A few days ago, while scanning the A-section of my hometown paper for campaign news, I ended up reading a story that ran on page 4 under the headline "Infant mortality rate nearly unchanged in U.S." Here is the lede:
After a century of declines, the U.S. infant mortality rate barely budged between 2000 and 2005, causing the United States to slip further behind other developed countries despite spending more on health care, according to a report released Wednesday.
Regarding the details of "further behind other developed countries": In 1960, the U.S. had the twelfth lowest infant mortality rate in the world. By 2004, the last year for which comparative data is available, it had dropped to twenty-ninth. In infant mortality, the U.S. is keeping company with Slovakia and Poland, and lags far behind most of the countries of western Europe.
The New York Times editorializes on the subject here. Back in January, I wrote about the "delusional" views on health care expressed by the field of Republican candidates for president. Though health care comes up in the general election campaign, I don't know why it isn't even a bigger issue. I also don't know why Americans aren't even more upset--hell, embarrassed--by our "health care delivery system": it's obscenely expensive, fails to cover about 47 million of our people, and, as our standing in infant mortality demonstrates, achieves inferior results. What's to like about it? What would have to be true for it to be pronounced a failure requiring a complete overhaul?
Comments