If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   U.S. is now 51st in the world for life expectancy. It would be higher except for the increasing rate of crime, obesity, people imitating stunts on "Jackass"   (opposingviews.com) divider line 87
    More: Fail, U.S., life expectancy, developed country, obesity, interest rates  
•       •       •

1916 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Dec 2012 at 10:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 04:08:27 PM

Agarista: but what if I don't want to live 93 years?


freethinker.co.uk
 
2012-12-03 04:12:21 PM

Stone Meadow: Hey, hey...I found a fun life expectancy test: 82.1 years for me.


I'd say a DNA test would be better.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:01 PM
In before somebody comes out and overtly blames black people and Hispanics (rather than the red herring of crime, which has already been pre-refuted by the graphs, etc).

But just iin case I missed something, not only has the crime rate dropped dramatically to 1960s levels while the American middle class have gone South (both literally and metaphorically), but the gap between blacks and whites improved over much of the period, with blacks living longer thanks to US-style socialism.

Furthermore, I've seen studies that eliminated the question of race, sex and age by comparing upper middle class middle aged white males to those in the UK and there is STILL a gap in life expectancy.

The US has an ace in the hole of technology and a highly trained elite of medical personnel (many of them imported from the best schools and hospitals abroad) but despite spending 150% of what Canada, the next most spend-thrift country spends, the US falls down.

Why? Well, advertising. Americans see about ten times as much as the British and most advertising, in case you haven't noticed, is for things you do not need: junk food, alcohol, tobacco, guns, big cars, and BS medical products and services.

Americans drink more soda, eat more junk food, eat more frozen, processed and adulterated crap, spend less time on family meals (and a heck of a lot more time "browsing", which is to say snacking day and night), and live high speed, high stress, and low nutrition lives.

France managed its enviable reputation as a thin country (until recently) by eating well, slowly and deliberated. The Government played Nanny State from the late nineteenth century until recently, which meant teaching children not to snack between meals, to appreciate good food (where else does the Government spend money promoting gourmet food to children?) and so forth.

As a result the French have always enjoyed more positive reenforcement from society and state, while the US has got its lessons in nutrition from corporations or corporations desguised as government advice (much of it dubious).

The same is true of exercise and everything else that is good for you: it is overwhelmed with crankery, advertising, merchandizing and bogus advice funnelled into political and bureaucratic channels by corporations and lobbies for dairy, meat, cheese, soya, corn, etc.

And this is true to some extent of other countries such as Canada, Australia and the UK as well. So those countries that you most often compare yourself to are not doing as well as they could be either.

In Canada, for example, fast food contains quite a bit more salt than in the US, even. That's probably a bit of a quirk, although Canada has salt mines and I wouldn't put it past the salt industry or the government to promote them, seeing as the Canadian government has long been in complete denial on asbestos (at least insofar as it is exported--our regulations are more protective at home than overseas).

If something is good, it doesn't need to be pushed so hard as what I call the White Deaths: salt, starch, sugar, alcohol, cotton*, fat, oils, white flour, chalk, bone-meal, soyabean by-products (as opposed to the fermented soya which is so healthy for the Japanese and Chinese).

*Cotton is on this list despite being inedible because American entrepreneurs have tried their hardest to make it edible (remember Milos Mindbender feeding Egyptian cotton to the troops in Catch 22?) and because it is one of the most fertilizied and pesticide-sprayed crops there is. You might add bananas, although they are not grown in the US or Europe, because they are promoted by giant evil corporations, because they take immense amounts of pesticides, and because they have promoted deforestation and slavery and other evils on a gigantic scale.

IF IT'S WHITE, IT'S A BLIGHT. I covered potato blight under "starch".

It would not be too safe to have a close look at how shrimp, firsh, cattle, chicken, pork, etc. are produced either. WHITE MEAT IS POISON. Well, not really. At least it is better in some ways than red. But pork and chicken are raised under catastrophic environmental and economic conditions, so they are nearly as bad as beef, sheep, and horses.

The consumer society (as it proudly called itself in the 1950s and 1960s, until the 1970s began to reveal the fallacies and failures of consumerism and corporatism as ways of life, is based first and fore most on making the worser case seem the better. It is a form of rhetoric that tells us that cancer is healthy growth and that there is NO OTHER WAY.

We must, we must, we must prepare our bust--as a civilization and a world. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO. GO TO SLEEP. SLEEP. EAT. SHOP. F**K.

Or as the French say, Metro, Boulot, Dodo. Subway, work, sleepy-by.

To the tune of Brahm's Lullaby

Go to sleep
Little sheep
We can't sheer you
If you're raucous

Go to sleep
Little sheep
And may you
Never, ever wake up.

Judas goats
We've got plenty
In case you are
Doubtful

Judas goats
Fat and sleek
Will lead you to
Rest.

And that's best
For our prophets profits!
 
2012-12-03 04:29:42 PM

KiltedBastich: Canadians are probably the most culturally similar group to Americans of any nation in the world, and we have a lifespan on average three years longer. We watch much the same TV, eat the same food, do the same jobs. The big difference is that we have socialized medicine.>


You're ignoring another BIG difference: racial makeup. The US is about 66% white, 12% black, 8% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 3% Native American, and so on. Link

Canada is 80% white, 13% Asian, 4% First Nations and 2.5% black. Link

To put those numbers in perspective, the US has more blacks than Canada has total population. And Canada's population is 93% from the longest living races, while the US's is just 70%. Yeah, you have socialized medicine, but normalize for race and I'll bet there isn't much if any difference in longevity between our two countries.
 
2012-12-03 04:33:49 PM

BgJonson79: Stone Meadow: Hey, hey...I found a fun life expectancy test: 82.1 years for me.

I'd say a DNA test would be better.




Is there a commercial DNA test that purports to measure expected longevity? I also question whether a DNA test on an adult is more accurate than examining statistically validated lifestyle and predisposition factors.
 
2012-12-03 04:42:08 PM

Stone Meadow: If one takes out the effects of race (blacks in particular live shorter lives than American whites), our life expectancy is as good as other western countries with large populations. Non-story.


Non-fact.

Life expectancy plunges for white high school dropouts in the US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/life-expectancy-white-high-s c hool-dropouts-us_n_1903132.html

September 22, 2012 7:24 AM
Shocker stat of the day: life expectancy decreases by 4 years among poor white people in the U.S.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_09/shock er_st at_of_the_day_life_e040058.php

Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation
ROBERT PEAR
New York Times
Published: March 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - New government research has found "large and growing" disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.

This is in addition to the already existing gap between US and UK upper middle class professional white males that I mentioned above.

To it you can add the fact that immigrants, for example, Mexican immigrants, eat better on average than natives and have better health--for their first fifteen years in the US. After that, they have become Americanized and show the health problems common among white Americans, only more so because they are poorer.

Yes, blacks and Hispanic poor drag down the national average, but they drag it down from second rate, mediocre, a massive failure given the fact that the US spends four times as much on health care per capita as, say, Turkey, and 150% (as I have already mentioned) as Canada.

And since when should we accept the argument that the blacks don't count? Aren't they Americans? aren't the Hispanics who lived in the South West centuries before the white man arrived in the Americas Americans even more than the immigrants since 1492?

The crime argument is trivial (murder is a small part of the extra mortality in the US, especially if you don't insist on "heavily populated white countries" as your point of comparison. Japan, I could see--it is heavily populated, NOT white and has a murder rate of less than 1 in 100,000 deaths. Comparing the US to Japan only would be tilting the playing field perhaps, but not comparing it to Germany, France, or the UK, Canada or Australia, Sweden or the Netherlands.

You're worse than ALL of the heavily populated white countries, many of which have large non-white populations and one of which is SPAIN, the most hispanic country this side of Mexico.

SPAIN IS AN ECONOMIC BASKET CASE--AND WAS IF ANYTHING, WORSE FOR MOST OF ITS HISTORYN THAN NOW. IT RANKS 15 WHERE YOU RANK 51.

Ha! Ha! Case closed, amigos!

I'll throw in the UK for free. I guess that makes our medical problem state USUK! The richest and most advanced country in the world, but sadly, not the best country in which to be poor or middle class, because the super-rich hog all the money and all the health care while pounding the poor and middle classes into third world levels of health, wealth and happiness. Well, worse. Costa Rica's only 59th but it is also the most environmental sound country in the world, one of the happiest, and over all, doing just fine when you consider the poverty and limited government spending.

No wonder Rush Limbaugh talked about moving there if Obamacare passed. He'd be able to benefit from good healthcare without paying a tenth as much for it!
 
2012-12-03 04:44:26 PM
Repeat after me: black people are entitled to the same health care as white people, cost what it may.

Now write that out on the chalk board 100 times.
 
2012-12-03 04:59:26 PM

Stone Meadow: BgJonson79: Stone Meadow: Hey, hey...I found a fun life expectancy test: 82.1 years for me.

I'd say a DNA test would be better.



Is there a commercial DNA test that purports to measure expected longevity? I also question whether a DNA test on an adult is more accurate than examining statistically validated lifestyle and predisposition factors.


According to my doctor, my genetics mean that my crappy eating habits STILL give me a negative risk factor for heart disease. We don't like admitting the role genetics plays because it takes away from our free will, but I'd be willing to be it's the strongest indicator of all. After all, George Burns loved cigars and lived to be 100+ while Dana Reeves didn't smoke and died of lung cancer.
 
2012-12-03 05:03:37 PM

brantgoose: Repeat after me: black people are entitled to the same health care as white people, cost what it may.

Now write that out on the chalk board 100 times.


What about east Asians? West Asians? Hispanics? Native Americans? South Asians? Saharan Africans? Central Asians?
 
2012-12-03 05:04:14 PM

chuckufarlie: how many countries above the US on that list have socialized medicine?


All of them? That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.

Ask a Conservative or Republican if the USA has socialized medicine. You betcha! The mixed public-private system in the US is different from the mixed public-private "socialized medicine" of Canada or the UK, not so much Germany, but certainly France, etc.

ALL COUNTRIES HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE if by socialized medicine you insist on perversely meaning government-funded health insurance.

Technically, of course, "socialism" doesn't mean the same as STATE. King Louis (I AM THE STATE) XIV of France paid baby bonuses (especially in Canada, where he wanted the population to be boot-strapy and plentiful). He was not a socialist.

Socialism is definied as a system of property ownership in which productive capital is owned by the workers. BY THE WORKERS. A farm coop is socialism. The Government of France is not socialism. It is a statist interventionist top-down elitist system of government which is still in many ways the State created by Louis XIV and his Intendants.

Any system of government can be interventionist. Any system of government can own monopolies. Louix XIV, for example, pretty much controlled several commodities such as salt (the staff of life) and imported spices (through a State company which unlike the Hudson's Bay Company founded by Prince Rupert of England, never showed a profit to the Crown, although the shareholders did well by themselves, as did the greater servants and lesser servants of the company, who ruled the colonies like kings in their own right and interest).

The same was true of the East India Company (which the American populace so hated because of the attempt to bail them out at the consumer's expense). It was not socialism. It was not owned by the workers. The workers were mostly slaves. It was owned by the rich and the not so rich who stole as much as they could and oppressed the masses with very little tut-tutting from the State, which spent fortunes more than any of the colonies except India ever brought in).

ALL MODERN, ADVNACED, WEALTHY AND LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES ARE SOCIALIST BY THE DEFINITION USED BY AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES AND OTHERS OF THEIR ILK, I.E., FASCISTS, CORPORATISTS, THE RIGHT-WING SUPER-RICH.

In fact, the only people who seem to believe that this is socialism is the very sort of people who rejoiced in the invention of the Joint Stock Company and Limited Liability, a device designed to prevent the management and shareholders from being responsable for the debts of the company. Limited liability has proven time and again a tool for robbing the state, customers, workers and everybody else blind.

You have a variety of choices in government and mis-government but socialism is not one of them. A truly socialist government would, like the US Government in Bellamy's utopian novel, Looking Backwards, be merely another company owned by the workers.

But as we all know, the US government is not owned by the people. It is owned by the rich white "Christian" subsidy-sucking male. Even rich white women have very little say in it, although they have more individually than most of the rest of the population combined. Whether Mrs. Heinz or Mrs. Romney, Ma "Barker" Bush or Hillary, Melinda Gates or Ann Coulter, they are the courtisanes of the court of the 400 and thus have power without responsability and very often without accountability of any sort.

And this is why people hate "strong conservative women"--they are Harpies at the Feast of Democracy and their song is variations on "let them eat cake", which by the by was not said by Marie Antoinette, who was a bit of a flake, as it was published by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766.
 
2012-12-03 05:12:03 PM
Time to trundle out the utterly debunked and stupid "life expectancy is lower because we need a socialist health care system!" I see.

Life expectancy has a lot to do with life style choice. We have a lot of people in this country who make poor choices.
 
2012-12-03 05:33:26 PM

BgJonson79: Stone Meadow: Is there a commercial DNA test that purports to measure expected longevity? I also question whether a DNA test on an adult is more accurate than examining statistically validated lifestyle and predisposition factors.

According to my doctor, my genetics mean that my crappy eating habits STILL give me a negative risk factor for heart disease. We don't like admitting the role genetics plays because it takes away from our free will, but I'd be willing to be it's the strongest indicator of all. After all, George Burns loved cigars and lived to be 100+ while Dana Reeves didn't smoke and died of lung cancer.


Interesting. Do you know what genetics test he was looking at? I'm genuinely interested. TIA
 
2012-12-03 06:08:45 PM

randomjsa: Time to trundle out the utterly debunked and stupid "life expectancy is lower because we need a socialist health care system!" I see.

Life expectancy has a lot to do with life style choice. We have a lot of people in this country who make poor choices because they cannot afford to be healthy on minimum wage.


FTFY
 
2012-12-03 06:28:56 PM

BgJonson79: Really? Are you REALLY trying to compare the SW of the USA to Quebec? That's funny ;-)


Sure, you can pick out specific regions and claim they are wildly different if you want. It's a fallacious argument, but you can do it. The inhabitants of Montreal's Chinatown don't resemble the inhabitants of Montreal's Jewish areas either. So what's your point? It remains that overall, Canadians taken as a whole are the nation the most culturally similar to Americans. Note also that "similar" =/= "identical". If you want to start nit-picking tiny differences, you are entirely missing the point.

And finally, yes, many parts of Quebec are in fact very similar to parts of the American SW. Small, rural communities that have lived on the land for centuries and who are immensely distrustful of outsiders. If you get past the obvious differences in language and sometimes ethnicity there are very large similarities, at least from a sociological or anthropological perspective.

Stone Meadow: You're ignoring another BIG difference: racial makeup. The US is about 66% white, 12% black, 8% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 3% Native American, and so on. Link

Canada is 80% white, 13% Asian, 4% First Nations and 2.5% black. Link

To put those numbers in perspective, the US has more blacks than Canada has total population. And Canada's population is 93% from the longest living races, while the US's is just 70%. Yeah, you have socialized medicine, but normalize for race and I'll bet there isn't much if any difference in longevity between our two countries.


Did you ignore the part where I mentioned:

KiltedBastich: No one has ever shown any significant difference in lifespan according to race that is not adequately explained by cultural differences like diet and lifestyle.


You're ascribing to race something that is not due to race, but due primarily to cultural differences. Lifestyle, diet, behaviour, norms and expectations about seeking medical care, etc. These are the primary drivers of differences in lifespan. And whether you realize it or not, socialized medicine is a big difference that produces profound changes. Why? Because people are free to seek preventative care without worrying about the impact on their pocketbook.

I am a perfect example. I've been having a repeated pain in my abdomen in exactly the same spot on an intermittent basis for a couple of months. It's not a large pain. It's tiny, and it's not hampering my lifestyle in the slightest. But it's unusual, so I'm going to the doctor next week to ask about it. Because I live in Canada, I have absolutely no qualms about doing so, it will not affect my finances in any way whatsoever. Hopefully it will be nothing. In that case, the time spent going to the doctor will be worth it for peace of mind. If it isn't nothing, hopefully I will have gone early enough to deal with it as a minor issue, whatever it is. And either way, I have no fear of bankruptcy, or of my premiums going up, or of having to get permission from some third party to get my health checked. None of that is even something that comes to mind for me except when I am posting in a thread like this one.

The easy availability of preventative medicine under socialized medical systems is a huge deal. I cannot overstate this. And many of you living in the USA simply don't grasp this because you haven't lived it. It has a very large impact on lifespan and quality of life. Frankly, I would reject out of hand living in the USA unless and until a real socialized medical system is put in place. I have a strong family history of cancer, alzheimer's and athritis. I can pretty much guarantee I'll have to deal with at least one, if not two or three of those conditions. Why would I want to live somewhere that conditions I am all but certain to have to deal with are likely to bankrupt me, regardless of other considerations?
 
2012-12-03 07:11:15 PM

Jim_Callahan: So... the US has basically the same life expectancy as everywhere else in the first world (around 80), and this is bad for America somehow?


Didn't you get the memo? Every comparison, ranking, or discussion of countries has to include the thought that the US is worse. Every single time.
This rule is at least as required as Rule 34, or Godwin's Law.
 
2012-12-03 07:37:13 PM

Jim_Callahan: So... the US has basically the same life expectancy as everywhere else in the first world (around 80), and this is bad for America somehow?


It just costs us three times as much as a percentage of GDP.
 
2012-12-03 07:41:55 PM

meat0918: Fish in a Barrel: Sybarite: increasing rate of crime

The what now?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 518x469]

Thank you. This fear-mongering lie about out-of-control crime in the US really annoys me.

Overall it's down. It bounces around for some places.

In 2009, where I live had a spike in crime. 2010 we dropped. 2011 has dropped This year, crime is on the rise again. Can't imagine why.

(The county is closing jail beds, last week they release 31 more people early, and one guy was back in jail an hour later for bank robbery, another has already been arrested again now . They didn't even bother arresting a junkie that was causing problems last week http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Oregon-budget-cuts-mean-crimi nal-suspect-goes-free-4073515.php, because they knew he'd be right back out on the street the next day.


This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

At present our system churns out violent criminals who pray on victims from those who went into their "Punishment" as non-violent, victimless criminals.. When we finally decide that victimless crimes for the most part should not be punished by jail time and we actually try to rehabilitate offenders we are not going shrink our prison population down to those who actually belong someplace outside of society or executed. Until then we are going to have these stories of "SEE WE SHOULD NOT BE LETTING THESE CRIMINALS OUT OF JAIL" crap. No one wants to take real issues seriously in this country. We are far to worried about thing completely irrelevant to a healthy society such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, School Prayer, and what ever new rabble rousing pointless thing those who want to stay in power trump up next week.

So your regurgitation of these rabble rousers attempts to misdirect the country from real issues is not appreciated.
 
2012-12-03 08:03:13 PM
brantgoose your rant is quite something. not the most insane one in the thread, but its good. it got scary at the poetry / song, i'm going to double down on the meds tonight. any way, i think you overlooked this post way far up before yours:

juniperwasting: So what happens if we take the South out of the equation? Top 5 would be my bet.


i'm not sure if this post is regarding incredibly horrible eating habits in some southern states, or if this poster was afraid to come right out and show their KKK membership card and get right to the point. i don't know.
 
2012-12-03 08:10:19 PM

MyRandomName: Liberal statistics are always farking awful.

Normalize the countries by racial makeup and get back to me.

Also normalize it by obesity.

Taking a comparison between radically different population sets is beyond dumb.



Maybe you could get Dean Chambers to unskew those numbers.
 
2012-12-03 08:11:18 PM
Shhh, subby... The whole purpose of "Jackass" is to bring the Darwin Awards candidate numbers back up. Too many stupid people are being saved by safety labels, hazard warnings, protective gear, and such. If we don't bring balance back into the natural selection, society will be overrun by people who should have strangled to death by blind cords or drowned in five-gallon buckets when they were kids.
 
2012-12-03 08:13:12 PM

Agarista: but what if I don't want to live 93 years?


Tough. You should have thought about that before you decided to be born.
 
2012-12-03 08:16:20 PM
FTFA: Even though the U.S. pays more money for health care than any other industrialized nation, it comes in at 51st at 78.49 years, lower than Canada (81.48), which has socialized medicine.

Just because we pay more doesn't mean we're getting more. Doctors, hospitals, and the whole host of cottage industries make up the health care industry in this country are way too damned expensive.
 
2012-12-03 09:10:59 PM

Cythraul: I'm probably individually responsible for bringing us down a couple of ranks.

Sorry.


You should be sorry Madrox, it's not nice of you to upset the stats like that!
 
2012-12-03 09:28:39 PM

KrispyKritter: brantgoose your rant is quite something. not the most insane one in the thread, but its good. it got scary at the poetry / song, i'm going to double down on the meds tonight. any way, i think you overlooked this post way far up before yours:

juniperwasting: So what happens if we take the South out of the equation? Top 5 would be my bet.

i'm not sure if this post is regarding incredibly horrible eating habits in some southern states, or if this poster was afraid to come right out and show their KKK membership card and get right to the point. i don't know.


Eating habits, highest rates of diabetes in the world, largest waistlines of all the states. Yeah, that thing. No pointy hats here.
 
2012-12-03 10:29:43 PM

KiltedBastich: MyRandomName: Liberal statistics are always farking awful.

Normalize the countries by racial makeup and get back to me.

Also normalize it by obesity.

Taking a comparison between radically different population sets is beyond dumb.

The truly dumb idea here is yours. The numbers you want to normalize are in fact a large component of the independent variable being analyzed in the first place. No one has ever shown any significant difference in lifespan according to race that is not adequately explained by cultural differences like diet and lifestyle. And obesity is one of those diet and lifestyle issues. And guess what? A really big and important cultural difference is the availability of socialized medicine. Canadians are probably the most culturally similar group to Americans of any nation in the world, and we have a lifespan on average three years longer. We watch much the same TV, eat the same food, do the same jobs. The big difference is that we have socialized medicine.

Just so we're clear about how stupid what you said is, you might as well have said it was unfair to compare nations without normalizing their death rates, at which point everyone would be equal. That's how dumb your claim here was. It not only missed the point, it recommended a remedy that would defeat the purpose of the whole exercise. So I am willing to accept that you're truly stupid and don't understand the variables that affect death rates for a nation, or that you're a mendacious shill deliberately trying to obscure the issue. Either explanation fits. Mind telling us all which it is?


Thank you. Now if only we could find a treatment that would enable Americans to comprehend that available health care leads to better health. I'm afraid that might involve education, though.
 
2012-12-04 12:14:28 AM

chuckufarlie: how many countries above the US on that list have socialized medicine?


[ NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED ]

I don't want to put in too much effort, so I'll just go to wiki's list of countries organized by life expectancy. It's a few years old, but surely enough to get the gist of things...

1. Japan: Insurance mandate, public option.
2. Hong Kong: Heavily regulated private and public care.
3. Israel: Universal coverage under mandatory-participation nationally administered program.
4. Italy: Universal coverage via mixed public/private system with close regulation.
5. Iceland: Universal coverage via state-run healthcare; More doctors/capita than any other nation.
6. Australia: Basic universal coverage via medicare with extended private coverage.
7. Singapore: Narrowly but closely regulated private sector; Government offers catastrophic coverage.
8. Spain: Universal coverage administred by government under constitutional mandate.
9. Sweden: Universal availability of heavily subsidized healthcare.
10. Macau: Universal access single payer.
11. France: Universal coverage, principally through government-funded national insurange program
12. Canada: Universal coverage for medically necessary services via single payer.
13. New Zealand: Roughly 3/4 government funded, most of remainder non-profit.
14. Norway: All hospitals funded out of national budget.
15. UK: Each of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales provide universal single-payer coverage.
16. Austria: Compulsory contribution to national plan provides universal coverage.
* Stop, get up, take a break, walk around a bit*
17. Netherlands: Government coverage of long-term and disability; closely regulated coverage of the rest.
18. Greece: Universal coverage through state-run insurance.
19. Belgium: Mandatory basic coverage through national plan; Closely regulated private insurance
20. Malta: Free healthcare, paid by contributions from workers and employers; Private coverage available.
21. Germany: Universally available subsidized basic coverage; Regulated extended private coverage.
22. Finland: Universally available coverage; small private sector.
23. Cyprus: Universal coverage; free for poor, 12 euro/consultation and 85euro/day inpatient otherwise.
24. Costa Rica: Universal healthcare freely available to all citizens and residents.
25. Luxembourg: National health insurance program.
26. UAE: Healthcare free for citizens.
27. South Korea: Universal coverage through National Health Insurance Program.
28. Chile: Universal coverage through public option.
29. Denmark: Over 99% managed by local governments; universal availability.
30. Cuba: Government-run free healthcare.

TL; DR: All of them. Without exception.

Pictured below: what I will generously call your "argument":

ndep.nv.gov
 
2012-12-04 05:29:19 AM

BgJonson79: brantgoose: Repeat after me: black people are entitled to the same health care as white people, cost what it may.

Now write that out on the chalk board 100 times.

What about east Asians? West Asians? Hispanics? Native Americans? South Asians? Saharan Africans? Central Asians?


Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Hell No. Maybe.
 
Esn
2012-12-04 08:36:58 AM

dletter: Monaco has a wealthy population

I think you'll find a lot of correlation with this.

I'd be interested to see the U.S.'s life expectancy in the "Households above 50k" vs. "Households making below 50k" categories, or based on net worth splits. I guess it is probably hard to do that, but, I think the point is.... Life Expectancy has a lot to do with income, especially in a country that does not have society wide healthcare (which was the point of this article I suppose).

Of course, you'll also have the Lindsey Lohan's of the world bringing down the higher net worth bracket.


It must hurt to see Cuba only a few spots below the US (at #60) considering how much poorer Cubans are and how little money they spend on healthcare.

Doesn't that suggest that Cuba spends its money much more efficiently than the US?

Oh, what irony... 

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia craps money but is at #108 in life expectancy.
 
2012-12-04 01:14:40 PM
So? Who wants to live forever?
i66.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-05 12:07:53 AM
I personally think civil malpractice suits should be eliminated (you can still sue for criminal damages) and insurance eliminated entirely, both medical and malpractice. Healthcare costs are then paid entirely out of pocket, but the fees are now reasonable. Doctors get 1k per surgery instead of 30k but also don't have to put 70% of their paycheck back into the insurance system. Oh, and drug patents are invalidated except for actual new drugs.
 
2012-12-05 01:58:56 PM

kazikian: I personally think civil malpractice suits should be eliminated (you can still sue for criminal damages) and insurance eliminated entirely, both medical and malpractice. Healthcare costs are then paid entirely out of pocket, but the fees are now reasonable. Doctors get 1k per surgery instead of 30k but also don't have to put 70% of their paycheck back into the insurance system. Oh, and drug patents are invalidated except for actual new drugs.


Docs _are_ paid ~1k for surgery instead of 30k, at least for most surgeries I'm familiar with (orthopedic & transplant). The rest of the money goes to the hospital, not the doc.
 
2012-12-05 08:43:46 PM

cig-mkr: dletter: Monaco has a wealthy population

I think you'll find a lot of correlation with this.

I'd be interested to see the U.S.'s life expectancy in the "Households above 50k" vs. "Households making below 50k" categories, or based on net worth splits. I guess it is probably hard to do that, but, I think the point is.... Life Expectancy has a lot to do with income, especially in a country that does not have society wide healthcare (which was the point of this article I suppose).

Of course, you'll also have the Lindsey Lohan's of the world bringing down the higher net worth bracket.

Life Expectancy has a lot to do with income
And income dictates where you live, an inner city youth I'm sure has a lower life expectancy then someone from Knob Hill.


Are you saying the US has lower incomes than the semi-socialist countries that have higher life expectancies? That's like a mother explaining away her son's poor exam results by saying he's stupider than the other kids.
 
2012-12-06 12:48:08 PM

draypresct: kazikian: I personally think civil malpractice suits should be eliminated (you can still sue for criminal damages) and insurance eliminated entirely, both medical and malpractice. Healthcare costs are then paid entirely out of pocket, but the fees are now reasonable. Doctors get 1k per surgery instead of 30k but also don't have to put 70% of their paycheck back into the insurance system. Oh, and drug patents are invalidated except for actual new drugs.

Docs _are_ paid ~1k for surgery instead of 30k, at least for most surgeries I'm familiar with (orthopedic & transplant). The rest of the money goes to the hospital, not the doc.


I'm just going off my own experience. My abdominal surgery was 30k split among surgeon, assisting surgeon and anasthetheologist.
 
2012-12-06 01:25:26 PM

kazikian: draypresct: kazikian: I personally think civil malpractice suits should be eliminated (you can still sue for criminal damages) and insurance eliminated entirely, both medical and malpractice. Healthcare costs are then paid entirely out of pocket, but the fees are now reasonable. Doctors get 1k per surgery instead of 30k but also don't have to put 70% of their paycheck back into the insurance system. Oh, and drug patents are invalidated except for actual new drugs.

Docs _are_ paid ~1k for surgery instead of 30k, at least for most surgeries I'm familiar with (orthopedic & transplant). The rest of the money goes to the hospital, not the doc.

I'm just going off my own experience. My abdominal surgery was 30k split among surgeon, assisting surgeon and anasthetheologist.


Wow - that's extremely high.

The average surgeon makes $265k/year.Link

On average, a surgeon performs over 300 surgeries/year. Link

I think you're either misinterpreting your bill (easy to do) or your case was not anywhere near average.
 
2012-12-06 01:57:57 PM

draypresct: kazikian: draypresct: kazikian: I personally think civil malpractice suits should be eliminated (you can still sue for criminal damages) and insurance eliminated entirely, both medical and malpractice. Healthcare costs are then paid entirely out of pocket, but the fees are now reasonable. Doctors get 1k per surgery instead of 30k but also don't have to put 70% of their paycheck back into the insurance system. Oh, and drug patents are invalidated except for actual new drugs.

Docs _are_ paid ~1k for surgery instead of 30k, at least for most surgeries I'm familiar with (orthopedic & transplant). The rest of the money goes to the hospital, not the doc.

I'm just going off my own experience. My abdominal surgery was 30k split among surgeon, assisting surgeon and anasthetheologist.

Wow - that's extremely high.

The average surgeon makes $265k/year.Link

On average, a surgeon performs over 300 surgeries/year. Link

I think you're either misinterpreting your bill (easy to do) or your case was not anywhere near average.


It was a very intensive surgery and a star team. Still, it was a while ago and maybe that included all the other O.R. stuff.
 
2012-12-06 02:19:34 PM

kazikian:
It was a very intensive surgery and a star team. Still, it was a while ago and maybe that included all the other O.R. stuff.


Sounds scary. Glad it seems to have worked out for you . . . at least well enough for you to post to Fark. I don't know where on the Quality of Life scale that puts you. :)
 
2012-12-06 11:39:01 PM

draypresct: kazikian:
It was a very intensive surgery and a star team. Still, it was a while ago and maybe that included all the other O.R. stuff.

Sounds scary. Glad it seems to have worked out for you . . . at least well enough for you to post to Fark. I don't know where on the Quality of Life scale that puts you. :)


My quality of life scale ain't great, but it's improving. 7 surgeries over ten years, which basically failed one after another, until I'm left with an ileostomy bag. On the plus side, I am now completely cured and there is nothing wrong with me (except the ostomy, of course). And I tackled the resultant painkiller addiction this past year as well.

By my calculation, insurance has paid over 1mil in medical bills. I used to joke to visitors at the hospital: don't get too close to the windows, the insurance company has snipers on the roof across the street.
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report