How to Talk to a Republican #8: Infant Mortality

Maybe they don't care because it's not their constituents dying. In an earlier post at my other site, I mentioned our high placement (not a good thing, GOPers) in maternal mortality. Turns out that trend extends to infants as well, where we place among the worst in the civilized world, ranking above only Latvia:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_he_me/saving_the_smallest_us_picture

Most telling in the article is this small paragraph:

"Doctors and analysts blame broad disparities in access to health care among racial and income groups in the United States."

Why do those disparities exist? Market-based health care. Here's another telling quote:

"The same report noted the United States had more neonatologists and newborn intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom — but still had a higher rate of infant mortality than any of those nations."

Seems access is limited. Since the Market is determining who and who doesn't need pre- and neonatal care, I'm assuming that those who get the care are fairing well. Our socialized competitors, on the other hand, are out-doing us, apparently with fewer resources (translating, perhaps, into lower cost?). And not to beat a dead horse, where does this fall in the Right to Life argument? Does the baby's value end once the birthing process begins?

I guess, in comparing infant mortality in the United States against all other modernized countries, the Right can, with great pride, say, "thank God for Latvia."

Cross post from "Colorado Progressive".

Editor's Note: Link to story is busted, sorry, will do better next time, I promise....