On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:40:34 +0100, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?


I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

Um...I am? IAC, while lawyers get blamed for a lot of things - some deservedly
so, some iffy, and many unfairly so, I'll go out on a limb and state that I
unreservedly believe that "lawyers" aren't responsible for the IMR in the US,
Cuba, or anywhere else.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

Why do you find it "astonishing" in and of itself? Let me propose a situation -
take country "A" and country "B." In country A, for a variety of reasons,
pregnancies are treated with some thoughtful seriousness by "adults" ("adults"
in the broad sense, by local standards, and certainly, there are "accidents,"
but as a broadly general statement, most pregnancies in "A" are
"planned"/desired/"wanted" by "adults" who want a child/children). OTOH, in "B"
a fair portion of the pregnancies are "accidents" involving "children" (again,
local standards) or legal "adults" who don't want a child and/or are not
prepared in any way to be parents (including pre-natal responsibilities). OTOH,
if a prospective parent in "B" was even half-heartedly "responsible," a baby
born in "B" would have heroic measures used, with _generally_ little thought of
cost, should such be necessary. Now, let's suppose the CIA had some way of
determining the IMR of "A" versus those live births in "B" only to those parents
who generally resembled, insofar as the (prospective) parents' pre-natal picture
from a general "desire" standpoint, those in "A." What do you think the numbers
might then show?

As another example - let's take a spoiled child in the UK and give them what to
them would be a small, inexpensive toy, the kind they wouldn't normally even
pick up if it were offered. Now, let's give that same toy to a child who
doesn't have much in the way of toys. What do you imagine the "toy mortality
rate" is going to be with the UK kid versus the other?

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

I haven't asked them - have you? But if I must make a guess, I'll guess that it
would probably be more than you think and less than I would hope...and I doubt
Democrats in their entirety (or Labour or Tory or...) would do significantly
better...also less than I'd hope, and, I'm guessing by your use of "Republican,"
some groups wouldn't do as well as you think...

HTH,
R

Lazarus