Why would South Dakota's quality of life for kids be so low? Folks say the Plains are a great place to raise kids, providing quality of life that outweighs the low pay and blizzards. And that's apparently true... in our neighboring states. On overall rank in child well-being, our friends in the People's Republic of Minnesota rank #1. Iowa ranks #7, followed closely by the frozen wasteland of North Dakota at #8. Nebraska is #10. Even the hinterlands of Wyoming and Montana manage to edge South Dakota, ranking #25 and #29 respectively.
Our neighbors put us to shame on infant mortality. South Dakota loses 8.2 babies per 1000 live births. Compare that to Montana, the nation's leader, with an infant mortality rate of 4.5 infant deaths per 1000 live births. Minnesota ranks 3rd at 4.7. Iowa ranks 5th at 5.1. North Dakota is 12th at 5.6, and Nebraska is 24th at 6.6. Of our neighbors, only Wyoming posts a worse infant mortality rate than South Dakota, ranking 46th nationwide with a rate of 8.8. (By the way, Canada, land of socialized medicine, has an infant mortality rating of 5.0, according to the World Health Organization.)
We South Dakotans also stink up the neighborhood with our teen death rate of 80 per 100,000. Here Iowa takes the lead, ranking 3rd nationwide with a rate of 45 per 100,000. Minnesota is 10th at 52, followed by North Dakota (19th/61), Nebraska (25th/67), and Wyoming (31st/74). We come out ahead only of only one neighbor, Montana (49th/104).
Our overall child death rate is the most scandalous: we are last in the nation, 39 per 100,000. That's almost too depressing to bother relating the numbers for our neighbors, but for the sake of completeness, among our neighbors, Minnesota is tops (rank of 12th, rate of 18), followed by Wyoming (18th/20), Iowa (20th/21), Nebraska (34th/25), North Dakota (36th/26), and Montana (45th/31).
These numbers showing South Dakota is a relatively unhealthy place for kids rile this author all the more because this author loves South Dakota and wants to see families moving their kids here in droves. If we're a pro-life state, if "we love babies," why are our kids dying at higher rates than the kids in most of our neighboring states, and how do we improve our numbers?
- Renew SCHIP, and make sure the state authorizes prenatal care under it. HHS's own figures show that in 2001, SCHIP covered 4.6 million kids who wouldn't otherwise have had access to health care. (Are you listening, Senator Thune?)
- Go one better than SCHIP: Pass universal health care. Fewer babies die in nations with universal health care. (Indeed, this is correlation, not causation -- fire away with your confounding factors!) Cry socialism if you wish, but take your pick: economic ideology or live babies? Hmm... which will the Zaniya Project choose?
- Change our teen driving laws. AAA has recommended a series of laws governing teen driving that would require more parental superivision for kids driving and limit when kids are allowed to go driving with a bunch of friends in the car. South Dakota, alas, lags behind other states in enacting those proposals. Think about the car accidents involving teenagers that you hear about on the news. How often do you hear of a teen driver getting in a wreck with Mom and Dad in the car? How much more often do you hear of accidents involving teen drivers with other teens in the car?
- For those of you who don't like the nanny state, well, why not do it yourselves? Mrs. Madville Times and I will will have a teenager on the premises in 12 short years. Much as we long for the day when she will require much less supervision, we'd rather she make it to adulthood. We thus guarantee that, regardless of what South Dakota's laws may permit in the coming couple decades, our little one will not be driving by herself or with friends to parties in Sioux Falls (or at Lake Madison, or anywhere) until she's 18. If -- if, if, if! -- she gets access to a car before age 18, that access will be severely limited and supervised. She may not like it, but, well, she doesn't like it when her parents don't let her play with pens, either, but a little crying beats a pen stuck in an eye socket. Ditto when she's older. Inattentive parents cost money and lives; we can reverse that problem with a little personal responsibility.
I would say that the factor putting us in this category of child deaths is the Indian reservations. If they have free medical care, that you so joyously champion, why is it that their child mortality is so high? They should be higher than the general population if free medical care is as great as you say.
ReplyDeleteAs far as teens driving, it was great to have the kids drive themselves to school when they reached 14. But I worried each time they left the yard and was so thankful when they returned unhurt. Personally I think 14 is too young to drive; they really are just kids yet and not responsible enough and too easily distracted by friends or cell phones in a car. (Actually, approaching the other end of the age spectrum as a senior, I guess that could apply to me too though!)
I did like your statement that a little personal responsibility as a parent is important. I love that statement, personal responsibility, in many other instances too!
I wondered if our Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota friends would come up in this discussion.
ReplyDelete--First, it doesn't matter what color the dying kids are or what part of the state they live in -- their deaths shouldn't happen. "Live baby good, dead baby bad" -- remember?
--"free medical care" -- Well, yeah, if giving up millions of acres of land for a handful of hospitals spread out across some of the most sparsely populated territory in the country meets your definition of "free." I haven't done the study on this one, but I suspect a couple hundred years of genocide, treaty violations, forced assimilation, and destruction of one's culture might have a mitigating effect on the benefits of even the best medical care. (Have Osama lead an invasion, take over America, kill off 90% of us, and force the rest of us to adopt sharia and live in the Badlands, and see how healthy we become.) I will continue to "joyously champion" (good phrase -- I do advocate with joy!) universal health care, but in terms of reversing infant mortality on the reservations, we have much more to atone for and fix.
--On Indian Health Service, read more at Wikipedia, the official Indian Health Service website, and the American Indian Education Center.
--personal responsibility: see? we agree on more than the casual observer might think. I just think that sometimes personal responsibility means taking your government in hand and telling it what to do for the common good. (I also think that it sometimes means acting to solve problems rather than ignoring them and consoling ourselves with the magical notion that the free market will solve the problem for us.)
I never said that it was good that any young children die. I simply said that the statistics leading SD to the bottom are skewed compared to other states because of our reservations.
ReplyDeleteI still stand by my point though. If free medical care is such a great thing, then the reservations should be leading the way.
And it's been many generations since Native Americans roamed the prairie hunting buffalo. It's time for them to assume their rightful role as members of this great nation, not as second class citizens sitting back waiting for gov't freebies. In history many, many, many peoples have been conquered by others. It doesn't give them the right to sit back generations later and assume the victim identity.