If we can cut it from 6 per 1000 to 1 or 2 doesn't that make ACA worth it?

Yes.

Again, your choice is the following in my scenario: Keep ACA with all of its flaws because it will save lives of infants OR eliminate all of Obamacare - good and bad. That's really where we're at today. Which way you going?

 

No. This is the same argument Liberals use for every topic. It's for the children. When in reality at its core its a government take over of more of our lives and more freedoms taken. We can fix pre-natal care without government telling a private citzen what they must buy.

Again, your choice is the following in my scenario: Keep ACA with all of its flaws because it will save lives of infants OR eliminate all of Obamacare - good and bad. That's really where we're at today. Which way you going?

Eliminate it and fix what needs to be fixed, not the total overhaul that is the ACA. I am not convinced that the infant mortality rate is tied to poor pre-natal insurance coverage. If that needs to be fixed, then fix it but the rest of ACA is not what our country or economy wants or needs.

Could we stop calling it ACA and call it its proper name -- Obamacare . It's his messy bed , let him own it and sleep in it . And bigger than that the name represents a total lie , and we all knew it , there is NOTHING affordable about this socialization of our country .

Could we stop calling it ACA and call it its proper name -- Obamacare . It's his messy bed , let him own it and sleep in it . And bigger than that the name represents a total lie , and we all knew it , there is NOTHING affordable about this socialization of our country .

 

I work hard enough to provide for my own family, to hell with those that will not help themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to hell with everybody I know there are those who truly can't help themselves. Personal responsibility is lost in this country thanks to our fine leaders in Washington D.C.

No. This is the same argument Liberals use for every topic. It's for the children. When in reality at its core its a government take over of more of our lives and more freedoms taken. We can fix pre-natal care without government telling a private citzen what they must buy.

 

Not making an "its for the children" argument at all. I'm saying we've got it with all of its flaws. Logic says that less hurdles, more coverage, and lower cost for pre-natal and maternal care greatly decreases infant mortality.

 

Is the assumed good (less deaths) worth all of the downside?

Let's assume Roe v Wade isn't changing. However, ACA provides better options for mothers WITH INSURANCE which logically says mortality rates will go down.

 

You wouldn't support that even with all of the bad parts of ACA?

No. I believe we need a better health care fix than this monstrosity. If both sides would put their politics aside, we'd likely have it.

Yes Clyde , everyone agrees with you and we should forget personal responsibility and the cost of any and all care and all the babies will have great parents . Sorry but you seem to be trolling for positive answers when there really isnt any hurdles to GREAT care other than moms who shouldnt be having babies and dead beat males who run off on their responsibilities . Its not an insurance problem IMO it's a societal problem. Again just my opinion but you are looking for some positive spin for Obamacare when you just cant polish that turd to make it any more acceptable.

Edited July 28, 201313 yr by True blue (and gold)
Rule 8

Not making an "its for the children" argument at all. I'm saying we've got it with all of its flaws. Logic says that less hurdles, more coverage, and lower cost for pre-natal and maternal care greatly decreases infant mortality.

 

Is the assumed good (less deaths) worth all of the downside?

No, it is a bogus assumption and it is not worth all of its many, many downsides. Not even close.

Could we stop calling it ACA and call it its proper name -- Obamacare . It's his messy bed , let him own it and sleep in it . And bigger than that the name represents a total lie , and we all knew it , there is NOTHING affordable about this socialization of our country .

Re: "messy bed" and "total lie" -- you also meant the war in Iraq, right? We probably need a separate thread, though, to rename the so-called war in Iraq using the names of Bush and Cheney.

 

And while we're at it, we also need something snappy for the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act."

Re: "messy bed" and "total lie" -- you also meant the war in Iraq, right? We probably need a separate thread, though, to rename the so-called war in Iraq using the names of Bush and Cheney.

 

And while we're at it, we also need something snappy for the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act."

 

Wow...an President Obama initiative is criticized and your best response is "Bush Lied"? Check a calendar this is 2013 not 2003...:ohbrother:

Pretty consistent from the various data sources.

 

US rate is 6 per 1000.

Norway is 3.

Finland is 2.

France is 3.

Ireland 3.

German 3.

 

 

Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) | Data | Table

Canada the health care utopia to the north has a rate of 5 per 1,000...not much difference than this heck hole that we live in.

Re: "messy bed" and "total lie" -- you also meant the war in Iraq, right? We probably need a separate thread, though, to rename the so-called war in Iraq using the names of Bush and Cheney.

 

And while we're at it, we also need something snappy for the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act."

 

:ohbrother: :isurrender:

 

Wow...an President Obama initiative is criticized and your best response is "Bush Lied"? Check a calendar this is 2013 not 2003...:ohbrother:

 

:thumb:

Not making an "its for the children" argument at all. I'm saying we've got it with all of its flaws. Logic says that less hurdles, more coverage, and lower cost for pre-natal and maternal care greatly decreases infant mortality.

 

Is the assumed good (less deaths) worth all of the downside?

Logic? I would say what's logical is the government taking over 1/5 of the private sector is a bad thing.

GIGO.

 

Infant Mortality: A Deceptive Statistic

 

Virtually every national and international agency involved in statistical assessments of health status, health care, and economic development uses the infant-mortality rate — the number of infants per 1,000 live births who die before reaching the age of one — as a fundamental indicator. America’s high infant-mortality rate has been repeatedly put forth as evidence “proving” the substandard performance of the U.S. health-care system. And now a new report focusing specifically on neonatal mortality (mortality rates in the first four weeks of life) from Mikkel Oestergaard and the World Health Organization (WHO) is being cited as an indictment of U.S. health care, with headlines proclaiming that the U.S. ranks 41st in the world on this measure.

 

Yet it’s not that simple. Infant and neonatal mortality rates are complex, multifactorial end-points that oversimplify heterogeneous inputs, many of which have no relation to health care at all. Moreover, these statistics gleaned from the widely varied countries of the world are plagued by inconsistencies, problematic definitions, and gross inaccuracies, all of which disadvantage the ranking of the U.S., where accuracy is paramount. Even though Oestergaard’s WHO report lists several “challenges and limitations” in comparing neonatal mortality rates, sensationalized headlines continue to rage about the supposedly poor showing of the United States. The following are a few of the difficulties:

 

Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States.

 

full article