In response to:

Health Care and Infant Mortality: The Real Story

Navy-baby Wrote: Dec 30, 2012 2:26 PM
schnookumz - I don't know about Australia, but I do have family in New Zealand. They have recently signed onto their American-based company insurance plan, and are thrilled with the difference in hospitalization. The "public hospital" they previously used has large wards with beds separated by only curtains--when accessing their new "insurance-paid hospital," the standard was private rooms and gourmet meals. In your comparison ($10,000 US vs. $1,000 Australia) you also forgot to mention the HIGHER taxation rates which pays for their healthcare BEFORE they are seen at their "FREE" doctor, clinic, or hospital.
wayne566 Wrote: Dec 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Don't waste your time answering. Schnookumz is not asking for an answer; She's asking a rhetorical question that's somehow supposed to show us how foolish we are and make us reevaluate our beliefs and then thank her for showing us the error of our ways.

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...