Skip to main content

View Diary: The cost of no public option (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've got a question. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    About this in particular:

    Infant mortality rates in the United States are 6.37 deaths/1,000 live births.  A sampling of other industrialized nations with public health care finds the United Kingdom at 5.01 deaths / 1,000 live births. Canada at 4.63. France at 3.41. If the United States infant mortality matched that of the United Kingdom, just under 6,000 fewer infants would have died in the United States last year. If we could match France around 13,000 fewer infants would have died.

    A few weeks ago I read in a comment to another health reform diary that some other countries achieve better infant mortality statistics by not counting some births as "live births" that do get included in that category in the U.S.  According to what I remember, there is a country (I don't recall which one) that doesn't consider babies to be "live births" if the babies die within 24 hours, and another one that doesn't consider babies born at less than a specific weight (250 grams?) to be "live births" even if they breathe, cry, nurse, etc.  

    Do you know whether the definition of "live birth" is standardized between nations, or is it true that every country makes up it's own?

    Renewable energy brings national security.

    by Calamity Jean on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site