In response to:

Health Care and Infant Mortality: The Real Story

abcdefz Wrote: Dec 30, 2012 8:26 PM
I don't remember exactly where I read this, because I've seen it more than once, but I do remember that this is a VERY misleading statistic, and that when you compare babies born with problems that ARE tracked, (I dunnoh', like born with pneumonia, or born with one of a dozen other 'common' birth 'problems', that the statistics get skewed WAY over in our favor, that babies born WITH PROBLEMS are WAY more likely to survive if they're born in this country, FAR AND AWAY better than any other place on simply pointing to 'Generic Infant Mortality' is not in any way the way to truly look at the thing...

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. The following column was originally published in August 2009.

The American medical system has the latest technology, the greatest variety of new drugs and unparalleled resources. But anyone who thinks we're getting something great for our dollars inevitably encounters a two-word rebuke: infant mortality.

The United States is the richest nation on Earth, but it comes in 29th in the world in survival rates among babies. This mediocre ranking is supposed to make an irrefutable case for health care reform. If we cared enough to insure everyone, we are told, we would soon rise to...