Evo Morales Wins Re-Election in Bolivia

[Rashomon]

Good news for all of us.

So nice to see a Latin American leader step up, shake off the neo-colonialist shackles and spread the wealth of the nation to the PEOPLE OF THE NATION!

Bolivia’s Morales Wins Election, Congress on Vow to Help Poor - Bloomberg.com

Bolivian President Evo Morales claimed victory in elections yesterday following a pledge to extend his socialist “revolution” and boost payouts to the poor and elderly in the natural gas-rich nation.

[Compound]

And when things don't work out in Bolivia, Obama will have a position waiting for him

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Compound

And when things don't work out in Bolivia, Obama will have a position waiting for him

Yeah, that made no sense. You = not smart.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Yeah, that made no sense. You = not smart.

Obama will have a position waiting for him because he is a socialist.

It made perfect sense, you're just not smart enough to pick up on it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

What does this mean for the cocaine industry?

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

What does this mean for the cocaine industry?

Not sure, what is demand like these days?

[DeHannen]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

What does this mean for the cocaine industry?

It has not snow in Bolivia.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Not sure, what is demand like these days?

Demand remains steady in the United States.

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Demand remains steady in the United States.

Maybe you should be asking our ally in Colombia? Their production is up nearly 30% 2008-2009. Bolivia has a small increase of 5%.

Cocaine production surge unleashes wave of violence in Latin America | World news | The Guardian

Hopefully the oil/gas funded development programs that Evo is investing in will result in farmers able to pursue alternatives.

Good story here:
U.S.-Bolivia Ties Strained As Coca Production Rises : NPR

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Good news for all of us.

So nice to see a Latin American leader step up, shake off the neo-colonialist shackles and spread the wealth of the nation to the PEOPLE OF THE NATION!

Bolivia’s Morales Wins Election, Congress on Vow to Help Poor - Bloomberg.com

Sadly funny how socialists like Rashomon and another of his idols, Morales, vow to help the poor. How is that working out for the Cubans?

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by RQA

Sadly funny how socialists like Rashomon and another of his idols, Morales, vow to help the poor. How is that working out for the Cubans?

Better medical care than the U.S.?

Amazing group of doctors who do amazing things to help the poor all over Latin America?

Lower child mortality than the U.S.?

Take all those things together and consider the decades of ridiculous U.S. sanctions/trade embargoes and your post looks pretty friggin stupid.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Better medical care than the U.S.?

Amazing group of doctors who do amazing things to help the poor all over Latin America?

Lower child mortality than the U.S.?

Take all those things together and consider the decades of ridiculous U.S. sanctions/trade embargoes and your post looks pretty friggin stupid.

They do not have better medical care, nor do they have better child mortality rates than the US. Your research is flawed. All these points have been discussed in detail in the past. You might want to do a search.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Maybe you should be asking our ally in Colombia? Their production is up nearly 30% 2008-2009. Bolivia has a small increase of 5%.

Cocaine production surge unleashes wave of violence in Latin America | World news | The Guardian

Hopefully the oil/gas funded development programs that Evo is investing in will result in farmers able to pursue alternatives.

Good story here:
U.S.-Bolivia Ties Strained As Coca Production Rises : NPR

My understanding is that demand is growing in Europe.

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Better medical care than the U.S.?

Amazing group of doctors who do amazing things to help the poor all over Latin America?

Lower child mortality than the U.S.?

Take all those things together and consider the decades of ridiculous U.S. sanctions/trade embargoes and your post looks pretty friggin stupid.

I'm sure that the Cuban doctors do good work in Latin America. However, the child mortality rate is a bit deceiving. The US has a high rate of premature births and over 500,000 of them recorded anually. Cuba records about 125,000 births in total every year.

All of the US births are recorded as live births (including the ones that die during delivery). Many nations don't record these as births.

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Compound

They do not have better medical care, nor do they have better child mortality rates than the US. Your research is flawed. All these points have been discussed in detail in the past. You might want to do a search.

Yes they do. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

You never admit when you are wrong, no matter the evidence produced. You have zero credibility on this board.

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

My understanding is that demand is growing in Europe.

could be.

I'm sure that the Cuban doctors do good work in Latin America.

Oh there's no doubt, not that it's publicized here. Cuba does far more for our hemisphere, especially considering the wealth of the U.S.

However, the child mortality rate is a bit deceiving. The US has a high rate of premature births and over 500,000 of them recorded anually. Cuba records about 125,000 births in total every year.

Population of U.S. 308 million - Birth rate 13.2
Population of Cuba 11.5 million - Birth rate 11.2

Not so deceiving.

Anyway, the high rate of premature births in the U.S. could be linked to any number of factors.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

Yes they do. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

You never admit when you are wrong, no matter the evidence produced. You have zero credibility on this board.

I have a ton of credibility because not only is what I say typically true, but I always have support for my statements (unlike the nonsense you produce). I'll prove you wrong real quick on the infant mortality.

Here is the link

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Behind the Baby Count
By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted 9/24/06

We're a nation of beautiful babies. In a remarkable achievement, the loss of babies during their first year of life has plummeted by almost 70 percent since 1970. Yet the nation's infant mortality rate is used time and again as evidence of America's failed health system. Just last week, the Commonwealth Fund issued a score card that flunked U.S. health system performance with newborns. The reason? Our current infant mortality rate of 6.4 per 1,000 live births is high compared with the 3.2 to 3.6 per 1,000 estimated for the three top-scoring countries in the world-Iceland, Finland, and Japan. It's also higher than the 6 deaths per 1,000 for the European community as a whole. Before putting on the hair shirt, let's take a look behind these numbers as these comparisons have serious flaws. They also convey little about why we lose nearly 28,000 babies a year, a starting point if we want to bring universal health to our nation's cradles.

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

Mystery. Look at Iceland. It uses the same standards as we do. But it also has a population under 300,000 that is 94 percent homogenous, a mixture of Norse and Celts. Similarly, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of our 300 million citizens. Even factoring in education and income, Chinese-American mothers have lower rates, and African-Americans higher, than the U.S. average. Environment matters as well. Lower infant mortality tracks with fewer teen pregnancies, married as opposed to single mothers, less obesity and smoking, more education, and moms pregnant with babies that they are utterly intent on having. Yet, there are still biological factors that we don't understand that lead to spontaneous premature delivery. It's a mysterious happening when a seemingly healthy pregnant woman suddenly goes into labor and delivers at six or seven months or has to face the shock and sadness of being confined to bed, hoping to hold on for another week, another month.

One sure biological factor is volume overload from multiple-birth pregnancies, something that's been on the rise with the increased use of fertility treatments. In fact, our steadily declining infant mortality rate stalled and took a slight blip upward in 2003 possibly because of that. But there are other triggers of early labor like placental deterioration, inflammation or infection, or mixed-up hormonal signals. There is also evidence that specific genes may make some families (or maybe ethnic groups) prone to spontaneous preterm births.

Recall the young son of a president, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, who was born six weeks premature and died at Harvard Medical School's Children's Hospital Boston in 1963. He was unable to breathe because his immature lungs could not yet produce the substance surfactant, which keeps the lung's air sacs open. As a student there a few years later, I remember how doctors spoke of Patrick as a classic case of hyaline membrane disease, which was killing preterm infants of the day. Until some 20 years later when a drug form of surfactant appeared-and survival of infants like Patrick increased to over 80 percent. Now that's a score card to remember.

So as I said.....You might want to do some research (because, like always), you are completely wrong.

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Compound

I have a ton of credibility because not only is what I say typically true.

yeah, you have yet to support your statement that subsidies lower prices of major U.S. commodities.

Good luck with that, hack.

Cuba exports health - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

Some 14,000 Cuban doctors now give free treatment to Venezuela’s poor and 3,000 Cuban medical staff worked in the aftermath of last year’s Kashmir earthquake. Cuba has plans to heal those poorer than itself.

BTW, when your source includes crap like this:

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

It just shows how terrible you are at critical analysis. As if the U.S. should simply be excused for high rates of low birth rate. Way to go American Enterprise Institute!

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

yeah, you have yet to support your statement that subsidies lower prices of major U.S. commodities.

Good luck with that, hack.

Cuba exports health - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

So you admit that you are wrong about the infant mortality rates in the US being high?

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Compound

So you admit that you are wrong about the infant mortality rates in the US being high?

of course not, your sources make excuses for low birth rates, premature births etc.. As if that should not be considered.

The question you don't ask (because you don't think critically) is why does the United States have such high rates of low birth weights and premature births? Especially considering the wealth of our nation?

hack

address my post about subsidies and maybe you can regain a tiny bit of cred, not that you ever had any.

[Lomez]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

of course not, your sources make excuses for low birth rates, premature births etc.. As if that should not be considered.

The question you don't ask (because you don't think critically) is why does the United States have such high rates of low birth weights and premature births? Especially considering the wealth of our nation?

.

the white man?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

of course not, your sources make excuses for low birth rates, premature births etc.. As if that should not be considered.

The question you don't ask (because you don't think critically) is why does the United States have such high rates of low birth weights and premature births? Especially considering the wealth of our nation?

hack

You just can't admit when you are wrong. If a child is born in the U.S. at 26 weeks and survives for 5 minutes and then dies....then that child is counted as a death. If that same child is born in France, it's not counted as a death because the child was less than 12" long.

So it's not an apples to apples comparison. That was a huge point of the article, which I'm guessing you didn't read. When you do compare apples to apples we are as good as anyone in the world (even Norway as the author points out which has one of the lowest in the world).

As far as your BS accusation that I don't think critically, the answer to why we have so many low birth rates is very simple. It's because we have so many people using fertility treatments. Fertility treatments increase the probability of twins, triplets, etc. Twins, triplets, etc tend to be born earlier at a lower birthrate, hence the higher incidence of premature babies born at a low birth rate. If we wanted to be like many of these other countries, people could simply not have access to many of these fertility treatments and then we would have less low birth rates. But I'm guessing most people who are having fertility problems, would rather try to have kids even if it means a higher risk of low birth rate, then to simply never have children.

You're really just out of your league. You should listen more, talk less.

[Rashomon]

United States preterm birth rate continues to rise

The report also noted an increase in preterm births to Hispanic women, while rates were unchanged for non-Hispanic whites and blacks. However, black women continue to have the highest preterm birth rate, at 18.5 percent.
The preterm birth rate continued to rise despite the fact that multiple births, a known risk factor for preterm birth, have begun to stabilize.

Certainly doesn't fit into Compounds little theory.

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Compound

You just can't admit when you are wrong. If a child is born in the U.S. at 26 weeks and survives for 5 minutes and then dies....then that child is counted as a death. If that same child is born in France, it's not counted as a death because the child was less than 12" long.

So it's not an apples to apples comparison. That was a huge point of the article, which I'm guessing you didn't read. When you do compare apples to apples we are as good as anyone in the world (even Norway as the author points out which has one of the lowest in the world).

As far as your BS accusation that I don't think critically, the answer to why we have so many low birth rates is very simple. It's because we have so many people using fertility treatments. Fertility treatments increase the probability of twins, triplets, etc. Twins, triplets, etc tend to be born earlier at a lower birthrate, hence the higher incidence of premature babies born at a low birth rate. If we wanted to be like many of these other countries, people could simply not have access to many of these fertility treatments and then we would have less low birth rates. But I'm guessing most people who are having fertility problems, would rather try to have kids even if it means a higher risk of low birth rate, then to simply never have children.

You're really just out of your league. You should listen more, talk less.

address my post about subsidies and maybe you can regain a tiny bit of cred, not that you ever had any.

dodge

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

United States preterm birth rate continues to rise

Your link is irrelevant because you're not looking behind the numbers. Your numbers are essentially bogus, and I've been trying to explain to you why, but you don't listen. You would rather google low infant mortality rates and try to find support for what you are saying that figure out what is actually real.

You're hopeless.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

dodge

dodge? Are you out of your mind? I'm done with you. I've totally run circles around your claim that the US has high infant mortality rates, yet you just insist on living in your little bubble.

Anyone with half a brain can see how inept you are by now, so I have no more use for you.