Do Republican Presidents Kill Babies? Ask Science!

[rubato]

Do Republican Presidents kill babies?
15Nov2013

Across all nine presidential administrations, infant mortality rates were below trend when the President was a Democrat and above trend when the President was a Republican.

This was true for overall, neonatal, and postneonatal mortality, with effects larger for postneonatal compared to neonatal mortality rates.

Regression estimates show that, relative to trend, Republican administrations were characterized by infant mortality rates that were, on average, three percent higher than Democratic administrations.

In proportional terms, effect size is similar for US whites and blacks. US black rates are more than twice as high as white, implying substantially larger absolute effects for blacks.

A new paper titled, “US Infant Mortality and the President’s Party“. I like my title better.

http://chrisblattman.com/2013/11/15/do- ... ll-babies/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2350275

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-syste ... eddata.htm

If science says it, it must be true!



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-syste ... eddata.htm

July 31, 2013

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Health Data

Infant mortality, deaths per 1,000 live births, 1960-2011

1960 ( 26.0)
1961 ( 25.3) Kennedy
1962 ( 25.3)
1963 ( 25.2) Johnson
1964 ( 24.8)

1965 ( 24.7)
1966 ( 23.7)
1967 ( 22.4)
1968 ( 21.8)
1969 ( 20.9) Nixon

1970 ( 20.0)
1971 ( 19.1)
1972 ( 18.5)
1973 ( 17.7)
1974 ( 16.7) Ford

1975 ( 16.1)
1976 ( 15.2)
1977 ( 14.1) Carter
1978 ( 13.8)
1979 ( 13.1)

1980 ( 12.6)
1981 ( 11.9) Reagan
1982 ( 11.5) (High)
1983 ( 11.2)
1984 ( 10.8)

1985 ( 10.6)
1986 ( 10.4)
1987 ( 10.1)
1988 ( 10.0)
1989 ( 9.8) Bush

1990 ( 9.2)
1991 ( 8.9)
1992 ( 8.5)
1993 ( 8.4) Clinton
1994 ( 8.0)

1995 ( 7.6)
1996 ( 7.3)
1997 ( 7.2)
1998 ( 7.2)
1999 ( 7.1)

2000 ( 6.9)
2001 ( 6.9) Bush
2002 ( 7.0)
2003 ( 6.8)
2004 ( 6.8)

2005 ( 6.9)
2006 ( 6.7)
2007 ( 6.8)
2008 ( 6.6)
2009 ( 6.4) Obama

2010 ( 6.2)
2011 ( 6.1)

United States ( 6.1)
OECD average ( 4.1)

[Joe Guy]

So I'm not the only one who has noticed that.

I first started noticing more infant mortalities when Reagan was president. After Clinton was elected I noticed more babies were surviving and playing joyfully on the streets.

[rubato]

I can't say that I take the overall contention completely seriously because there is a long-term downward trend which is in all probability driven by longer-term factors like the availability of Medicaid which LBJ passed in 1965 and which, it is very likely is most responsible for the steep drop during the following decade. I plotted the data and it does flatten out during Reagan-Bush I and almost completely stops dropping during Bush II so ...

What is shocking is this number:

United States ( 6.1)
OECD average ( 4.1)


We need the expansion of Medicaid provided by ObamaCare immediately and all the bullshit and lying and foot dragging is needlessly killing 2 out of 1,000 children born each year in the U.S.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Medicaid (Medi-Cal) expansion in California will go into effect 1/1/2014.

I believe that will begin at the same time in every state regardless of the current problems with online enrollment.

Although I'm not sure whether or not that will have a negating effect on the republican slaughter of babies.

[rubato]

http://www.livescience.com/37214-birth- ... tates.html


3,958,000 births in the US in 2012.


We then killed 7,900 of them* by not providing adequate health care and other social services.


yrs,
rubato

* The difference between the survival rate in the rest of the 1st world vs the U.S. The difference between what we do now versus what we can do by simply doing what others are already demonstrating to be effective.

[rubato]

States not expanding Medicaid who will continue to kill 2 out of 1000 children born in that state each year.




Among other effects.



yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Okay, almost half of our states are not participating in Medicaid expansion.

And babies will continue to die painful republican deaths in those states.

[rubato]

The states with the highest child death rates are all Republican and nearly all are ensuring that their children will continue to die at the highest rates in the 1st world by refusing Medicaid expansion.

They kill children to keep getting elected.


State ************ Child death rate (1-14 yrs) ************ Refusing to add Medicaid
1. Delaware ************ NSD ************
1. District of Columbia ************ NSD ************
1. North Dakota ************ NSD ************
1. Vermont ************ NSD ************
5. Connecticut ************ 9 ************
6. Massachusetts ************ 10 ************
7. New Jersey ************ 12 ************
7. Rhode Island ************ 12 ************
9. Hawaii ************ 13 ************
9. Iowa ************ 13 ************
9. Maine ************ 13 ************Refusnik
9. New Hampshire ************ 13 ************
9. New York ************ 13 ************
14. California ************ 14 ************
14. Maryland ************ 14 ************
14. Oregon ************ 14 ************
14. Pennsylvania ************ 14 ************
14. Virginia ************ 14 ************ Refusnik
14. Washington ************ 14 ************
20. Wisconsin ************ 15 ************Refusnik
21. Michigan ************ 16 ************
22. Colorado ************ 17 ************
22. Illinois ************ 17 ************
22. Indiana ************ 17 ************ Refusnik
22. Minnesota ************ 17 ************
22. Missouri ************ 17 ************ Refusnik
22. North Carolina ************ 17 ************
22. Texas ************ 17 ************ Refusnik
United States ************ 17 ************
22. Utah ************ 17 ************ Refusnik
30. Florida ************ 18 ************ Refusnik
30. Idaho ************ 18 ************ Refusnik
30. Nevada ************ 18 ************
30. Ohio ************ 18 ************
34. Arizona ************ 20 ************
34. Nebraska ************ 20 ************ Refusnik
34. New Mexico ************ 20 ************
34. South Carolina ************ 20 ************ Refusnik
38. Georgia ************ 21 ************ Refusnik
38. Tennessee ************ 21 ************ Refusnik
38. Wyoming ************ 21 ************Refusnik
41. Kansas ************ 22 ************ Refusnik
41. Kentucky ************ 22 ************
41. South Dakota ************ 22 ************ Refusnik
44. Louisiana ************ 23 ************ Refusnik
44. West Virginia ************ 23 ************
46. Arkansas ************ 24 ************
46. Oklahoma ************ 24 ************ Refusnik
48. Alabama ************ 25 ************ Refusnik
48. Mississippi ************ 25 ************ Refusnik
50. Alaska ************ 28 ************ Refusnik
51. Montana ************ 30 ************ Refusnik


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

This is such an incredibly stupid and pointless thread, I hardly know where to begin...

So I won't...

Not gonna bother with it...not worth my time...

[rubato]

The difference between 4 and 6 deaths in 1,000 represents the size of the opportunity. If the rest of the OECD can achieve 4 we can easily do the same if we focus on the problem.

Refusing to face the fact just perpetuates the harm, and the shame to us.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

It is telling that the most important outputs of good government are wholly unimportant to some.


You can calibrate the value of political opinions by the degree to which they are driven by reducing suffering and increasing prosperity and freedom.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I blame the American League

1960 ( 26.0)
1961 ( 25.3) Kennedy AMERICAN LEAGUE
1962 ( 25.3)
1963 ( 25.2) Johnson NATIONAL LEAGUE
1964 ( 24.8)

1965 ( 24.7)
1966 ( 23.7)
1967 ( 22.4)
1968 ( 21.8)
1969 ( 20.9) Nixon NATIONAL LEAGUE

1970 ( 20.0)
1971 ( 19.1)
1972 ( 18.5)
1973 ( 17.7)
1974 ( 16.7) Ford AMERICAN LEAGUE

1975 ( 16.1)
1976 ( 15.2)
1977 ( 14.1) Carter AMERICAN LEAGUE
1978 ( 13.8)
1979 ( 13.1)

1980 ( 12.6)
1981 ( 11.9) Reagan NATIONAL LEAGUE
1982 ( 11.5) (High)
1983 ( 11.2)
1984 ( 10.8)

1985 ( 10.6)
1986 ( 10.4)
1987 ( 10.1)
1988 ( 10.0)
1989 ( 9.8) Bush AMERICAN LEAGUE

1990 ( 9.2)
1991 ( 8.9)
1992 ( 8.5)
1993 ( 8.4) Clinton AMERICAN LEAGUE
1994 ( 8.0)

1995 ( 7.6)
1996 ( 7.3)
1997 ( 7.2)
1998 ( 7.2)
1999 ( 7.1)

2000 ( 6.9)
2001 ( 6.9) Bush NATIONAL LEAGUE
2002 ( 7.0)
2003 ( 6.8)
2004 ( 6.8)

2005 ( 6.9)
2006 ( 6.7)
2007 ( 6.8)
2008 ( 6.6)
2009 ( 6.4) Obama AMERICAN LEAGUE

2010 ( 6.2)
2011 ( 6.1)

[rubato]

Yet another unintelligent example of false equivalence.

False equivalence is merely a way of avoiding real thought.


And, speaking of real thought. Why don't you care that we are killing 8,000 children a year unnecessarily? Why don't you care that by changing policies we could stop doing that? We already did cut infant mortality by a lot by starting Medicaid and other policies.





yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah, you're becoming pro-life but your number of 8,000 a year is a tad low.

As to false equivalency, just stare at your own subject line

[Lord Jim]

I'm sorry, I wasn't going to get involved in this nonsense thread, but I can't help but asking...(even though my response has the unfortunate effect of bringing this idiotic thread back to the top of the "Politics" forum room...)

I just want to make sure I'm not hallucinating...

Am I the only one, who in looking at that initial simple one column table that rube posted, who sees a steady decline in infant mortality rates, (with occasional tenth of a point blips) across every Presidency, without regard to party, from the starting point in 1960 to the end point in 2011?

(This is not a trick question...)

Well sadly, this is hardly surprising; this is not the first time rube has demonstrated his impressive inability to properly read a simple one column table:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7131&p=88308&hilit= ... ing#p88308

The inability to properly interpret a one column table with only three numerical positions, (two whole numerals and one decimal point fraction) would seem to be an odd one for someone who fancies themselves a "scientist"... (in fact it would seem an odd problem for someone who fancied themselves a reasonably mathematically literate 5th grader)

Nevertheless, despite himself, the numbers rube has brought to the table (no pun intended) prove one thing conclusively...

There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever, (let alone a causal relationship ) between which party has held the Presidency between 1960 and 2011, and infant mortality rates.

Thanks for clearing that up rube...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks LJ for expressing the salient point with which I heartily concur.

There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever, (let alone a causal relationship ) between which party has held the Presidency between 1960 and 2011, and infant mortality rates.

Or as I put it "As to false equivalency, just stare at your own subject line"

Now neither one of us bothered to look at the three links he provided (I suppose) and his argument appears to be that "regression" analysis looked more deeply into the figures of the superficial table he actually posted.

Across all nine presidential administrations, infant mortality rates were below trend when the President was a Democrat and above trend when the President was a Republican

I put this down to the typical Democrat party supporter's tendency to sacrifice children to Moloch when a Democrat president isn't handing out goodies. Apparently it works!

Meade

( )

[Econoline]

I can't say that I take the overall contention completely seriously because there is a long-term downward trend which is in all probability driven by longer-term factors...

yrs,
rubato

Okay, so we're all agreed, now.

I hereby declare this thread DEAD.

[Crackpot]

But it's only in its infancy!

[Econoline]

This thread has passed on! This thread is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If Crackpot hadn't made one more post it'd be pushin' up the daisies already! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!!!










It's always a great day when you find an excuse to quote the Parrot Sketch!