are female)
- relatively high risk in child mortality (0.8%)
- low preschool enrolment (61%)

The problem is the criteria used in the study.

- crappy maternity leave benefits (12 weeks unpaid)

Why is this crappy?

- low political participation of women (17% of elected are female)

Why is this bad?

- low preschool enrolment (61%)

So what?

These 3 things are considered in the study. Free money for mothers is a good thing? Why? Who's paying for it? Why should I pay for it?

Why is a high political participation of women a good thing? Do you want a mom to raise your kids or do you want a politician? I fail to see how low participation of women in political offices has anything to do with the place being a bad place for mothers.

And why is low preschool enrollment bad? What's so good about preschool? What's so good about school? Home school not good enough? Home school before the age of 6 is bad?

These values are entirely subjective.



For the most part the US situation is comparable to about any Eastern-European country (ie say Poland, or the Czech Republic) - except for the maternity leave, in which the USA runs pretty much at the very bottom of the 43-country MDC group, and the mortality in childbirth for the mother, in which the USA is on par with the former Soviet Union or ex-Yugoslavia, and the rest of Eastern Europe surpasses it easily.

edit: Basically, compared to Germany in the USA the mortality is four times as high for the mother and twice as high for the child. That can't be simply waxed over with "but we have 10% mexicans".

And yet people keep coming here. We should shut down our borders just to protect the world from our terrible living standards. They can go to Europe and enjoy the free universal health care.

gunnut
05 May 10,, 18:42
The moment I saw the thread title I made a bet with myself that it would take less than 5 posts for an excuse involving 'illegals'. I know this place too well.

You are doing worse than places like Bosnia, an ex-communist country which spent the 1990s having its infrastructure destroyed & its population devastated. The problem isn't Mexicans, it is systemic.


The US also houses a huge 3rd world population. More than 10% of Mexicans in the world live in the US. They have many more children than the population of the advanced European economies. More child births per woman = greater chance of maternal mortality.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Where did I mention the word "illegal?"

Bigfella
05 May 10,, 22:03
Where did I mention the word "illegal?"

I was charitably assuming that you wouldn't blame America's problems on an entire ethnicity. If you were actually referring to all people in America who originate in Mexico then your claim is even more ridiculous. Europe has significant migrant populations from places with high birthrates too (remember all that 'Eurabia" cr@p that right wing Americans get all hot 'n' heavy over?).

Like I said, you got beaten out by Bosnia. Stop making excuses. This is about policy.

Bigfella
05 May 10,, 22:06
So how did gunnut make an excuse involving "illegals"?

He did not say one word about the illegals.

The only mistake gunnut made is that he said over 10% of all Mexicans in the world live in the United States. It should've been closer to 20% actually.

Seems like you know this place pretty well..or rather what you preceive it to be.

And can you explain yourself when you say our (The US) problem is systemic?


The problem is about policy (or policies) relating to health, education & employment. It is not about Mexicans. I know the place well enough to spot a stinkng heap of B.S. when I see one.

YellowFever
05 May 10,, 22:43
The problem is about policy (or policies) relating to health, education & employment. It is not about Mexicans. I know the place well enough to spot a stinkng heap of B.S. when I see one.

Good non-answer.

What policy differences in health, education and employment makes Australia and Norway ranked so high and USA and Japan ranked so low?

Which specific policies did Bosnia implement that made them rank ahead of the US?

You blaming the policies of the US for the low ranking sounds just as idiotic to me as gunnut blaming immigrants sounded to you.

You took an idiotic piece of 'ranking' and used it to criticize America's 'systemic' policies.

Do you even know what sort of formula they used to reach the conclusion they did?

I couldn't find it because they never mentioned it.

It wasn't a question but can you explain my post number 14?

gunnut
06 May 10,, 00:10
I was charitably assuming that you wouldn't blame America's problems on an entire ethnicity. If you were actually referring to all people in America who originate in Mexico then your claim is even more ridiculous. Europe has significant migrant populations from places with high birthrates too (remember all that 'Eurabia" cr@p that right wing Americans get all hot 'n' heavy over?).

Like I said, you got beaten out by Bosnia. Stop making excuses. This is about policy.

And if you have read my previous reply to kato, you would know that the "study" has very subjective criteria on what "good" is.

Why is preschool good?

Why are women in politics good? Should we make the distinction of mothers in politics or just women in general are good enough?

How about paid leave for mothers? Why is that good? Who's paying for it? Why do I have to pay someone else to have kids?

About the "Eurabia" crap, we then have to look at how statistics are gather in some European countries. The data collection methods and criteria are not the same in the US and Europe. For example, what is the unemployment of France compared to the US? How about infant mortality rate? I believe I read somewhere (probably the health care thread) that we have different methods on how to account for infant mortality. This difference accounts partially for the low life expectancy in the US.

Here's the real question, if you think Bosnia is so swell. Would you raise your kids in Bosnia or the US?

Again, I think we should shut our borders to spare people from other parts of the world the dangers of our society, with all the guns and the lack of universal health care and low life expectancy and lack of women in politics. Why even bother to come here?

highsea
06 May 10,, 00:54
We have way too many C-section births in the US, I don't doubt this bumps up the mortality numbers due to hemmoraging and inadequate monitoring of vitals post surgery.

Also the rate of over-35 women having first kids has gone way up in recent years- these women have about 2.5X the mortality rate of the under 35'ers.

Without knowing the sampling or details of the survey, it's impossible to give much of an analysis.
Maternal deaths are those reported on the death certificate to be related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management that occur during or within 42 days after the end of the pregnancy. The maternal mortality rate has declined dramatically since 1950 when the rate was 83.3 deaths per 100,000 live births; however, the maternal mortality rate in 2006 (13.3 per 100,000 live births) was 62 percent higher than the rate reported in 1990 (8.2 per 100,000). According to the National Center for Health Statistics, this increase may largely be due to changes in how pregnancy status is recorded on death certificates; beginning in 1999, the cause of death was coded according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). Other methodological changes in reporting and data processing have been responsible for apparent increases in more recent years, including question formatting and revisions to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death.

Maternal Mortality - Women's Health USA 2009 (http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa09/hstat/mh/pages/237mm.html)

Julie
06 May 10,, 01:05
I had C-sections with both of pregnancies which was required due to cervix being too small. First one was at age 26, second was at age 33. No problems with either. :)

highsea
06 May 10,, 01:17
Most don't. But I think the risks are higher if there isn't a medical requirement for it. It's still a surgery.

I'm not an expert on it, but we sure have a lot of them in the US. My neighbor's girlfriend just had one, it seemed to me to be more of a scheduling thing than anything else. :confused:

kato
06 May 10,, 07:39
They can go to Europe and enjoy the free universal health care.
Guess how surprised Americans are when they come here, don't get health insurance - or one that doesn't fit legal standards, such as the usual expat insurances - and then get back-charged all the way to their point of entry for a couple thousand bucks. ;)


These values are entirely subjective.
Only on a political level.

Bigfella
06 May 10,, 10:37
And if you have read my previous reply to kato, you would know that the "study" has very subjective criteria on what "good" is.

Why is preschool good?

Why are women in politics good? Should we make the distinction of mothers in politics or just women in general are good enough?

How about paid leave for mothers? Why is that good? Who's paying for it? Why do I have to pay someone else to have kids?

About the "Eurabia" crap, we then have to look at how statistics are gather in some European countries. The data collection methods and criteria are not the same in the US and Europe. For example, what is the unemployment of France compared to the US? How about infant mortality rate? I believe I read somewhere (probably the health care thread) that we have different methods on how to account for infant mortality. This difference accounts partially for the low life expectancy in the US.

Here's the real question, if you think Bosnia is so swell. Would you raise your kids in Bosnia or the US?

Again, I think we should shut our borders to spare people from other parts of the world the dangers of our society, with all the guns and the lack of universal health care and low life expectancy and lack of women in politics. Why even bother to come here?


Happy to deal with all of this, once you properly explain this and how it doesn't involve illegals:


The US also houses a huge 3rd world population. More than 10% of Mexicans in the world live in the US

Who counts as 'Mexican'? How do you determine that they are '3rd World'. Remember, you chewed me out for bringing up 'illegals', so this is about US citizens.

gunnut
06 May 10,, 22:17
Happy to deal with all of this, once you properly explain this and how it doesn't involve illegals:

I know this is a very surprising fact to you, but we have LEGAL Mexican, and other immigrants here too.



Who counts as 'Mexican'? How do you determine that they are '3rd World'. Remember, you chewed me out for bringing up 'illegals', so this is about US citizens.

By Mexican I mean those who were born in Mexico and hold Mexican citizenship. We have legal Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants.

We also have sizable immigrant population from other 3rd world countries, mostly from Latin America and Asia.

Legal or illegal, they have higher birth rates than the natives and usually of lower economic class. They may also have some customs that are...shall we say...not sanitary, even if they do achieve higher economic class. My friend used to work as a health inspector for the county. He has some amazing stories.

Bigfella
07 May 10,, 12:26
I know this is a very surprising fact to you, but we have LEGAL Mexican, and other immigrants here too.

You seem to have confused our relationship here. I'm the one who surprises you with stuff about America, remember?

I'm well aware of Mexican migration to America.


By Mexican I mean those who were born in Mexico and hold Mexican citizenship. We have legal Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants.

And we are only talking about the legal ones here, who constitute comfortably less than 10% of the population of Mexico (and therefore even less than 10% of all mexicans in the world).


We also have sizable immigrant population from other 3rd world countries, mostly from Latin America and Asia.

There are about 38 million people in America who are foreign born. The majority certainly come from the 3rd world, but the equivalent of 10% of your population is not 'huge' (your term).


Legal or illegal, they have higher birth rates than the natives and usually of lower economic class.

You have already made it clear that you were not talking about illegals, so stop throwing them into the equation. This is about US citizens or legal residents.

Of course, the fact that you keep bringing them up suggests that my initial post was on the right track.

As for the rest, on average you are probably correct, but your broad brush accusation/excuse relies for effect on including a lot of people from the 3rd world who do not necessarily fit your description.


They may also have some customs that are...shall we say...not sanitary, even if they do achieve higher economic class. My friend used to work as a health inspector for the county. He has some amazing stories.

So the US does poorly on maternal death & child mortality because of 'dirty foreigners' and particularly Mexicans. Sorry, it is just as poor an excuse now as it was when you first posted it. Europe & Australia also have substantial '3rd world' populations. In fact, there are actual '3rd world' countries that do better on these figures than the US.

Did you actually know anything about maternal & child mortality in the US before you started blaming, or is this just based on someone who told you that America is full of foreigners & they are dirty?

At this point it would just be easier to admit that once again you dashed off a poorly thought out & researched reply. Then we can move on to dealing with your other excuses.

indus creed
07 May 10,, 15:33
It will get worse.

US does poorly on this count because the socialist and lawyer mafias(John Edwards belongs to both of them) colluded and ratified most ridiculous Ob-Gyn malpractice laws in the world.

As a result senior doctors have abandoned the field in record numbers(the profession is still bleeding good doctors) and in the process created openings for inexperienced physicians who could not/cannot provide the same level of professional service.

gunnut
07 May 10,, 18:14
You seem to have confused our relationship here. I'm the one who surprises you with stuff about America, remember?

I'm well aware of Mexican migration to America.



And we are only talking about the legal ones here, who constitute comfortably less than 10% of the population of Mexico (and therefore even less than 10% of all mexicans in the world).



There are about 38 million people in America who are foreign born. The majority certainly come from the 3rd world, but the equivalent of 10% of your population is not 'huge' (your term).



You have already made it clear that you were not talking about illegals, so stop throwing them into the equation. This is about US citizens or legal residents.

Of course, the fact that you keep bringing them up suggests that my initial post was on the right track.

As for the rest, on average you are probably correct, but your broad brush accusation/excuse relies for effect on including a lot of people from the 3rd world who do not necessarily fit your description.



So the US does poorly on maternal death & child mortality because of 'dirty foreigners' and particularly Mexicans. Sorry, it is just as poor an excuse now as it was when you first posted it. Europe & Australia also have substantial '3rd world' populations. In fact, there are actual '3rd world' countries that do better on these figures than the US.

Did you actually know anything about maternal & child mortality in the US before you started blaming, or is this just based on someone who told you that America is full of foreigners & they are dirty?

At this point it would just be easier to admit that once again you dashed off a poorly thought out & researched reply. Then we can move on to dealing with your other excuses.

And you still haven't explained what "systemic" problems we have that contributed to the "low scores" in this "so-called" study.

Neither have you answered my questions on why some of the criteria were used. Why is preschool good? Why is free money to mothers good? Why are women in political office good? These values are entirely subjective.

Then I asked whether Europe used the same accounting methods on maternal mortality and infant mortality as us. Obviously we don't have the same accounting methods.

Of course our immigrant population with higher than native birth rates will account for some of the low scores. I didn't call them "dirty foreigners." You did. Some of them have questionable sanitary practices, that's a fact, not racism. 10% of our population being from 3rd world and with higher than native birth rate can and will affect the overall statistics.

Lastly, would you rather have your wife give birth to your child in Bosnia or in the US?

highsea
07 May 10,, 18:19
It will get worse.

US does poorly on this count because the socialist and lawyer mafias(John Edwards belongs to both of them) colluded and ratified most ridiculous Ob-Gyn malpractice laws in the world.

As a result senior doctors have abandoned the field in record numbers(the profession is still bleeding good doctors) and in the process created openings for inexperienced physicians who could not/cannot provide the same level of professional service.That's true. The average malpractice premium for OB/GYN's is $100,000 a year. That's an awful high insurance cost just for delivering babies.

gunnut
08 May 10,, 09:02
That's true. The average malpractice premium for OB/GYN's is $100,000 a year. That's an awful high insurance cost just for delivering babies.

Isn't that pretty much the same across the board for medical malpractice? Of course the democrats and the trial lawyer lobby refuse any and all tort reform in the health care package passed by the congress.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 07:35
Isn't that pretty much the same across the board for medical malpractice? Of course the democrats and the trial lawyer lobby refuse any and all tort reform in the health care package passed by the congress.

And BF wins another bet with himself.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 07:38
And you still haven't explained what "systemic" problems we have that contributed to the "low scores" in this "so-called" study.

Neither have you answered my questions on why some of the criteria were used. Why is preschool good? Why is free money to mothers good? Why are women in political office good? These values are entirely subjective.

Then I asked whether Europe used the same accounting methods on maternal mortality and infant mortality as us. Obviously we don't have the same accounting methods.

Of course our immigrant population with higher than native birth rates will account for some of the low scores. I didn't call them "dirty foreigners." You did. Some of them have questionable sanitary practices, that's a fact, not racism. 10% of our population being from 3rd world and with higher than native birth rate can and will affect the overall statistics.

Lastly, would you rather have your wife give birth to your child in Bosnia or in the US?

I notice you've stopped trying to defend your initial claims. If the above is the admission of the following:

once again you dashed off a poorly thought out & researched reply
then I'll cheerfully respond to your points. One argument at a time.

Julie
09 May 10,, 07:48
Why are democrats against tort reform? They want to regulate everything else, why not that? I think it is safe to say huge court awards contribute to insurance premiums across the board.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 08:21
Good non-answer.

No, rushed half answer. Shouldn't have answered before work.

'Systemic' doesn't simply relate to policy, it is about the broader functioning of society. The point was that the problem isn't about a single ethnic group, but about the way society structures access to healthcare, education, political power & employment. 'Foreigners are dirty & poor' doesn't really explain the issues outlined in the report.


What policy differences in health, education and employment makes Australia and Norway ranked so high and USA and Japan ranked so low?

Access to pre & postnatal care; maternity leave provisions; quality & effectiveness of education; tort law; health insurance policies. Stuff like that.


Which specific policies did Bosnia implement that made them rank ahead of the US?

You'd have to ask them.


You blaming the policies of the US for the low ranking sounds just as idiotic to me as gunnut blaming immigrants sounded to you.

Hardly my problem, especially coming from someone who said this:

The only mistake gunnut made is that he said over 10% of all Mexicans in the world live in the United States. It should've been closer to 20% actually
and made a song & dance about GN not mentioning 'illegals' (when it is impossible to reach his figure without them, or without stripping Americans of their citizenship).


You took an idiotic piece of 'ranking' and used it to criticize America's 'systemic' policies.

No, I took a piece of ranking infinitely better researched than GNs reply & used it to show just how shallow his response was. He appears to have stopped defending the claim, so it looks like I was on the money.


Do you even know what sort of formula they used to reach the conclusion they did?

I couldn't find it because they never mentioned it.

Then you need to look harder. Try the 'Methodology' section


It wasn't a question but can you explain my post number 14?

I still can't explain why you think millions of American citizens are not American. Now you want me to explain a report I didn't research or write. No thanks.

YellowFever
09 May 10,, 11:40
No, rushed half answer. Shouldn't have answered before work.

'Systemic' doesn't simply relate to policy, it is about the broader functioning of society. The point was that the problem isn't about a single ethnic group, but about the way society structures access to healthcare, education, political power & employment. 'Foreigners are dirty & poor' doesn't really explain the issues outlined in the report.



Access to pre & postnatal care; maternity leave provisions; quality & effectiveness of education; tort law; health insurance policies. Stuff like that.



You'd have to ask them.



Hardly my problem, especially coming from someone who said this:

and made a song & dance about GN not mentioning 'illegals' (when it is impossible to reach his figure without them, or without stripping Americans of their citizenship).



No, I took a piece of ranking infinitely better researched than GNs reply & used it to show just how shallow his response was. He appears to have stopped defending the claim, so it looks like I was on the money.



Then you need to look harder. Try the 'Methodology' section



I still can't explain why you think millions of American citizens are not American. Now you want me to explain a report I didn't research or write. No thanks.

Meh, it seems like you have more problems with gunnut's post than you do with mine so I'll keep this brief.

First of all, when did I say I don' think American citizens are not American?

You're going to have to explain that one to me, I'm confused. :confused:


These are excerpt from the so called 'mother's Index"

The eleventh annual Mothers’ Index helps document conditions for mothers and children in 160 countries – 43 developed nations167 and 117 in the developing world – and shows where mothers fare best and where they face the greatest hardships. All countries for which sufficient data are available are included in the Index.



The data collected for the Mothers’ Index document the tremendous gaps between rich and poor countries and the urgent need to accelerate progress in the health and well-being of mothers and their children.



In Somalia, only 1 percent of women use modern contraception. Rates are less than 5 percent in Angola, Chad and Guinea. Eighty percent or more of women in Norway, Thailand and the United Kingdom and 86 percent of women in China use some form of modern contraception.


In Afghanistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen, women earn 25 cents or less for every dollar men earn. Saudi Arabian and Palestinian women earn only 16 and 12 cents respectively to the male dollar. In Mongolia, women earn 87 cents for every dollar men earn and in Mozambique they earn 90 cents.

In Belize, Comoros, Micronesia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the Solomon Islands and
Qatar, not one seat in the lower or single house of parliament is occupied by a
woman. In Bahrain, Papua New Guinea and Yemen, women have only one seat. Compare that to Rwanda where well over half – 56 percent – of all seats are held by women. In Sweden, women hold 46 percent of parliamentary seats.


In Central African Republic and Chad, fewer than 3 girls for every 4 boys are in primary school. In Afghanistan and Guinea-Bissau, it’s 2 girls for every 3 boys.

I could go on and on but I'll stop there.

The question I want to ask you is what is a "Mother's Index"?

Is it a ranking of just the mothers or mothers and their children as well?

They've mentioned children and their well being more often than not (and the group that released this report does call themselves "Save the Children") so I'm assuming the "Mother's Index" is a combination of the well being of the mother and the children.

Now I'm asking you, why is AUS ranked so high in this report with a 'Children's Index' so low?

Why is Japan ranked so low with a 'Children's Index' so high?

And what does how many women in government or the female earning percentage compared to male have anything whatsoever with a "Mother's Index"?

What does a percentage of brith control a country use have anything to do with a 'mother's index'?

What does a life expectancy have to do with a 'mother's index'?

As mentioned before, I have no problem whatsoever if this was titled, "A women's index" because that's basically what it is.

For them to proclaim that this report is for the "well-being of mothers and their children." and then give much more credence to a 'Women's Index' and practically disregard a 'Children's Index' is very disengenuous.

And I find it troubling that you took this report at face value and criticized our "systemics".

highsea
10 May 10,, 19:02
Isn't that pretty much the same across the board for medical malpractice? Of course the democrats and the trial lawyer lobby refuse any and all tort reform in the health care package passed by the congress.It varies from state to state and depending on specialty. Florida is ~20X the rates in South Dakota.

Surgeons and OB/GYN's are the highest, pediatrics, neurology, pathology generally the lowest.

Most sued are OB/GYN's, and they represent about 1/4 of all payouts.

gunnut
10 May 10,, 20:07
And BF wins another bet with himself.


I notice you've stopped trying to defend your initial claims. If the above is the admission of the following:

then I'll cheerfully respond to your points. One argument at a time.

I see you have no replies other than patting yourself on the back.

You have answered none of the questions that I have raised.

Let's forget those questions like why are women in politics good and why preschool is good and why free money for mothers is good. Let's forget whether you would rather have a kid in Bosnia or the US. Are you saying that having a large immigrant population, legal and illegal, from 3rd world nations, has ZERO effect on the US in this study? Are you saying those "dirty foreigners" have the same hygiene practices as the average US population?