patrick.net

mdovell says

You can make the argument of childbirth and that's fine but for thousands of years women gave birth without hospitals.

For thousands of years it was a common occurance for dead young mothers to be buried alongside their dead babies. It is extremely rare in first world countries today. Which goes back to my original point that somehow sailed over your head. In the US many people don't get prenatal care because of lack of health insurance. That's directly reflected in the statistics. The earlier poster was trying to gin this all up as some conspiracy of fake reporting by other countries.

mdovell says

And it is a no brainer that the actions of parents before conception and during pregnancy can have a direct outcome as to the childs health. Pregnant women shouldn't smoke or drink. Babies conceived by drug users are more apt to be screwed up.

Trying to blame the differences in statistics on lifestyle doesn't make sense. The rest of the world has people that smoke, drink, and take drugs while pregnant. Drinking while pregnant is much much more common in Europe.

mdovell says

We can talk about public health care and mandates all we want but the government cannot *make* anyone healthy or sick. There can be policies that try to institute incentives to become healthier but in the end it is really up to the individual

You seem really hung up on poor health as a result of lifestyle. I know it's hard to get your head around but not all health problems are a result of lifestyle. The four big killers are heart, cancer, respiratory, and stroke. Lifestyle is a part of it, but plenty of healthy lifestyle people die these also. If you live long enough you are going to probably die from one of these no matter how healthy your lifestyle. After that it's accidents and medical errors. No lifestyle involved.

Do you somehow believe that only the US has lifestyle issues, which is why health care is so expensive here? People smoke and drink a lot more in Europe, not less. They eat somewhat better and excercise a little more, but not a lot more. Obesity in Europe is going up fast. The difference I saw when I was back 5 years ago vs when I first went to Europe in the 80's is stunning. There are a lot more fat people. The UK, Australia, and NZ all have low 20% obesity vs 30% for America. Spain, Canada, and Germany are all pushing 15%.

Public health care is for providing basic health care at a reasonable cost, no matter what the source of the illness. Health care means treating illness, mot "making" people healthy. Where do you get this idea?

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

Thanks zzyzzx. I just ate.

What's Killing America?

- High fructose corn syrup
- Pollution
- Inadequate access to preventative health care

Underdark says

low exercise

Our grandparents generation didn't exercise for crap. Yet, they lived long.

I think diet, pollution, and poor health care are more relevant. These are the three things that have been getting worse over the past 100 years.

bob2356 says

mdovell says

You can make the argument of childbirth and that's fine but for thousands of years women gave birth without hospitals.

For thousands of years it was a common occurance for dead young mothers to be buried alongside their dead babies. It is extremely rare in first world countries today.

To add to that. Before the 20th century, it was common that people would have five or six kids and expect that most of them would die before reaching adulthood. Today childhood death is rare.

Medical access and particularly preventative care are incredible saviors. Unfortunately, today preventative care is pretty much limited to inoculating children. It's cheap and easy to do, whereas other preventative care takes effort.

bob2356 says

. In the US many people don't get prenatal care because of lack of health insurance. That's directly reflected in the statistics.

Ok fine but is attaching that to health insurance the only way? Access to health insurance is contingent upon an employer..but because states can become areas of monopolies and the feds don't allow buying across boarders of course it raises the price. bob2356 says

Trying to blame the differences in statistics on lifestyle doesn't make sense. The rest of the world has people that smoke, drink, and take drugs while pregnant. Drinking while pregnant is much much more common in Europe.

Well lifestyle does dictate longevity...there's been some talk of relaxing the talk about pregnant women drinking but frankly I don't see it is worth the risk.bob2356 says

e. The four big killers are heart, cancer, respiratory, and stroke. Lifestyle is a part of it, but plenty of healthy lifestyle people die these also. If you live long enough you are going to probably die from one of these no matter how healthy your lifestyle. After that it's accidents and medical errors. No lifestyle involved.

That might be true but I'd argue that dying at a older age generally is better. Lifestyle does dictate health. Obesity has little evidence that it is genetic. I have met plenty that have gained or lost weight due to their own actions. In extream cases lipo might be needed. If someone is on hard drugs they might as well say they are 15-20 years older than what they are because that is the damage being done to them.bob2356 says

Do you somehow believe that only the US has lifestyle issues, which is why health care is so expensive here? People smoke and drink a lot more in Europe, not less. They eat somewhat better and excercise a little more, but not a lot more. Obesity in Europe is going up fast. The difference I saw when I was back 5 years ago vs when I first went to Europe in the 80's is stunning. There are a lot more fat people. The UK, Australia, and NZ all have low 20% obesity vs 30% for America. Spain, Canada, and Germany are all pushing 15%.

Public health care is for providing basic health care at a reasonable cost, no matter what the source of the illness. Health care means treating illness, mot "making" people healthy. Where do you get this idea?

I'd argue that people in europe tend to exercise more but that's in the form of walking and more accountable to having higher rates of public transport. It is harder to try to do the same thing here especially after the highway system was made.

But what is considered basic care and what a reasonable cost? Where do I get this idea? Um I live in mass and that's how romneycare passed. That's how Obamacare passed. That's pretty much what the left has said for years.

I'd argue the war on drugs really needs to be modified because we seem to be subsidizing peoples habits. Opiate abuse is high here. So much so there is a product called narcan that brings people back from Od'ing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone
Yes technically it saves lives but it does not end the addiction. So people might OD 5,6,7 times or so without dying.

I'd also argue that health care is more based on pain and suffering rather than longevity. Sadly sometimes pain and suffering has no work around.

This is like the banking concept of socializing the gains (pleasures of a vice) but then subsidizing the losses (health care system pays for it) We've put taxes on various vices and made some illegal but it didn't help. Health care prevention might help but like mentioned if there is a doctors mistake it can lead to a death so which is it?

Ten years ago graduating college my nurse friend made the same as I did in with my IT job. Now she makes 2.5 times what I do. She gets paid OT, whereas a new bill in congress will negate any OT for me permanently. Our health care industry weighs heavily on treating symptoms over prevention. Only recently they have taken a step towards prevention but only from a profit perspective - it's an easy sell.

everything says

Our health care industry weighs heavily on treating symptoms over prevention

Chris Rock said back in '99 that AIDS would get to the point where it might be a cold using a voice "::sniff:: hey man I think my AIDS is acting up I might need to take tomorrow off....:sniff:: man I might need two days you know how I get when my AIDS acts up"

Well in the western world it is largely treated to the point where this might soon be true..granted the medications cost a great deal

zzyzzx says

blacks

"blacks"?

I think whats killing America is stupidity.

Anonymousone says

U.S. ranks 28th in life expectancy (lower than Chile and Greece) while it pays the MOST for health care
Meanwhile, Americans receive comparatively little actual care, despite sky-high prices driven by expensive tests and procedures.
They also spend more tax money on healthcare than most other countries, the study showed.

Your right. All those countires you listed have SOCIALIZED medicine. We do not. Thanks for making the perfect case for Socialized medicine. I know that as a die hard Ron Paul supporter, it must be killing you that you just advocated Socialized medicine without realizing it...

everything says

Ten years ago graduating college my nurse friend made the same as I did in with my IT job. Now she makes 2.5 times what I do.

What kind of IT job is this?

Dan8267 says

What's Killing America?

- High fructose corn syrup

- Pollution

- Inadequate access to preventative health care

Pollution is much worse in other countries.

Dan8267 says

Our grandparents generation didn't exercise for crap. Yet, they lived long.

I think diet, pollution, and poor health care are more relevant. These are the three things that have been getting worse over the past 100 years.

Pollution and healthcare are much better in the US than they were 100 years ago (unless you are referring to noise pollution). I'm sure pollution is much worse now if you lie in China.

Way more stress today than 100 years ago though.

michaelsch says

everything says

Ten years ago graduating college my nurse friend made the same as I did in with my IT job. Now she makes 2.5 times what I do.

What kind of IT job is this?

Makes sense to me, Nursing can't be outsourced.

A nurse who becomes a CRNA can make really good money... sometimes as high as $250,000.

bob2356 says

I was trying to make the point that the article is all about political talking points, not the question of whether Hong Kong is an independent country or not.
If the article were an honest appraisal, rather than an op-ed piece commissioned by a very far right wing group,

All media are biased - American Thinker lives up to their name and THINKS about what they print, unlike most media in the US that doesn't bother checking facts AND is blatantly biased toward a hard left socialist worldview. The original article was from the UK's Daily Mail which is very liberal also.

Anonymousone says

U.S. ranks 28th in life expectancy (lower than Chile and Greece) while it pays the MOST for health care

Oh, and while we pay alot for health care, we pay MUCH less in taxes than most of those countries and when we get health care it is MUCH better quality. Have you been gotten healthcare in Germany or Canada? My family has and its not very good - you get what you pay for!

HousingWatcher says

A nurse who becomes a CRNA can make really good money... sometimes as high as $250,000.

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs)

http://www.crnasalary.com/maryland
From the data available to us, Maryland CRNA salaries tend to be inline with the national average around the $140k-160k range, with starting salaries lower than that

chemechie says

Anonymousone says

U.S. ranks 28th in life expectancy (lower than Chile and Greece) while it pays the MOST for health care

Oh, and while we pay alot for health care, we pay MUCH less in taxes than most of those countries and when we get health care it is MUCH better quality. Have you been gotten healthcare in Germany or Canada? My family has and its not very good - you get what you pay for!

So share where you lived and why it wasn't very good. I've received very good health care in France, Canada, and New Zealand. That was as a resident, not a tourist going to a foreigner's clinic. They use the exact same everything as the states. Equipment, procedures, drugs, etc., etc. is all the same, I don't see any difference. BTW every Canadian I've ever discussed it with is furious to have their health care system used as the whipping boy for US debates on health care. They had problems in the 80's but that's ancient history. The only place US health care is clearly better is at the leading edge of research. If you need/want some advanced new medical procedure still in research, then the US is the place.

My US accountant would disagree with you about taxes. The top tax bracket here is in New Zealand is 33% over 70k. That's the same as the US top tax rate, but kicks in much sooner. It includes everything. Healthcare, police, fire, education (primary, secondary, heavily subsidized university tuition) , roads, superannuation (social security), prisons, military, immigration, welfare, etc., etc., etc.. The only thing not paid by federal taxes is town parks and roads. In the US I would also be in the 33% bracket, BUT would have to pay 7.65% fica, plus (if I were still in PA), state, county, city income tax, plus MUCH higher property taxes (2k on 400k is average here), plus all kinds of fees/surcharges/hidden taxes, PLUS $700-900 per month for health care for a family of 4 which would be 6-7% of AFTER tax income.

Tell me again about paying MUCH more taxes overseas. Do you think the tooth fairy is paying for a US military budget that is bigger than the rest of the world put together?

bob2356 says

They had problems in the 80's but that's ancient history.

Another tactic used by Canadian Health Care detractors is to compare "the Empty Quarter" of Canada with major US urban centers.

"People in Elk Blanket, Saskatechewan have to wait three weeks to see one of the two Gastroenterologists over their acid reflux, OMG! Whereas in Sacramento, it's only five days!"

The same problems with access to healthcare specialists exist in US rural states like North Dakota. I think the reason is obvious.

thunderlips11 says

bob2356 says

They had problems in the 80's but that's ancient history.

Another tactic used by Canadian Health Care detractors is to compare "the Empty Quarter" of Canada with major US urban centers.

"People in Elk Blanket, Saskatechewan have to wait three weeks to see one of the two Gastroenterologists over their acid reflux, OMG! Whereas in Sacramento, it's only five days!"

The same problems with access to healthcare specialists exist in US rural states like North Dakota. I think the reason is obvious.

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

So true. There's no shortage of doctors in the US, just a severe maldistribution. There's a lot more doctors than needed in SoCal or Ny metro or the Rio Grande valley (one of the most expensive health care markets in the US) for that matter. They are fighting for patients tooth and nail. Why don't the people that say prices will go down if there are more doctors explain why health care isn't dirt cheap in those area's?

I have not seen this mentioned here :

http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/17/accidents-murders-preemies-fat

US life expectancy is lower because we save more low weight babies (preemies), and we save more victims of violence (attempted murders).

And Americans may be fatter because we smoke less (17 percent vs 30 percent of Japanese)

So before going off into the wild blue yonder of political diatribes it might make sense just to figure out what the term 'life expectancy' really measures and how it can be a bit misleading when interpreted by those who dont consider all the unintended consequences that affect it.

Yes health care in the US is vastly expensive, but a large portion of that is because we subsidize health care R&D for the rest of the world - just check out the drug prices in the US versus Canada for example. Karl D at the Market Ticker has done a number of good analyses of this phenom.

I will add that IMO a great deal of the problems in this country stem from people's overuse of medicines and doctors and their underuse of their feet & legs.

Personal responsibility goes a long way to solving personal problems - but americans in all in all facets of their lives seemed to have turned from a nation championing the underdog to one that loves to bully and scapegoat others. All those things have consequences - pipers always get paid, one way or another.

kochevnik says

http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/17/accidents-murders-preemies-fat

US life expectancy is lower because we save more low weight babies (preemies), and we save more victims of violence (attempted murders)

The article says nothing of the kind. Reread it. Also consider the source, a major libertarian writer article a very libertarian web site. Not totally unbiased material.

Let's see some problems with the article's analysis. Start with obesity caused by low smoking rates. Smoking is much more detrimental to life span than obesity. Where does the article address the increase in life expectancy because of reduced smoking? Oops forgot about that or perhaps didn't want to mention it.

How about where the article says life expectancy is affected because we save more low weight babies who are likely to die before their first birthday. Very low birth weight is less than 1500 grams, extremely low birth weight is less than 1000 gr. Very low birth weight babies are 1.48% of all births. Survival rate is 13.8% for infants with birth weights less than 500 g, 51% for infants with birth weights of 500-749 g, 84.5% for infants with birth weights of 750-1000 g. The average survivability for VLBW based on the proportions of each weight (most are over 750g) is 78%. So the article is trying to claim the 1.48% of births with an average survivability rate of 78% is driving down the life expectancy in the US. I don't think so. US infant mortality isn't good, but VLBW is only part of the picture.

kochevnik says

US life expectancy is lower because we save more low weight babies (preemies), and we save more victims of violence (attempted murders).

Well if it's an attempted murder it certainly doesn't affect life expectancy. Only actual murder's matter. Anyway is this a joke? Murder rates are 4.7 in 100k in the US and 3.5 in Europe. Are you seriously suggesting an additional 1.2 deaths per year per 100k people is throwing off the live expectancy numbers? Really???

kochevnik says

Yes health care in the US is vastly expensive, but a large portion of that is because we subsidize health care R&D for the rest of the world - just check out the drug prices in the US versus Canada for example. Karl D at the Market Ticker has done a number of good analyses of this phenom.

I've yet to see Market Ticker do an analysis of anything. Just random rants. Post Karl D's article. I'd be a lot more impressed by the subsidize the world argument if drug company didn't spend a lot less on R&D than on dividends to stockholders, executive bonuses, direct advertising to drug consumers, and lobbying congress. Here's a pretty good article about drug R&D http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065

Your argument is contradictory anyway. The biggest subsidized part is the cost of research done at the universities. That isn't included as part of the cost of health care.

"Our grandparents generation didn't exercise for crap. Yet, they lived long."

Our grandparents lived far more active lives than we do. The percentage of the workforce involved in physically-active work was far higher than it is today. That has a huge impact on one's fitness.

Tha argument that we pay much lower taxes than countries that have public health care systems is wrong, when you consider the overall tax burden paid by Americans. We pay as much, and get a whole lot less.

In skimming all the above comments, and excuse me if I missed it, there was no reference to the gross inefficiencies in our health care system. We pay far more per capita than all other developed countries. Huge salaries for health care executives, overpriced drugs for which the government is barred from negotiating price, high-tech procedures that benefit very few
people, duplication of paperwork, etc., etc., etc.

A single-payer, or Medicare- for- all system would eliminate a lot of the noise, and reduce administrative costs to a level more likr the Social Security system, which works very well.

Where are those fans of efficiency in business? They oughta be screaming for this.

monkframe says

Where are those fans of efficiency in business? They oughta be screaming for this.

The fans of business efficiency are paid lots of bribes, excuse me lobbying dollars, to pass legislation to allow business to efficiently put lots of money in executive and stockholders pockets.

Dear Bob :

I'm sure you are completely right about everything.

I'm sure that getting shot 9 times and surviving won't affect my future life expectancy, nor will being born a crack addicted preemie.

I'm also sure that Karl Denninger's literally 5000 articles full of facts, statiistics and links are all completely wrong about everything, especially the hundred or so where he dissects the health care system in great detail.

You win Bob - great job.

C Ya.

And in a related story:

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2011/12/19/larger-waistlines-equals-smaller-capacity-for-commercial-water-transit/

Coast Guard makes commercial passenger vessels reduce passenger capacity limits due to so many fat people

The Coast Guard amends its regulations governing the maximum weight and number of passengers that may safely be permitted on board a vessel and other stability regulations, including increasing the Assumed Average Weight per Person … to 185 lb.,” the document states. “Updating regulations to more accurately reflect today’s average weight per person will maintain intended safety levels by accounting for this weight increase.