Cheeblogger!

Mark Twain popularized the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Follow up:

A common pretext to justifying a National Health Care System in the United States is the so called poor "infant mortality ranking" of the U.S. in comparison to other developed nations. However, as far as I can discern, this surely rates as a full blown myth.

The statistics often cited appear to indicate the U.S. is lagging behind other developed countries in our infant mortality rate. The presumed cause is a lack of access to proper care, both pre and post natal, for those less fortunate.

However, one first must accept the premise of an infant mortality "problem" before accepting the conclusion. So what is left out of their analysis which, after all, seems so straightforward?

First, we have ranked about the same place in the rankings since the 1920's before any developed state instituted national health care.

Second, infant mortality statistics in the U.S. are counted much more strictly then they are in many other nations, including the developed ones. The U.S. follows the strictest definition because we have the highest standard. For example, if there is any viability of the newborn infant including only a single gasp of breath before dying just after birth, it is counted as a live birth and infant death. However, many other countries do not apply this strict standard which skews the statistics wildly.

For example, according to a Jewish World Review article, Switzerland does not count the death of small babies less than 30 cm. (about 12 inches) as a live birth. Moreover, many countries do not report statistics for babies that do not survive for at least 24 to 48 hours. Additionally, many Eastern European (former Soviet block) nations do not count premature babies that survive less than seven days as live births The rankings, in this light, are essentially meaningless.

In the U.S. we attempt to save every child that could possibly be saved, even those born quite prematurely despite the poor success rate. But we try and so these are considered live births. Because we are such a compassionate nation, we try to save them all. We love them all, and we count them all.

If there was any truth to this myth they purport, one would expect to see substantial numbers of expectant mothers scurrying to Mexico to have their babies. It is the other way around, is it not? I cannot remember the last time I saw an expectant mother pacing the floor nervously awaiting her passport. They want us to believe there is some nervous young mother thinking..."I know Duke is better than Memorial but why not head to Bangkok for the best chance."

I hesitate to question the sincerity of those who put forth these statistics. Rather, I believe they simply want to believe these statistics because it fits a narrative they have about our country and their agenda. They really have no interest in verifying these statistics because it would only work against their pre-conceived notions.

At some point, however, the truth must matter. I'm sure our friends on the left would heartily agree that no vast expenditure of national toil and treasure should be spent based on misleading information (wink wink).

The only real inescapable conclusion from all this is that an ignorant, perpetually dependent, and gullible electorate will kill many more babies than a national health care system could ever save.