quote:

I always knew the mortality rate of black babies was twice that of whites. I didn't know that mortality in middle-aged African Americans was twice as high as whites,"

About those infant mortality rates...

http://www.fww.org/articles/misc/0312a.htm

Blacks give birth to premature babies at a rate of 162.5 per 1,000 birth comparted to whites who have a rate of 80.8 per 1,000.

http://www.come-over.to/FAS/NCADDfacts.htm

quote:

Black women had significantly higher rates than white women for use of any illicit drug and cocaine, and significantly higher rates than Hispanic women for use of any illicit drug and marijuana.

quote:

Overall and within race/ethnic groups, rates of use during pregnancy of marijuana, cocaine, and cigarettes often were significantly higher for women who were not married, currently not employed, had less than 16 years of formal education, or relied on public aid for payment of the hospital. This pattern was reversed for alcohol use, with significantly higher rates found in women who were currently employed, had completed college, or had private insurance

And the middle-aged mortality rates...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

quote:

Blacks were 6 times more likely [to be murdered] than whites

Bill Cosby has it right. The black community has just as much to do in fixing this problem as the white community does. It's not a "white" conspiracy...it's a problem that blacks are responsible for as well as whites. We can give these statistics all we want about how blacks die more than whites, well, look at the statistics behind that.

I'm not trying to be racist, in fact I think I am quite the opposite. I am for total equality. However there are some basic "situations of life" that the black community finds itself in that it must change.


Also--I agree that there is a "right to life," however, there is no "right to medicine."

I read the origional thread and didnt reply..my gut instinct told me that these were probably lifestyle issues of some sort..and i did some research..and have basically come to the same conclusion as Neophono..i dont think its a black v white issue but i would have some problems ethically with Neos last line that there is "a right to life" but no "right to medicine"

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Also--I agree that there is a "right to life," however, there is no "right to medicine."

well, if the medicine means you can still have the life, wouldnt that mean that a right to life is also a right to medicines?

and the reason i posted this was not really because of the black issue, but rather that i think the sytem is flawed

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew well, if the medicine means you can still have the life, wouldnt that mean that a right to life is also a right to medicines? and the reason i posted this was not really because of the black issue, but rather that i think the sytem is flawed

I'll use the same argument I always use. What if you lived in a remote area, where the transit time to get an ambulance to you, and you to the hospital was extreme. The sooner you can get to the hospital the better in the case of an emergency, so should the government give you a car so you or someone who lives with you can get you there sooner?

Medicine does not give life, it prolongs it in the face of a *natural* (even trauma 250 years ago was a *natural* way to die) stop. If we invent a drug that costs a million dollars a pill but will prolong life 50 years, is it everyone's right to have that pill, regardless of the cost? Who pays for that pill?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'll use the same argument I always use. What if you lived in a remote area, where the transit time to get an ambulance to you, and you to the hospital was extreme. The sooner you can get to the hospital the better in the case of an emergency, so should the government give you a car so you or someone who lives with you can get you there sooner? Medicine does not give life, it prolongs it in the face of a *natural* (even trauma 250 years ago was a *natural* way to die) stop. If we invent a drug that costs a million dollars a pill but will prolong life 50 years, is it everyone's right to have that pill, regardless of the cost? Who pays for that pill?

i do think it is everyone's right to have a chance to health care within a reasonable amout of time. Ex, if someone lives in the midle of nowhere and the time to get to a hospital is too much, the government should provide helicopter-ambulances or whatever to help decrease that time. However, the time to it takes for someone to get to a hostpital cant possible be the same for everyone and therefore its an impossible task and its something we have to live with kinda...

and a pill for one million that made people live 50 years longer would probably be a good investment for the governemtn

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew and a pill for one million that made people live 50 years longer would probably be a good investment for the governemtn

...and by raising the 'retirement' age could solve the US SS issue in a flash...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

So poor blacks have a higher mortality rate than tne average whites here in the US. Not surprising either, considering the correlating crime rates.

I won't even suggest a fix, since politicians much smarter than me have all failed with various programs. Don't believe the US is alone with such problems of class/racial issues.



[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape So poor blacks have a higher mortality rate than tne average whites here in the US. Not surprising either, considering the correlating crime rates. I won't even suggest a fix, since politicians much smarter than me have all failed with various programs. Don't believe the US is alone with such problems of class/racial issues. [[[smoke]]]

Same thing with irish people living in London..disproportionate amount of them die compared to other whites living in that city.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i do think it is everyone's right to have a chance to health care within a reasonable amout of time. Ex, if someone lives in the midle of nowhere and the time to get to a hospital is too much, the government should provide helicopter-ambulances or whatever to help decrease that time. However, the time to it takes for someone to get to a hostpital cant possible be the same for everyone and therefore its an impossible task and its something we have to live with kinda... and a pill for one million that made people live 50 years longer would probably be a good investment for the governemtn

This is one of those topics where you and I always disagree, and it ultimately comes down to(as Neo pointed out) who will pay for these things? At what point do you think you your "right to life" supercedes another person's rights? It's easy for you to demand that the government simply provide these things since they have a monopoly on the use of force, nevermind who actually has to pay for this stuff. You're walking on a very slippery slope.

I like Neo's comment on the "right to life" vs. the "right to medicine". Using your logic...if a person has a right to life but needs a kidney to survive, and I just happen to have 2 of them...does said person therefore hold some claim to my other kidney because he has the explicit "right to life" regardless of context or circumstance? Your logic would imply that he is virtually entitled to my other kidney and I have no choice in the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka This is one of those topics where you and I always disagree, and it ultimately comes down to(as Neo pointed out) who will pay for these things? At what point do you think you your "right to life" supercedes another person's rights? It's easy for you to demand that the government simply provide these things since they have a monopoly on the use of force, nevermind who actually has to pay for this stuff. You're walking on a very slippery slope. I like Neo's comment on the "right to life" vs. the "right to medicine". Using your logic...if a person has a right to life but needs a kidney to survive, and I just happen to have 2 of them...does said person therefore hold some claim to my other kidney because he has the explicit "right to life" regardless of context or circumstance? Your logic would imply that he is virtually entitled to my other kidney and I have no choice in the matter.

This is simply the classic liberal vs. conservative ideological debate. In my opinion the government is supposed to be our collective good. We don't hire private militias to protect ourselves, we have a military that is to collectively protect us. We have the government build our roadways throughout the country, educate children and fight fires. We are all supposed to be represented by and own government, it is where we are all supposed to come together as a nation, so it is the most logical entity to pay for such services if needed, especially since it already does in life or death situations. If someone is shot right in front of a hospital and they stumble in looking for help, the hospitial cannot refuse them and the government already pays the health costs if the victim cannot afford it.

While I know the conservatives wont agree with me on this any more than I agree with them in most instances, there is one very strange point about the current U.S. healthcare system that simply doesn't make any sense. If someone has a good paying job with an excellent healthcare plan, when they get sick, they pay little out of their own pocket for high quality treatment. How does it make sense that a poor person who cannot afford health insurance can only chose to pay the entire medical cost on their own for low quality care, which ends up being more expensive, or let their illness worsen by not receiving treatment? It's really the most regressive system possble and defies the logic of capitalism, where normally. for example,a rich person pays more money for a better car and a poor person pays less for a less quality automobile.

As far as in poor communities, African-American, white or any other ones, the key to changing these numbers is to at least provide healthcare and quality education to children so that they can get out of the cycle of poverty and/or violence. Since many factors exist, these on their own would not solve the problems, but it would provide determined kids the opportunity to reach their fullest potential, gain quality employment and be able to afford quality healthcare on their own to ensure their longevity. I don't have the numbers in front of me,but I beleve the lifespan of all wealthy people,regardless of ethnicity, is far greater.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

great post wolverine...


yep, pretty much this is a debate about the individualism of US society. the whole 'no one is going to take MY money' thing. its truly mindboggling how healthcare for the majority of the nation is bad, whereas invading countries and general infrastructure spending is ok. its not like the US is made up of people and *NOT* buildings and guns|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'