Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 States with the highest infant mortality death rate per 1,000 live births: 1. Delaware 10.7 2. Mississippi 10.5 3. Louisiana 9.8 4. Alabama 9.4 5. South Carolina 8.9 6. North Dakota 8.8 7. Tennessee 8.7 8. Georgia 8.6 9. North Carolina 8.5 10. Arkansas 8.3 The ten states with the lowest infant mortality rate: 1. New Hampshire 3.8 2. Utah 4.8 3. Massachusetts 5.0 4. Minnesota 5.3 5. Oregon and California tied 5.4 7. Vermont 5.5 8. Iowa 5.6 9. Nevada 5.7 10. New York, Colorado and Washington tied at 5.8
Rich in Ohio Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 States with the highest infant mortality death rate per 1,000 live births: 1. Delaware 10.7 2. Mississippi 10.5 3. Louisiana 9.8 4. Alabama 9.4 5. South Carolina 8.9 6. North Dakota 8.8 7. Tennessee 8.7 8. Georgia 8.6 9. North Carolina 8.5 10. Arkansas 8.3 The ten states with the lowest infant mortality rate: 1. New Hampshire 3.8 2. Utah 4.8 3. Massachusetts 5.0 4. Minnesota 5.3 5. Oregon and California tied 5.4 7. Vermont 5.5 8. Iowa 5.6 9. Nevada 5.7 10. New York, Colorado and Washington tied at 5.8 78691[/snapback] So mick, what exactly is your point here? I cannot wait to see how you spin this.
UConn James Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 If you look at the list again, I think the point is that the New England states and others that actually fund programs that provide health care, prenatal care (which saves $6 for every $1 spent on it!), and even vastly underfunded social services like Rowland did in this state --- none of which really breaks the bank --- the infant mortality rate can be reduced by more than half. I tend to think that facts aren't political. If you don't like what those facts tell you, be careful how you vote. This right now probably has more to do w/ state elections than the national scope, tho states do get some fed. funds for these programs. Then again, Kerry's health care plan phase-in would cover children among the first. But how is he going to pay for it? Well, federal funding can be transferred from the above, and from other programs that will no longer be necessary. It's not really a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Posted October 21, 2004 So mick, what exactly is your point here? I cannot wait to see how you spin this. 78745[/snapback] No spin, just facts. Those are the rankings. I took a look just because I read a post here by someone about how awful life was in New York so I thought I'd check out some stats before I went to bed on where NY stacks up in comparison to other states. I think there is a correlation between that list and states that are likely to go for Bush and those likely to go for Kerry but I have not had the time to investigate whether that relationship is coincidental or not. If I lived in one of those states with the worst infant mortality rate, I would want to know why. The answer in each state might have a political component, it might not. I don't know and unlike many on the board whose names I shall politely not repeat, I am not interested in speculating just because there is a pro-Kerry angle to take. I did in the other thread on mobile homes but that was just because it seemed funny to me. I have heard one person in particular go on about how all democratic voters are by and large, felons, whores, crack addicts, drop outs and morons. I beleive that was based on his perceptions of urban voters who trend strongly in favor of the democrats. There are stereotypes about mobile home dwellers just as there are about urban voters. I thought I would put those numbers up for people to see that the same silly charges could be made about republican voters as the one who shall not be named, insists on making about democratic voters. Lastly, I just love the US Abstract and any chance I get to sprinkle a fact or two upon this see of spin, I jump on it. Here is an irony that I thought about the other day that works against both parties. Democrats would surely bemoan those infant mortality rates in Bush country which, depending on your view, would by pretty hypocritical given their stance on abortion. On the other hand, it would be nice if the right was as upset about already born infants dying because of lousy health care as they are about the "death" of a fetus. If they showed the same dedication to improving infant mortality rates in their home state as they do protesting at clinics in other states, maybe those numbers would improve. Like I said, that is an irony that reveals the hypocrisy of both parties.
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 If you look at the list again, I think the point is that the New England states and others that actually fund programs that provide health care, prenatal care (which saves $6 for every $1 spent on it!), and even vastly underfunded social services like Rowland did in this state --- none of which really breaks the bank --- the infant mortality rate can be reduced by more than half. I tend to think that facts aren't political. If you don't like what those facts tell you, be careful how you vote. This right now probably has more to do w/ state elections than the national scope, tho states do get some fed. funds for these programs. Then again, Kerry's health care plan phase-in would cover children among the first. But how is he going to pay for it? Well, federal funding can be transferred from the above, and from other programs that will no longer be necessary. It's not really a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. 78774[/snapback] Bull stevestojan. Social Security costs over $535 BILLION a year to pay a small stipend to about the same number of people who allegedly aren't covered by health care. Kerry's "plan" and the included numbers are woefully speculative to the good. Please explain to me how they are going to cut unnecessary programs to the tune of AT LEAST one fifth of the entire Federal Budget?
GG Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Unlike in the other thread, here you probably can make a correlation. You can see that the states with the lowest infant mortality, are also likely to be among the higher income states. Thus, it's reasonable to understand how people with more resources would have access to better healthcare. Delaware is the obvious anomaly. But it's fruitless to draw a wide line withiout examining each state's situation.
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Here is an irony that I thought about the other day that works against both parties. Democrats would surely bemoan those infant mortality rates in Bush country which, depending on your view, would by pretty hypocritical given their stance on abortion. On the other hand, it would be nice if the right was as upset about already born infants dying because of lousy health care as they are about the "death" of a fetus. If they showed the same dedication to improving infant mortality rates in their home state as they do protesting at clinics in other states, maybe those numbers would improve. Like I said, that is an irony that reveals the hypocrisy of both parties. 78980[/snapback] If you added abotion stats by State to these infant mortality rates, it would be interesting to see the results.
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 If you added abotion stats by State to these infant mortality rates, it would be interesting to see the results. 79113[/snapback] And meaningless. Infant mortality is a common, standard measure of the quality of public health systems. Abortion rates are a measure of...well, I'm not sure exactly, but not of the quality of public health. Not that I consider abortion rates by state meaningless...just mixing the two. What, precisely, is that supposed to be a measure of?
GG Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 And meaningless. Infant mortality is a common, standard measure of the quality of public health systems. Abortion rates are a measure of...well, I'm not sure exactly, but not of the quality of public health. Not that I consider abortion rates by state meaningless...just mixing the two. What, precisely, is that supposed to be a measure of? 79224[/snapback] If I'm reading the tea leaves right, it may actually point to an observation (not statistically valid) that may counter OGT's position. If there's an inverse correlation of states that have low infant mortality rates and high abortion rates, you can make an argument that some parents make a decision to stop the pregnancy early, instead of taking a chance on a very risky birth.
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 If I'm reading the tea leaves right, it may actually point to an observation (not statistically valid) that may counter OGT's position. If there's an inverse correlation of states that have low infant mortality rates and high abortion rates, you can make an argument that some parents make a decision to stop the pregnancy early, instead of taking a chance on a very risky birth. 79237[/snapback] Perhaps...but that wasn't how I interpreted his statement about adding the numbers together. Your example isn't adding the numbers together, it's establishing a correlation betweent two different data sets. But fundamentally, you can't lump both numbers together and say "This is how many babies are being killed/dying in this state", since the numbers represent different things...namely, pre-natal women's services and neonatal health care.
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Perhaps...but that wasn't how I interpreted his statement about adding the numbers together. Your example isn't adding the numbers together, it's establishing a correlation betweent two different data sets. But fundamentally, you can't lump both numbers together and say "This is how many babies are being killed/dying in this state", since the numbers represent different things...namely, pre-natal women's services and neonatal health care. 79258[/snapback] Well, for the most part I was being a wise ass, but that was what I was getting at. I understand they are two different things but if you add the number of abortions/mortalities together you would have a new percentage (meaningful or not). You could call this sum the "percentage of babies that don't make it for whatever reason". Mickey has pretty much stated he started these threads to be a wise ass, so I was returning the favor.
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Posted October 21, 2004 Well, for the most part I was being a wise ass, but that was what I was getting at. I understand they are two different things but if you add the number of abortions/mortalities together you would have a new percentage (meaningful or not). You could call this sum the "percentage of babies that don't make it for whatever reason". Mickey has pretty much stated he started these threads to be a wise ass, so I was returning the favor. 79329[/snapback] Not really, this particular one was simply because I wanted to see if NY was such a bad place to live. Around here all I ever hear is that this state some sort of unmitigated disaster. I went to the US Abstract and thought that I would look at things that generally go into determining quality of life. Income and good health care resulting in low infant mortality rates seemed to be worthwhile issues and low and behold, NY fared quite well on both issues. The state rankings for mobile homes was there and I couldn't resist checking it out and it was immediately evident that Bush was leading in trailer park states and that is when I recalled that post tarring all democrats as welfare cheats and felons. I figured I would post it and then when all the folks on the right went apoplectic that it was an unfair stereotype, I would chime in with "exactly", hopefully getting bipartisan agreement that stereotyping the supporters of each party was wrong. That was not smart-assism but a classic attempt at the Socratic method, sort of. In these quarrelsome times, such rhetoric is just not doable.
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Not really, this particular one was simply because I wanted to see if NY was such a bad place to live. Around here all I ever hear is that this state some sort of unmitigated disaster. I went to the US Abstract and thought that I would look at things that generally go into determining quality of life. Income and good health care resulting in low infant mortality rates seemed to be worthwhile issues and low and behold, NY fared quite well on both issues. The state rankings for mobile homes was there and I couldn't resist checking it out and it was immediately evident that Bush was leading in trailer park states and that is when I recalled that post tarring all democrats as welfare cheats and felons. I figured I would post it and then when all the folks on the right went apoplectic that it was an unfair stereotype, I would chime in with "exactly", hopefully getting bipartisan agreement that stereotyping the supporters of each party was wrong. That was not smart-assism but a classic attempt at the Socratic method, sort of. In these quarrelsome times, such rhetoric is just not doable. 79462[/snapback] Socrates ws the original smart ass.
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Posted October 21, 2004 Socrates ws the original smart ass. 79501[/snapback] Whenever I think about trying his method, I also try to recall that he was executed.
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Whenever I think about trying his method, I also try to recall that he was executed. 79530[/snapback]
Recommended Posts