Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare!
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



(This article is the sixth in a series. Click here for part one and part two, part three, part four and part five.)

(17) America's low ranking on international comparisons of infant mortality proves other countries' socialist health care systems are better than ours.

America has had a comparatively high infant mortality rate since we've been measuring these things, going back to at least the '20s. This was the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave welfare schemes and all while the U.S. was the wealthiest country on Earth.

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

Even with a higher-risk population, the alleged differences in infant mortality are negligible. We're talking about 7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the U.S. compared to 5 deaths per 1,000 for Britain and Canada. This is a rounding error -- perhaps literally when you consider that the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.

But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

And of course, in Milan it's not considered living if the baby isn't born within driving distance of the Côte d'Azur.

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

Also contributing to the higher mortality rate of U.S. newborns: Peter Singer lives here. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The Loquacious Ignorant
Ignorant people sometimes talk(and blog) too much. Yes, Bill, I am talking about you, the very first blog reply. Following are a few suggestions for your edification, which I heartily recommend you study, before spouting paragraphs of incoherent nonsense.

1) Spell check: it is even included in this blog reply software.
2) If you are going to skewer someone's numbers, you better have superior information. Guessing and assuming does not count.
3) Read carefully, and understand the implied meaning of written prose. In her statement concerning "rounding errors", Ann was pointing out the numbers were very close, not egregiously different. Speaking of written prose, please note the following word:
SATIRE: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \'sa-?ti(-?)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin;
Date: 1501

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

4) If you had any training in medicine, like those of us who do, you would understand that the substance of her argument is about the definition of "live birth", and the misleading effect of this definition on statistics reported. If you did any research before spouting off, you would find she is exactly right.

5) To establish yourself as an informed commenter, let alone an expert, you should have at least some pertinent background. Thank you for the resume, I am not impressed. Sorry, but flying B-52's and knowing about physics does not impress those of us who studied medical epidemiology. If you would like to comment as a person with opinion, please do... just drop the C.V.




Once upon a time a jounalist had ethics
Today an idiot like Ann COulter can spew her rediculous nonsense and nobody complains. I am a physicist and thermodynamisist with a pretty solid background in mathamatics and statistics. I also am an ex USAF B-52 pilot and I have no liberal adgenda to further. Ann's analysis and more than obvious racists hints make no more sense than pretty much anything elst that she says, but I understand even Hitler had followers.

In addition Ann's contention that since infant mortality is reported in numbers per thousand and the numbers are quite small (ie 7 per thousand or 12 per thousand) that the numbers are simply different by rounding errors, shows a complete lack of understanding of how statistics are generated or how "rounding" is done. In fact these numbers are generated from millions of births and the statistical significance of the data is extremely high. Where a political poll with 1000 participants might be accurate to a few percent (so about 2 significant figures) the data on infant mortality is based on typically at least hundreds of thousands of data points and is accurate to probably 4 or more significant figures. The numbers presented in Ann's example (6 deaths per 1000 for example) is actually 621 per 100,000 or 6213 per million (I am guessing at the number but the idea is that it is accurate down to the individual per total births). One does not get errors from rounding, we simply don't get a truely accurate picture of how exact the data really is. If the data was so close that rounding would cause confusion then all the data would be within one count plus of minus (ie 6 per thousand or 7 per thousand).
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.