Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Question of the Day:

Could our government's refusal to provide life-saving healthcare to all be considered a form of genocide?

Consider the apalling condition of the U.S.'s low rank for newborns' survival
America may be the world’s superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia... Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia... another report humbling to the American health care system... showed that white, middle-aged Americans are far less healthy than their peers in England, despite U.S. health care spending that is double that in England.

“Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well,” [Emory University health policy expert Kenneth Thorpe] said. “What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases.”

9 comments:

Granny said...

We care about our kids right up to the moment they're born.

I've experienced the difference between pre-natal care for the poor and those lucky enough to have insurance or money.

There's no comparison.

So much is needed to turn this around but we just don't care.

Poverty affects all races but mostly minorities so I suppose in a sense genocide might not be too strong a word.

On the other hand, many of the more militant minority leaders see Planned Parenthood or other groups promoting sex education and birth control as promoting genocide. I don't agree of course but I have been where they've been.

windspike said...

In short, yes.

Worried said...

Population control is a consideration. Earth's resources are finite and a thinning of the unfit is desirable to some. A stable population of healthy labor force is needed. Cutting health and disease control benefits helps weed out the sickly..survival of the fittest, no?

And they're cutting it more. See Granny's post of May 05, http://isamericaburning.blogspot.com/2006/05/enzi_bill_another_attack_on_health.htm Bush's desired "ownership society" (meaning you're on your own, buddy) requires each person to be responsible for himself, not government, and if you lack income to cover the costs, oh well....

Good posts here. I suppose you saw that you were caught up in a tempest about your blog disappearing. :-) You missed the emails, but had the blog in a fizz. Glad you are back.

achromic said...

I don't think it is genocide....... but I do think it is social engineering on a lvl that we really DON'T want but that the elitest among us DO. It is really very scary when you think about it.

SheaNC said...

Worried brings up an interesting point. However, instead of "survival of the fittest," we have "survival of the richest." Reality sounds more like a TV reality-show!

achromic said...

I asked a few people on the prolife side to comment on this artical on a sit that I frequent. Their comment was basically that because we try and save every single child no matter how premature it is or how deformed it comes out it looks like we have the low survival rank. When in actuallty what we are doing is counting every child that draws a single breath of air a live birth. That makes sense I don't know if it is true as these people wear such heavy rose color glass on some subjects as to be completly blind.

Anonymous said...

This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»

Anonymous said...

Nice! Where you get this guestbook? I want the same script.. Awesome content. thankyou.
»

Anonymous said...

I find some information here.