People are more likely to die in the US due to violence and due to an MVA then in other nations that are "ahead of us" in the WHO reprot. These are causes of death that are not very likely to be solved by "nationalized healthcare". And in both cases, younger people are far more likely to be victims than the older, items that are not taken into account in the WHO report when ranking things such as life expectancy. Which makes those statistics fairly useless in determining effectivness of a nations healthcare system.
Last edited by buck; 07-27-10 at 02:09 PM.
[QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1058881571]Yes, but how big a statistical hit does it have on life expectancy? And so what frankly? They died, and does not matter how they died... they did not live as long as others.. that is the point of the freaking statistics. That is why life expectancy in say Iraq has fallen because they are killing each other.Car accidents = more health issues and fatalities from accidents. Very simple actuarial fact.
And the US has 765 cars per 1000 people and the UK 450 cars per 1000 people.. and that some how should twist life expectancy numbers by so much? I doubt that. Luxembourg has similar car ownership stats as that of the US (697 vs 765) and their life expectancy is higher than that of the US. What is your next excuse, that the US is a large country?
Easy, you claim disposable income, and you show average income. Big difference. I can have a huge income but low disposable income because I have debt repayments and similar that eat up my income.More money equals more availability of risky behavior to those less disciplined. Per Capita Income Around the World Using the most common PPP method the U.S. is the third in the world, Luxemburg has a favorable banking economy so they are an odd case. But you get the point, have fun spinning your way out of that.
And even if American's have more disposable income, then why on earth would it not only give a rise to "risky behaviour" that could remotely impact the life expectancy numbers? Do you do more Russian roulette, more drinking (lol yea right) or more drugs...
And again frankly so what if it did? It is just an excuse, it changes nothing on the statistical comparison. You guys still dont live longer than brits, regardless of what kills you off. The Brits are slowly killing themselves with drinking, should we take that out of their statistics then?
Oh I do understand it, but you dont. The US is not that different than the UK when it comes to dietary norms or lifestyle. In fact I would claim the Brits have you beaten when it comes to drinking hands down.. they are a nation of binge drinkers, and their food staples are not exactly healthy by any means... bacon and eggs and beans for breakfast.. And since we are talking about the UK and US, then ...Wow, you really didn't understand at all did you? It's very simple, Spain, France, etc. have a similar lifestyle and almost universal cultural and dietary norms, the U.S. is regional with those regions having completely different lifestyles and dietary choices. Having nothing to do with race makeup. Stretch much?
As for Spain and France.. I did say that the Mediterranean diet could make a difference on some countries, but it does not with Northern European countries who beat the crap out of the US when it comes to health statistics.. even the Germans, the fattest nation in Europe. And even that is changing because the countries that had a traditional Mediterranean diet are moving more and more over to the US type of diet... which in fact most of Europe is doing.
No you choose to ignore facts because you dont believe your eyes. Not my fault. They are compatible on every front, since the differences are statistical non relevant.It's not hardly an irrelevant statistic, its completely irrelevant. It's been addressed already, infant mortality comparisons are incompatible.
On top of that I was not talking about infant mortality rates but child mortality of 5 and under. There is a difference.
With appropriate measurements you mean pro US measurements instead of unbiased fair measurements? I know the US right wing has the last 2 years done everything to try discredit the WHO and other statistical organisations because their stats showed the US in a bad light, but the fact is the right wing in the US is WRONG and have been caught in out right lies time and time again. Using lame excuses to dismiss WHO statistics is frankly pathetic.And that is with the WHO biased presentation. If you actually used appropriate measurements it would be a lopsided US win. What's your point?
Listen.. the numbers WHO get, come from your own government. Not my fault you dont agree with your own governments numbers. If you want to pad your own statistics to rank higher, then by all means do it. Take out the blacks, and hispanics and any other undisireables that hurt your statistics.. be my guest and turn into a new China when it comes to statistical numbers.. numbers that no one trusts or believe.
Heres a hint.. I know, I have worked in the business. And hint... it is always where cost cutting hits first. And yes the UK is having problems, but that is the UK.Obviously not if you are losing in the sanitation department.....here's a hint, in healthcare that's pretty important.
And so what. We have a welfare state and we like it.. deal with it. We want UHC, and most sane and civilized countries want it also. It is cheaper if we all pitch in, instead of being egotistical and only think about one self. It is our choice and it has been a wise choice. We pay less and get the same if not more.. sounds like a great deal to meBecause you lose that one. Because they've been conditioned to expect entitlements, so again they settle for less. This doesn't improve dissatisfaction, only accepts it and apologizes for it.
No one waits for critical surgeries. More right wing propaganda. As for getting denied treatment. I would wager it happens less here than in the US. I have rarely heard of anyone being denied treatment here unless it was experimental treatment that was cost prohibitive. On the other hand stories of people being denied treatment in the US are common place.Except when they get denied or have to wait for critical surgeries of course.
No you loose yet again.Actually, not really. It's pretty easy to get an appointment within weeks versus quarters, half-years, etc. You lose on that point as well. Half of all statistics are made up on the spot. Seriously, did you just pull that out of thin air? That is a bull**** claim if I've ever heard one.
Half the statistics are made up on the spot? I provided links to almost all my statistics for god sake. Is it the 60% comment.. okay I take it back. It is only according to the US census about 16% that dont have insurance.
And do you pull your views out of thin air? You do know that most countries have maximum waiting list laws right? Cancer is within 2 to 3 weeks (depends on country), non serious is with in 3 months tops in most countries. So quarters and half years.. do not exist in most countries.
Need A Mammogram? It Could Take A While - TIME
And for the record.. US hospitals dont release waiting times to the public for the most part. I once found a statistic but it was behind a pay site of the American Hospital something..
But that does not mean there is no waiting times. It is only logical since the US has less and less hospitals and doctors but more and more people. Of course if you have enough money, then waiting times are not a problem.. same in Europe btw... if you have the money, then go to a private hospital if you dont want to wait a few weeks for an operation that is non life threatning. As for seeing specialists or doctors.. I can get access on a day to day basis to my doctor and get appointments with specialists within a weeks often (depends on what kind of course) for non critical issues. Critical issues of course give access immediately.
For example. My mother had some sores on her head that would not heal, so she went to her doctor who said that it might be skin cancer. 2 days later she was with a specialist and got diagnosed. They did preliminary treatment but she needed an operation on one part of the skin, so they gave her a choice of when to get her treatment and operation and it was within 3 weeks from diagnosed .. and yes it was not the bad kind of skin cancer so it did not need immediate treatment. Her cost.. about 5 euros of petrol and bottle of sparkly water or two. Had it been the serious kind, then she would have been admitted instantly and treated. Thank god it was not now.. now she has to walk around with a hat and factor 50 sun cream heh..
Point is.. she was not afraid of the cost of going to the doctor to get it looked at, so they caught it early.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
Because the fact that they are killing each other in Iraq should not be used by people with an agenda to disparage their health care systems. When trying to prove a point that Iraq's healthcare system and delivery is inadequate, you would want to remove those deaths caused by suicide bombers, and gun shot wounds. At least if you want to be honest. You just admitted that those causes of death are impacting life expetancy in that country. Would giving them nationalized healthcare improve that? Unlikely, unless they can reattach explded body parts that get strewn across the country for blocks.
Same way you would want to remove the amount of violent deaths and MVAs in the US, since we have much greater number of violent deaths than in say Japan, or motor vehicle accidents than say those in France. At least if you are trying to prove the point that the US health care system is worse then those country's.
If you are just looking to see which country you are most likely to live longer in, without regard to healthcare systems, then the WHO report is just perfect. But to use that report to prove that the US healthcare system sucks, is disingenuous at best outright lying at worst.
Last edited by buck; 07-27-10 at 02:29 PM.
And if you did not get it. I was pointing out the stupidity of the argument that many right wingers try to promote.
Yes. You are a violent society. So is Russia, and they drink far more than anyone else. But then explain this.. Costa Rica has a far higher murder rate than that of the USPeople are more likely to die in the US due to violence and due to an MVA then in other nations that are "ahead of us" in the WHO reprot.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5.4 for the US versus 7.68 for Costa Rica... and yet Costa Rica has a higher life expectancy than that of the US. How does that fit into the theory that the US numbers are twisted because the US is so violent? Do the Costa Ricans have some sort of wonder drug that prolongs their life? Diet?
Oh and by the way..
List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Costa Rica also beats you at deaths due to bad driving.. and yet they live longer!?!?!?
In fact there are a few countries that live longer and kill more of their citizens in cars than the US. Chile for example.
I never said it would.. so stop putting words in my mouth. The real question is how big part of the life expectancy statistic are they.. ball is in your court. While you are at it, find it for all countries so we can remove them there too. Also dont forget drinking and smoking habits and so on and so on.These are causes of death that are not very likely to be solved by "nationalized healthcare".
No, but then again it is not taken into account for anyone. The British binge drinking is not taken into account, the fatty foods that Danes have started to consume is not accounted for. and so on and so on. It is only and explanation of what might be a reason for the lower or higher life expectancy. However the biggest part of any life expectancy number will be the ability of said healthcare system to cater for its citizens and keep them alive. It is not a perfect statistic, but it is an over all statistic that can be used. Add in statistics for different diseases, and so on, and you can break down where the different health care systems are good and bad. That in turn has an impact on life expectancy much more than car wrecks.And in both cases, younger people are far more likely to be victims than the older, items that are not taken into account in the WHO report when ranking things such as life expectancy. Which makes those statistics fairly useless in determining effectivness of a nations healthcare system.
Sure but remove them from all countries. Dont forget the high suicide rate in Japan, the possible deaths from the British binge drinking and so on and so on. How about removing all black people from the US statistic since you have a higher ratio of black people vs those of the European countries? How about Hispanics? You can go on and on.Same way you would want to remove the amount of violent deaths and MVAs in the US, since we have much greater number of violent deaths than in say Japan, or motor vehicle accidents than say those in France. At least if you are trying to prove the point that the US health care system is worse then those country's.
No it is quite accurate if you go down on the specific diseases and so on. I mean aids is aids regardless where you are.. so is the measles and what not. Even with infant mortality, if you can get past the right wing propaganda.If you are just looking to see which country you are most likely to live longer in, without regard to healthcare systems, then the WHO report is just perfect. But to use that report to prove that the US healthcare system sucks, is disingenuous at best outright lying at worst.
Pete, there are more factors to life expectancy than health care quality. The USA has the highest cancer survival rate in the world, while the UK has the lowest survival rate in Europe. Cancer survival rates more accurately depict a nations health care quality.
Source:UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe - Telegraph
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
For the excessive money we spend on healthcare, no one should be with ten points of us in any category.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.