Why Don’t Americans Live Longer? short answer: no universal healthcare

[CptStern]

amongst other things

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a fascinating report on life expectancy in rich countries around the world. The researchers who wrote the report — public-health experts, demographers, economists and others, from around the world — have tried to figure out why Americans don’t live as long as people in many other countries.
...
So beyond reducing smoking further, the single best strategy for extending American lives would appear to be extending universal health-insurance coverage below the age of 65.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/why-dont-americans-live-longer/?ref=business

 

[Krynn72]

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a fascinating report

Yes, its quite fascinating that better healthcare and less smoking increases lifespan. Absolutely shocking news.

 

[CptStern]

but the US spends more on healthcare per capita than other first world nations that have universal healthcare. americans shouldnt have a lower lifespan

 

[Krynn72]

Thats a fascinating observation Stern!

 

[CptStern]

the underlying bonus to this story is that even though I'm older than you I will outlive you

 

[Krynn72]

Well thats not really a fair comparison. A Demon such as yourself will out live any mortal.

 

[Viperidae]

Don't worry. Krynn will live an average of 15 years, so he only loses 2 or 3 years off his life for living in the US.

And to answer the question of this being "shocking" news: poorly informed Americans still believe they have the best healthcare in the world because they have some of the most medically advanced treatments. NYTimes apparently think they're writing for that audience. Maybe they are.

 

[CptStern]

Don't worry. Krynn will live an average of 15 years, so he only loses 2 or 3 years off his life for living in the US.

And to answer the question of this being "shocking" news: poorly informed Americans still believe they have the best healthcare in the world because they have some of the most medically advanced treatments. NYTimes apparently think they're writing for that audience. Maybe they are.

well to be fair it's not saying americans need better healthcare just that they need to extend that healthcare to include everyone. which explains the "universal healthcare" part

 

[Stormy]

Maybe take away the guns too?

 

[Escaep]

Maybe take away the guns too?

Then should we take away cars as well?

 

[CptStern]

cars not made to kill people unless you're living in some fantasy Deathrace 3000 world. you're not living in some fantasy world are you Escaep

but he does have a point; if you take away the guns less poor people will be shot which means less medicare used which in turn means more healthcare for the non poor people. however I'm willing to look the other way if you can guarentee that from now on every single person who is shot in america is killed instantly

 

[<RJMC>]

isnt it cuz the fatness?

 

[CptStern]

ya they mention that too but I didnt want to bring it up as some people are sensitive

 

[Stormy]

Well, guns don't kill people, rappers do. So get rid of the rap music.

"I'm not fat! Just big boned!"

 

[Sheepo]

Then should we take away cars as well?

Honey, I hope you don't mind if I drive your gun to work? My gun's low on ammo, and I'm running late!

Why people use cars as a counterpoint in these arguments is beyond me. It's not as if there aren't some dangerous tools in the human utility belt that aren't completely vital to functioning in day to day life.

 

[VirusType2]

Maybe take away the guns too?

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

How about alcohol... and particularly tobacco - the root cause of the majority of preventable death in the US. I must also mention the high hidden cost (health care) of habitually using tobacco.

 

[Asknoone]

Then should we take away cars as well?

I'm sure as hell down for that! Goodbye private transport. Hello streams of buses.

 

[Stormy]

How about alcohol... and particularly tobacco - the root cause of the majority of preventable disease in the US. I must also mention the high hidden cost (health care) of habitually using tobacco.

Oh its only 29,000 people! How could I have been so stupid.

Funny how no one else seems to do it!

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

 

[Maestro]

Well this thread went to shit fast, I was anticipating a hilarious make-fun-of-the-fatties thread.

 

[Sheepo]

It's derailed, definitely, but so far it's been both civil and informative. Although it sounds like you measure thread success on the reverse scale.

 

[VirusType2]

Oh its only 29,000 people! How could I have been so stupid.

Funny how no one else seems to do it!



http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

I'm sorry you feel insulted. I am personally much more concerned about the alarmingly high death rates as a result of tobacco and alcohol and their affect on "why Americans don't live longer".

Alcohol may seem meager in comparison to tobacco, but the fact is, this year in the US, 10,839 people will die in drunk-driving crashes - one every 50 minutes. Every minute, one person is injured from an alcohol-related crash.

In the US, tobacco kills 17 times more people than are murdered by firearms--and offers aboslutely no benefit to society other than economically--and in fact encroaches on the rights and health of others (second-hand smoke). You think it should be overlooked because "people use guns to murder people". Are you a smoker?

I've shown the statistics on how many die from it, but how many non-smokers (including children raised by smokers) are harmed from second-hand smoke daily, including deadly cardiovascular and respiratory damage and disease and asthma.

Recently it was found that even one cigarette is irreparably harmful.

Not only that, but both are extremely addictive and extremely difficult to quit once addiction has set.

Do you think that banning guns would stop murder? Did you look at the intentional murder rate of the world (any weapon type), and notice how the US murder rate is not any different from places like Canada and Australia, and is in fact much less than many countries with much stricter gun regulation? When you ban guns, people simply use a different tool to murder, either that or they obtain a gun illegally.

It seems to be that the prevailing attitude of society is more important than whether citizens have firearms. Switzerland has more guns per person than the United States, and a much lower murder rate. Mexico has very strict gun laws, and murder by firearm is #6th in the world. Brazil also has more restrictive gun laws, and four times the homicide rate of the US, including 25% more gun deaths, despite having 100 million fewer citizens.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
http://www.madd.org/statistics/

 

[lord_raken]

VirusType2... you are my hero.

 

[VirusType2]

Let's not overlook diet, the second leading cause of health issues in the US.

Michelle Obama's 'Let's Move' campaign...

Officials said Walmart will make thousands of the packaged food items that it sells more healthful and affordable by 2015; build more stores in under-served areas and increase its charitable donations to nutrition programs. The plan includes reducing sodium and sugar in some foods, lowering prices on produce and developing a logo so customers can more easily identify healthful items.

"No family should have to choose between food that is healthier for them and food they can afford," Bill Simon, president and chief executive of Walmart U.S., said in a statement posted on the company's Web site. "With more than 140 million customers each week, Walmart is uniquely positioned to make a difference by making food healthier and more affordable to everyone."

Several smaller food companies have made similar efforts. But as the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart stands in a unique position to influence the practices of its more than 60,000 suppliers.

I approve of this. Among other things, I refuse to buy canned vegetables with salt added, and canned fruit with corn syrup or sugar added (fruit is already full of sugars). It would be nice if I didn't always have to intensely study the labels for hidden additives like high fructose corn syrup.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012001581.html

 

[Sheepo]

Oh please, what's the point of bringing that up? Tax cigarretes and alchohol more, get more anti-drug campaigns in schools, da-du-da-du-da. You could ban them sure, but I've heard, as a rule, people generally like to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies and money. I dunno, maybe you don't think we're spending enough money arresting everybody who likes to get high.

Guns on the other hand, tools that humans invented specifically to shoot pieces of metal through other humans' bodies, perhaps we should be concerned about those, and how it's possible for a lunatic to get one without anybody double checking whether he's a lunatic.

 

[PvtRyan]

the underlying bonus to this story is that even though I'm older than you I will outlive you

That's harsh Stern, everyone knows dogs rarely have longer than 12 years to live. Way to rub it in.

 

[Maestro]

It's derailed, definitely, but so far it's been both civil and informative. Although it sounds like you measure thread success on the reverse scale.

Insults never really gain you much in the long run, except a reputation as being petty. I meant more along the lines that I was anticipating something funny or interesting, and now it's turning into a Guns Debate(TM) which is just going to sour everyone's mood and change no opinions, like always. I have never, ever seen productive argument on this topic.

 

[Sheepo]

Insults never really gain you much in the long run, except a reputation as being petty. I meant more along the lines that I was anticipating something funny or interesting, and now it's turning into a Guns Debate(TM) which is just going to sour everyone's mood and change no opinions, like always. I have never, ever seen productive argument on this topic.

I didn't notice any insults. Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought you meant. It's not as if anybody ever changes their minds on any other big issue debates, or atleast no one will ever admit it. Topical issues sometimes result in a sort of compromise, but that's usually just because one or more of the parties involved didn't have a clear understanding of the problem to begin with. As it is, on subjects like this, I have seen far, far worse.

 

[CptStern]

Did you look at the intentional murder rate of the world (any weapon type), and notice how the US murder rate is not any different from places like Canada and Australia

huh?

Canada intentional homicide rate: 1.81 (2009)
Australia intentional homicide rate: 1.2 (2009)

United States intentional homicide rate: 5.0 (2009)

and is in fact much less than many countries with much stricter gun regulation

?

like canada, australia and the UK (1.28) ...or Norway (0.6) or Sweden (0.9) or Switzerland (0.7) or Syria (3.7) or Iran (3.7). but if want to compare it to war zones or third world countries like Sri Lanka (7.6) then yes the United states seems peaceful by comparison

When you ban guns, people simply use a different tool to murder, either that or they obtain a gun illegally.

yet the murder rate (the link you provided doesnt differentiate between weapon used) is much lower in countries where gun control is strict

It seems to be that the prevailing attitude of society is more important than whether citizens have firearms. Switzerland has more guns per person than the United States,

not true:

United States 88.8 (guns per 100 residents)
Switzerland 45.7 (guns per 100 residents)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

and even that is misleading because:

Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Switzerland

and a much lower murder rate. Mexico has very strict gun laws, and murder by firearm is #6th in the world.

http://www.comunidadesegura.org/en/...border-violence-were-bought-in-US-says-report

 

[Dead Phil]

Here is why our life expectancy is shorter than many countries..........

Mcdonalds and other fast food places

the majority of the population is white (I am white and yes that is connected to death, not by youre skin color but because white people have faster cell growth and the DNA if you do not know after an amout of tome deteriorates in the cell until it can't reproduce, hence death)

Health care (this is why the health care law should stay and not be reformed you republicans)

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Survival of the fittest, let the fatties fat out. But stop throwing away the goddamn money.

 

[Sheepo]

Survival of the fittest, let the fatties fat out. But stop throwing away the goddamn money.

Fatties don't die before they're capable of reproducing.

 

[Tyguy]

If it weren't so taboo to make fun of fat people to their face I bet there'd be a significant decrease of obesity related deaths. We just have to come up with a campaign that encourages the humiliation of fat people, but in a nice way. It's not as if they are born fat or suddenly wake up one morning and weigh 200 pounds heavier. It's a conscious decision fueled by laziness and selfishness yet those of us who eat only what we need are the bad guys when we mock them. I'm completely for a cigarette tax and a fat tax. The money from the former will go towards live webcam feeds of those suffering from lung cancer streaming to television sets at random times of the day and the latter being pooled to finance the war on fat people.

 

[Maestro]

Fatties don't die before they're capable of reproducing.

We can fix that.

 

[StarBob]

I love the idea and the application of universal health care, but I know that it will be hindered by people who live an unhealthy life and take advantage of the system. Of course, overtly expensive health insurance and ever increasing health care costs haven't kept people from smoking, eating 5000 calroies a day, and never exercising.

You know I think there has to be some simple, quick, and accurate way to measure a person's general health and fitness level in a quantifiable manner. Then if you can use that to balance things like health care in all forms... so people who put themselves in prime position for things like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and just general poor condition will have some sort of motivation to get out of that position. Of course some people will complain that they have no choice but to be fat and unhealthy. But that's the nature of America I guess.

 

[CptStern]

I love the idea and the application of universal health care, but I know that it will be hindered by people who live an unhealthy life and take advantage of the system.

ya that's what happened in canada, spain, the UK, sweden, switzerland, portugal ....all at the brink of collapse due to people abusing universal healthcare. sorry to be so sarcastic but this justification is hogwash. I mean talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. in this case momma chicken hasnt even laid the eggs yet

 

[Sparta]

I love the idea and the application of universal health care, but I know that it will be hindered by people who live an unhealthy life and take advantage of the system.

In order to game the system, either you would have to lie or you would have to deliberately make yourself unhealthy to begin with in order to prove your worthy of the medical coverage provided (which isn't exactly gaming the system if you're not healthy enough to enjoy it). If you lie, you'd actually have to find a doctor willing to commit fraud for you otherwise you'd be caught pretty fast. You wouldn't receive anything like a disability pension or anything like that, so people taking advantage of the system in this case is really, just not gonna happen at a scale anywhere near enough to what you're worried about.

Introducing universal health care would actually reduce the amount of Medicare and MedicAid fraud in the U.S. because it would drastically reduce the cost of healthcare to the point where a significant number of people who would otherwise commit fraud to afford treatment, would no longer have the need to. Reducing and controlling the cost through implementing universal health care would also save a tremendous amount of money by reducing the amount the government would have to spend on Medicare and MedicAid as well, even after adding a very significant portion of the population to it. Examples of this can be seen in just about every other country on the planet that has universal health care, as almost all of them spend less on it per capita than the U.S. does. The life expectancy in these countries is also significantly higher because of these systems, as this thread has pointed out.

 

[StarBob]

ya that's what happened in canada, spain, the UK, sweden, switzerland, portugal ....all at the brink of collapse due to people abusing universal healthcare. sorry to be so sarcastic but this justification is hogwash. I mean talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. in this case momma chicken hasnt even laid the eggs yet

I know you love playing devil's advocate and all Stern, but it's obvious I support universal health care and always have and have posted about it probably a hundred times before. I'm being realistic here though. Everyone knows the US is the most obese country in the world. If UHC were to ever exist, these people would represent a huge drain compared to their contribution. The only point I was making was that if there was some quantifiable way to identify these people, they could at least make up for some of the tax cost. Like add a tax incentive if you reach that certain criteria of physical fitness that shows that you make at least a decent effort to not eat 5,000 calories and watch TV 8 hours a day on your ass. Of course this doesn't really exist and never will and though I'd like to see UHC exist, I know that that if it did I'd still be paying extra taxes to take care of people who have purposefully put themselves in an unhealthy position. However I think it's a fair price to pay in order to the millions of people who live sick and die or get buried in hospital debt because they can't afford insurance.

And @Sparta - there wouldn't be ANY Medicare or Medicaid fraud because both would be non-existent considering everyone would have full health care. The new fraud would be non-citizen health care fraud. That's a whole different bridge to cross though. I think a lot of people would freak out with the Medicare/Medicaid chunk of FICA being gone and replaced by a much larger chunk of UHC. But it'd be nice for that big chunk of health care tax to come from rich bastards sitting on more money than a human could spend in a lifetime. Too bad they'll pay off whoever they can to make sure that doesn't happen...

 

[CptStern]

I know you love playing devil's advocate and all Stern, but it's obvious I support universal health care and always have and have posted about it probably a hundred times before.

not my responsibility to keep track of where you stand on the issues

I'm being realistic here though. Everyone knows the US is the most obese country in the world. If UHC were to ever exist, these people would represent a huge drain compared to their contribution.

you'd have to prove that obese people seek more medical health than the average person otherwise you're just speculating. even then you'd have to discriminate all sorts of risky lifestyles that may lead to a higher than average cost per patient. atheletes, firemen, policemen, sky divers (oh wait survival rate after a fall is next to zero), party people, gays etc all potential drains on the system

The only point I was making was that if there was some quantifiable way to identify these people, they could at least make up for some of the tax cost.

like athelete tax or YOUSOFAT tax

Like add a tax incentive if you reach that certain criteria of physical fitness that shows that you make at least a decent effort to not eat 5,000 calories and watch TV 8 hours a day on your ass.

invasion of privacy, discrimination, 2 tier healthcare system that effectively targets the poor etc

Of course this doesn't really exist and never will and though I'd like to see UHC exist, I know that that if it did I'd still be paying extra taxes to take care of people who have purposefully put themselves in an unhealthy position.

like policemen

However I think it's a fair price to pay in order to the millions of people who live sick and die or get buried in hospital debt because they can't afford insurance.

the number 1 reason why people get into personal bankruptcy is because of medical related costs. and this stat includes people who are insured

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid

at this point ANY argument against universal healthcare seems like partisan lip service

 

[lord_raken]

If I really thought universal healthcare could be done right and efficiently, I would be more accepting. From what I have seen, it can't be done right. I'm not opposed for a system for people who simply CANNOT afford any sort of coverage (having to choses between their meds and internet connection does not count).

I favor a series of well enforced and fair regulations to keep prices down while maximizing competition between providers and pharmaceutical companies. decrease the cost of malpractice insurance, and stop Big Pharma from advertising to the general public.

Its about finding the right balance between limiting regulation by the government and allowing the free market to compete and develop.

 

[CptStern]

If I really thought universal healthcare could be done right and efficiently, I would be more accepting. From what I have seen, it can't be done right.

where have you seen that universal cant be done right? certainly not in the US. are you a healthcare professional interning in some foreign country that has universal healthcare?

I'm not opposed for a system for people who simply CANNOT afford any sort of coverage (having to choses between their meds and internet connection does not count).

it's too late for half assed measures. americans who are insured still cant afford healthcare coverage (see article on bankruptcy)

I favor a series of well enforced and fair regulations to keep prices down while maximizing competition between providers and pharmaceutical companies. decrease the cost of malpractice insurance, and stop Big Pharma from advertising to the general public.

43 million americans uninsured, healthcare costs number one reason why americans file for personal bankruptcy: too late for half assed measures

Its about finding the right balance between limiting regulation by the government and allowing the free market to compete and develop.

conservative ideology (re: big government) and partisan politics insure nothing will be done but half measures and needless sabre rattling by those too narrow minded to see the bigger picture. the US is doomed to have a woefully crippled healthcare system because of fear mongering paranoia and bullheadedness. it works in every other 1st world country in the world yet somehow it wont work in the US. it guarentees the status quo; pharma/medical companies/insurers really dont have anything to worry about as irrational fear lines their pockets while their spokespersons (politicians eager to appease the lunatic fringe) tow the ideology as the ultimate in direct marketing to the already converted. the US will never have universal healthcare because maintaining the cashflow of corporations is more important than the welfare of americans