Jump to content

America Ranks 40 In Most Important Category: Life Expectancy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

Yeah. But then I'm a Lefty and know that the measure of health care systems worldwide is based on these 4 factors:

 

Cost per capita and percent of GDP (USA = most expensive, bordering on twice that of the second most expensive)

Life expectancy (subject of this thread)

Infant mortality (about 50th on the list ... all of Europe, most of Asian and even podunk countries you've never heard of have lower infant mortality)

Access (percent of population covered; we're dead last of the industrialized countries)

 

 

So in aggregate, considering all key factors, the last time the WHO ranked countries, the US came in at about 36th place.

 

Proving there's no hope for hopelessly stupid and ignorant.

 

Anyone who'd buy the idea that Cuba outranks the US it beyond help. :D

 

The whole fabricated "study" ought to be rejected on that basis alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From your quote: "And medical evidence suggests that obesity might be contributing to record-high rates of Caesarean sections and leading to more birth defects and deaths for mothers and babies." -- articles like this are submitted when studies are sent out for peer review, and thus years away from being something much beyond hypothesis.

 

Moreover, at 6 dead little miracles per 1000 births (US average), we have about double the IM that Europe has in aggregate. So 20% of moms being obese, even if this study is later proven to be onto something, does not even begin to explain the higher IM in the US, which health organizations attribute to poor prenatal care, which many associations and faith based groups are working to provide to many who lack it. And given the percentage of mothers without access to prenatal care, especially Black and Hispanic moms, we can see that as being the factor more in parallel with why the US has such high IM.

 

Obesity is just one of several factors that contribute to increased infant mortality rates. The United States has a high rate of teen pregnancies, and teen births are at higher risk. American women taking fertility treatments are also at higher risk.

 

Different countries have different definitions of live births and deaths. Some other countries don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births or deaths. Many other countries don't count stillbirths.

 

Please read below.

 

http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2009/07/06/health-myth-1-%E2%80%9Cthe-us-has-one-of-the-highest-infant-mortality-rates-in-the-developed-world%E2%80%9D/

 

Health Myth #1: “The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.”

Monday, 6 July 2009

 

Talk about stretching a point until it snaps. This ranking is based on some very flawed data and assumptions.

 

The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.

 

Other statistical quirks push the U.S. unjustifiably higher in this ranking compared to other countries.

 

The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, (according to the CDC), behind most other developed nations.

 

The U.S. is supposedly worse than Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary. And the U.S. is supposedly on a par with Slovakia and Poland.

 

CNN, the New York Times, numerous outlets across the country report the U.S. as abysmal in terms of infant mortality, without delving into what is behind this ranking.

 

The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group, routinely flunks the U.S. health system using the infant mortality rate.

 

“Infant mortality and our comparison with the rest of the world continue to be an embarrassment to the United States,” Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization, has said.

 

First, let’s start with the definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country’s infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

 

WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don’t and so don’t count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.

 

The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).

 

And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don’t report.

 

And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

 

In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says.

 

And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

 

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway’s underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

Moreover, the ranking doesn’t take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

 

Likewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.’s 300 cm-plus citizens.

 

Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

 

And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

 

Again, the U.S. counts all of these infants as births. Moreover, we’re not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

 

Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, cautions against using comparisons country-by-country.

 

“Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not),” the OECD says.

 

“In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births.” (Note: Emphasis EMac’s).

 

The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks’ gestation and 7 days after birth.

 

According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino.

 

 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/233972-teen-mothers-infant-mortality/

 

Teen Mothers & Infant Mortality

Mar 30, 2011

 

Teen Risk Factors

 

In 2007, the March of Dimes reports, teen birth rates began to increase after they had been declining. More teens give birth in the U.S. than in most other developed countries. In 2006, more than 10 percent of babies born in the U.S. were born to mothers under 20. Several risk factors unique to teens contribute to higher infant mortality rates among babies born to teenage mothers. First, teens are more likely to continue smoking throughout a pregnancy, increasing the risk of low birth weight, premature birth, complications during pregnancy and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Second, teens are more likely than older women to have a sexually transmitted disease. Chlamydia, syphilis and HIV all carry serious risks for the baby during pregnancy and after birth. Third, teen mothers, more often than mothers over 20, give birth prematurely, putting the infant at higher risk of mortality. Fourth, "regular and early prenatal care," says the March of Dimes, is least likely to occur among teens, who often receive late--or even no--prenatal care.

 

Statistics

 

In 2005, the infant mortality rate for babies born to mothers under 20 was 10.28 deaths per 1,000 live births compared to the average of 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births for all births. The statistics look even grimmer when the age of the teen mother is under 15. In 2006, babies born to teen mothers under 15 suffered an infant mortality rate of 16.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. That same year, the infant mortality rate for babies born to mothers of all ages was 6.8 per 1,000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so refreshing that the Cons, who used to call we Lib's the "Blame America First Crowd," are now the blame Americans crowd.

 

Poor healthcare? Americans are fat and lazy!!! (tip: we work the longest hours and have the highest worker productivity)

 

Rising unemployment? Too lazy to get a job!!! (fewer jobs today than in 2000, despite rising population)

 

I could go on, but you get the idea. Osama hated us, but he's dead. Cons hate Americans and are here and still living. Who's the greater threat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no facts or debate from deezy, you might as well keep looking for spelling errors.

 

too bad nothing hailbaby posted has anything to do with the thread issue.

 

 

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

 

I've never seen so much diversionary excuse-making.

 

(man dies waiting for kidney/liver, another gets no supplies to monitor his blood suger, no insulin, no healthcare..."it's genes!")

I await anything from you that amounts to credible info or logical opinion. Like info about Canadians that go to US doctors for some unfathomable reasons! Waiting lists, better selection, more expertise, etc. But since you talked to a Canadian once you must know I'm wrong. You and those marvelous links and (my favorite) NHB peer-reviewed support. I'll just "play" dumb while you actually perform it.

 

Hint: When you constantly fuck up a guy's FAKE name in a chat room it really tips your hand. You have shown that you have nothing (and, yes, you have a problem with English with which you need LOTS of constructive criticism).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm doing what I can to shorten it for Conservatives, and thus support gun ownership and leaving them around the house where kids can play with them.

The hatred of the left is truly astounding. And they often refer to themselves as the "compassionate" and "inclusive" group.

As long as you agree with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so refreshing that the Cons, who used to call we Lib's the "Blame America First Crowd," are now the blame Americans crowd.

 

Poor healthcare? Americans are fat and lazy!!! (tip: we work the longest hours and have the highest worker productivity)

 

Rising unemployment? Too lazy to get a job!!! (fewer jobs today than in 2000, despite rising population)

 

I could go on, but you get the idea. Osama hated us, but he's dead. Cons hate Americans and are here and still living. Who's the greater threat?

 

Why do we have the "highest worker productivity"? Devil's in the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do we have the "highest worker productivity"? Devil's in the detai

yeah, among Unions especially.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The hatred of the left is truly astounding. And they often refer to themselves as the "compassionate" and "inclusive" group.

As long as you agree with them.

 

 

Its your lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then I'm a Lefty and know that the measure of health care systems worldwide is based on these 4 factors:

 

Cost per capita and percent of GDP (USA = most expensive, bordering on twice that of the second most expensive)

Life expectancy (subject of this thread)

Infant mortality (about 50th on the list ... all of Europe, most of Asian and even podunk countries you've never heard of have lower infant mortality)

Access (percent of population covered; we're dead last of the industrialized countries

 

You don't really know anything, because none of you will honestly debate any of those factors when challenged.

 

Let's consider the subject of this thread as an example. Over and over I (we've) shown that using life expectancy statistics to compare health care systems is comparing apples and oranges … meaningless. And all you leftists do is ignore everything we point out and regurgitate the same meme on the next thread you start. So let's test how rational you are AS. Let's see if you do, too.

 

Notice that Japan is ranked #1 in life expectancy at 82.73 years compared to poor ol' America's 77.97. But is their greater life expectancy really due to their health care system? Maybe it's due to the fact that the Japanese are so extraordinarily thin? As I've pointed out in various past threads, the OECD released 2008 data on obesity, as a percentage of the adult population. Here:

 

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH#

 

US 32

Belgium 12.7

France 9.4

Japan 3.0

Luxembourg 17.1

Netherlands 10.9

Sweden 9.8

UK 23.0

 

As you can see, Japan is as thin as it gets (they are the least obese in the developed world), whereas the US population is decidedly overweight (the highest in the developed world). And I (we) proven over and over with numerous sources that obesity can takes years off one's life. For example,

 

http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2005/03/obesity-threatens-cut-us-life-expectancy-new-analysis-suggests

 

Based on these calculations, the researchers estimated that life expectancy at birth would be higher by 0.33 to 0.93 year for white men, 0.30 to 0.81 year for white women, 0.30 to 1.08 year for black men, and 0.21 to 0.73 year for black women if obesity did not exist.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=juIgTS3Q75kC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq="Age-adjusted+percentage+of+obesity+in+Americans+aged+20+,+by+gender"&source=bl&ots=BikiNAJCQl&sig=55QVYxZLeis5EIorq0kueLrhg-w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UN4wUcyjFdGvigLL-4GQDw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q="Age-adjusted percentage of obesity in Americans aged 20+, by gender"&f=false

 

Using this set of risks, which is adjusted for smoking behavior, the authors estimate that U.S. life expectancy at age 50 in 2006 was reduced by 1.28 years for women and 1.61 years for mean as a result of obesity.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E3D7133CF934A25750C0A9639C8B63

 

The report says the average life expectancy of today's adults, roughly 77 years, is at least four to nine months shorter than it would be if there were no obesity.

 

… snip …

 

And they say that because of obesity, the children of today could wind up living two to five years less than they otherwise would, a negative effect on life span that could be greater than that caused by cancer or coronary heart disease.

 

The fact is that America is a MUCH more obese nation than any of those countries to which you are comparing our life expectancy. And unless you take that into account, you are comparing apple and oranges, and drawing conclusions that are quite erroneous. And it's not just life expectancy that obesity affects, it's also health care costs. Obesity often leads to diabetes, for instance. The CDC estimates that someone with diabetes costs an average of $6,600 more PER YEAR to care for than someone without diabetes (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june12/obesity_05-08.html). And that's just diabetes. Obesity has many other impacts on health and heath care costs. So how can this not be placing the US at a disadvantage in the cost comparisons that you and shintao are trying to make? It's just apples and oranges.

 

And not just calories matter but what you eat that affects life expectancy. Consider the example of Japan again. The Japanese diet is significantly different than ours. They eat far more fish, and much less beef. That may be part of the reason for the large delta in the death rate from heart disease. Their calorie intake is 25% percent lower than ours (and I've already noted on thread after thread that makes a large difference in life span and in health in later years) They consume five times the amount of cruciferous vegetables (cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower, kale and watercress) which appear to be very helpful in warding off certain types of cancers that prevalent int he US (breast, ovarian, lung, colon).

 

And what about genetics? That matters too. Japanese, whether they are living in Japan, the US or Europe, have higher life expectancies than Europeans. In fact, people of Japanese descent living in the US have a higher life expectancy than do Japanese living in Japan. THAT should tell you something … IF YOU ARE REMOTELY RATIONAL on this issue. It should tell you that perhaps our health care system really is better than Japan's ... #1 system on your list.

 

So if you want to raise the US life expectancy to that of Japan's, then you might have to make sure we eat what they eat.

 

And get downright draconian about obesity.

 

And make the US' demographics look like that of Japan (i.e., nearly 100% Japanese).

 

After all, I estimate that 6 months is the impact of blacks on US life expectancy alone. Here, let me prove it.

 

We know that blacks have much lower life expectancies than whites for reasons that have nothing to do with the health care system like genetics, violence and diet. How much lower? Well a black baby born today can expect to live over 5 years less than his white counterpart. A black woman will die about 4 years earlier than a white women. Look it up.

 

Now the percentage of blacks in our population is 13%. Hows that compare to other UHC countries? The percentage in Japan is near zero. The percentage in Canada is about 2.5%. The percentage in the UK is 2%. The percentage in France is 3.5%. In Germany it's about 0.6%. In the Netherlands it is again close to zero. In Sweden it's also close to zero. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume an average percentage of 2% for all the above. Fair enough?

 

So if we reduced our black population to 2% (not even the 0% in Japan), what effect would that have on average US life expectancy? We can calculate that as follows using simple algebra. If the US life expectancy is 78 years (your number) with 13% blacks having a life expectancy of 73 years (5 years less) in the mix, then the life expectancy of the remaining 87% must be 78.7 years. Now if we take that number and ask what the life expectancy would be if only 2% of the population were black, we get 78.6 years. Thus, the delta effect of blacks on US life expectancy is about 0.6 years compared to UHC countries on average.

 

Now I could go on and on proving that it's apples and oranges to compare "life expectancy" statistics between countries and have done so on other threads.

 

Look at Cuba for instance. Do you REALLY think their greater life expectancy is higher than ours due to their health care system? Or was it because of forced starvation and exercise?

 

And I can do the same apples and oranges comparison to each of the other factors you listed, Ayn.

 

For example, consider "infant mortality" and Cuba.

 

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

 

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

 

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

 

… snip …

 

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

 

… snip …

 

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight — less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births — i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.

 

And here's a more general look at that statistic:

 

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

 

it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity and size" whereas other countries report these as stillbirths.… snip ... And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

 

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

 

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html

 

if Canada had the same proportion of low birthweight babies as the U.S., the authors project that it would have a slightly higher infant mortality rate.

 

Here is more on that study:

 

http://boards.ign.com/current_events_board/b5361/183861033/p1/

 

A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada's at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

 

July 2006

 

... snip ...

 

infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations.

 

… snip …

 

In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.


 

Are you starting to get the picture, AS?

 

Now let's see how rational your response to the above is ... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't really know anything, because none of you will honestly debate any of those factors when challenged.

 

Let's consider the subject of this thread as an example. Over and over I (we've) shown that using life expectancy statistics to compare health care systems is comparing apples and oranges … meaningless. And all you leftists do is ignore everything we point out and regurgitate the same meme on the next thread you start. So let's test how rational you are AS. Let's see if you do, too.

 

Notice that Japan is ranked #1 in life expectancy at 82.73 years compared to poor ol' America's 77.97. But is their greater life expectancy really due to their health care system? Maybe it's due to the fact that the Japanese are so extraordinarily thin? As I've pointed out in various past threads, the OECD released 2008 data on obesity, as a percentage of the adult population. Here:

 

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH#

 

US 32

Belgium 12.7

France 9.4

Japan 3.0

Luxembourg 17.1

Netherlands 10.9

Sweden 9.8

UK 23.0

 

As you can see, Japan is as thin as it gets (they are the least obese in the developed world), whereas the US population is decidedly overweight (the highest in the developed world). And I (we) proven over and over with numerous sources that obesity can takes years off one's life. For example,

 

http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2005/03/obesity-threatens-cut-us-life-expectancy-new-analysis-suggests

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=juIgTS3Q75kC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq="Age-adjusted+percentage+of+obesity+in+Americans+aged+20+,+by+gender"&source=bl&ots=BikiNAJCQl&sig=55QVYxZLeis5EIorq0kueLrhg-w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UN4wUcyjFdGvigLL-4GQDw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q="Age-adjusted percentage of obesity in Americans aged 20+, by gender"&f=false

 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E3D7133CF934A25750C0A9639C8B63

 

 

The fact is that America is a MUCH more obese nation than any of those countries to which you are comparing our life expectancy. And unless you take that into account, you are comparing apple and oranges, and drawing conclusions that are quite erroneous. And it's not just life expectancy that obesity affects, it's also health care costs. Obesity often leads to diabetes, for instance. The CDC estimates that someone with diabetes costs an average of $6,600 more PER YEAR to care for than someone without diabetes (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june12/obesity_05-08.html). And that's just diabetes. Obesity has many other impacts on health and heath care costs. So how can this not be placing the US at a disadvantage in the cost comparisons that you and shintao are trying to make? It's just apples and oranges.

 

And not just calories matter but what you eat that affects life expectancy. Consider the example of Japan again. The Japanese diet is significantly different than ours. They eat far more fish, and much less beef. That may be part of the reason for the large delta in the death rate from heart disease. Their calorie intake is 25% percent lower than ours (and I've already noted on thread after thread that makes a large difference in life span and in health in later years) They consume five times the amount of cruciferous vegetables (cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower, kale and watercress) which appear to be very helpful in warding off certain types of cancers that prevalent int he US (breast, ovarian, lung, colon).

 

And what about genetics? That matters too. Japanese, whether they are living in Japan, the US or Europe, have higher life expectancies than Europeans. In fact, people of Japanese descent living in the US have a higher life expectancy than do Japanese living in Japan. THAT should tell you something … IF YOU ARE REMOTELY RATIONAL on this issue. It should tell you that perhaps our health care system really is better than Japan's ... #1 system on your list.

 

So if you want to raise the US life expectancy to that of Japan's, then you might have to make sure we eat what they eat.

 

And get downright draconian about obesity.

 

And make the US' demographics look like that of Japan (i.e., nearly 100% Japanese).

 

After all, I estimate that 6 months is the impact of blacks on US life expectancy alone. Here, let me prove it.

 

We know that blacks have much lower life expectancies than whites for reasons that have nothing to do with the health care system like genetics, violence and diet. How much lower? Well a black baby born today can expect to live over 5 years less than his white counterpart. A black woman will die about 4 years earlier than a white women. Look it up.

 

Now the percentage of blacks in our population is 13%. Hows that compare to other UHC countries? The percentage in Japan is near zero. The percentage in Canada is about 2.5%. The percentage in the UK is 2%. The percentage in France is 3.5%. In Germany it's about 0.6%. In the Netherlands it is again close to zero. In Sweden it's also close to zero. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume an average percentage of 2% for all the above. Fair enough?

 

So if we reduced our black population to 2% (not even the 0% in Japan), what effect would that have on average US life expectancy? We can calculate that as follows using simple algebra. If the US life expectancy is 78 years (your number) with 13% blacks having a life expectancy of 73 years (5 years less) in the mix, then the life expectancy of the remaining 87% must be 78.7 years. Now if we take that number and ask what the life expectancy would be if only 2% of the population were black, we get 78.6 years. Thus, the delta effect of blacks on US life expectancy is about 0.6 years compared to UHC countries on average.

 

Now I could go on and on proving that it's apples and oranges to compare "life expectancy" statistics between countries and have done so on other threads.

 

Look at Cuba for instance. Do you REALLY think their greater life expectancy is higher than ours due to their health care system? Or was it because of forced starvation and exercise?

 

And I can do the same apples and oranges comparison to each of the other factors you listed, Ayn.

 

For example, consider "infant mortality" and Cuba.

 

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

 

 

And here's a more general look at that statistic:

 

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

 

 

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html

 

 

Here is more on that study:

 

http://boards.ign.com/current_events_board/b5361/183861033/p1/

 

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

 

 

Are you starting to get the picture, AS?

 

Now let's see how rational your response to the above is ... :D

 

Yes. You blame Americans and not our health "care" system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks, dumbsh**. Did you even read the friggin abstract???? I quote:

 

"Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily

because of high mortality rates above age 50."

 

And what goes down in likelihood as age increases? Murder rates, violent crime, drug use ... disease is what gets you, in the good old US of A where our health "care" sucks ass.

 

Well done, dumbsh**!!! Someone get that man and tall vinegar and water. It's on me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. You blame Americans and not our health "care" system.

 

If people over-eat, do drugs, drink too much, engage in violence, then die at an early age, it is their fault.

 

Cheap troll rhetoric can't overcome that reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Life expectancy at birth (years), UN World Population Prospects 2010.

 

Does the Conservatives have a death wish going when they want to gut medical care for Americans? In light of this evidence the GOP are the real Death Panel in America, deciding who should live and die, and giving higher priority to serving the rich than the Americans in need. Can you imagine the shame!!! Cuba ranks higher for life expectancy than America??

 

 

 

 

Ranked

=======overall===Male===Female

1 Japan 82.73=== 79.29===86.96

2 Switzerland 81.81 79.31 84.12

3 Hong Kong 81.61 79.04 84.30

4 Australia 81.44 79.12 83.75

5 Italy 81.37 78.58 83.98

6 Iceland 81.28 79.49 83.05

7 France (metropol.) 80.95 77.48 84.32

8 Sweden 80.88 78.78 82.93

9 Israel 80.69 78.36 82.87

10 Singapore 80.60 78.48 82.71

11 Canada 80.50 78.18 82.81

12 Spain 80.48 77.22 83.75

13 Norway 80.45 78.12 82.71

14 Austria 80.24 77.41 82.88

15 Netherlands 80.20 78.05 82.19

16 New Zealand 80.13 78.03 82.16

17 Martinique ( France) 80.07 76.68 83.16

18 Macau 80.03 77.74 82.57

19 South Korea 80.00 76.48 83.25

20 Germany 79.85 77.20 82.39

21 Belgium 79.77 76.95 82.50

22 Ireland 79.68 77.33 82.02

23 United Kingdom 79.53 77.38 81.68

24 Greece 79.52 77.02 82.01

25 Channel Islands ( UK) 79.51 77.32 81.63

26 Luxembourg 79.39 76.70 81.98

26 Guadeloupe ( France) 79.39 75.71 82.88

28 Finland 79.34 75.89 82.75

29 Cyprus 78.94 76.84 81.07

29 U.S. Virgin Islands ( US) 78.94 75.89 82.01

31 Costa Rica 78.87 76.51 81.36

32 Malta 78.80 76.34 81.19

33 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.70 74.69 82.67

34 Chile 78.65 75.54 81.68

35 Portugal 78.59 75.32 81.79

35 Slovenia 78.59 74.97 81.99

37 Cuba 78.50 76.55 80.52

38 Denmark 78.25 75.99 80.50

39 Taiwan 78.19 75.25 81.51

40 United States 77.97 75.35 80.51

 

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

 

This is bologna. Because it is a fact that in the Western Hemisphere we usually have the oldest living person.

Asia is in a place all its own. But these gaps are very very minute if anything. We still have an unusually high life expectancy here.

And we have more senior citizens(per capita) than any industrialized nation on the planet. You need to take a nap Jack. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks, dumbsh**. Did you even read the friggin abstract???? I quote:

 

"Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily

because of high mortality rates above age 50."

 

And what goes down in likelihood as age increases? Murder rates, violent crime, drug use ... disease is what gets you, in the good old US of A where our health "care" sucks ass.

 

Well done, dumbsh**!!! Someone get that man and tall vinegar and water. It's on me.

 

How many sources you want saying it's not due to our healthcare system? I could do this all day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As many as you can muster, since if I post them you'll poo-poo it as being some leftie academicians or the lefty MSM (ABC) ...

 

And the one above merely speaks to a report that says we have lower life expectancy because of disease (health care deals with that aspect) compared to other wealthy nations (we're the wealthiest) -- AND (that means "in addition to") more deaths due to violence -- because of so much gun ownership!!!

 

Are you reading these things???? Do you know how to read? Have you ever picked up a book?

 

Is your head gear on securely???????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. You blame Americans and not our health "care" system.

He's simply telling the truth.

You've not explained how all the gangster murders, and fat ass, lazy people affect our life expectancy.

Why is that I wonder?

 

And what goes down in likelihood as age increases? Murder rates, violent crime, drug use ... disease is what gets you, in the good old US of A where our health "care" sucks ass.

You mean sitting on your fact ass eating bon bons and collecting welfare checks will kill you after you hit 50?

Wow. Who knew?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if I post them you'll poo-poo it as being some leftie academicians or the lefty MSM (ABC) ...

Are you reading these things???? Do you know how to read? Have you ever picked up a book?

 

Is your head gear on securely???????

 

Hey moonbat, what book on Economics claims that raising taxes helps economic growth?

 

Yes, I'm sure you can cite some leftist wackjob academic making that claim, but not one single School of Economics supports it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As many as you can muster, since if I post them you'll poo-poo it as being some leftie academicians or the lefty MSM (ABC) ...

 

And the one above merely speaks to a report that says we have lower life expectancy because of disease (health care deals with that aspect) compared to other wealthy nations (we're the wealthiest) -- AND (that means "in addition to") more deaths due to violence -- because of so much gun ownership!!!

 

Are you reading these things???? Do you know how to read? Have you ever picked up a book?

 

Is your head gear on securely???????

 

Go ahead post the one that says it's because of our inferior healthcare. I'll read it, all of it not just your soundbites.

 

"The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents. None of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents."

Healthcare related? of course not you fucking retard.

 

"Americans consume the most calories among peer countries and get involved in more accidents that involve alcohol."

Healthcare related? of course not you fucking retard.

 

"People living in the U.S. lose more years of their life before they reach 50 due to alcohol and drugs compared to all the other nations in the study."

Healthcare related? of course not you fucking retard.

 

The question is, did you read it Corky?

 

If you'd like to discuss the prevalence of guns in America there are plenty of other threads for that. But the OP of this thread is a major fail, there is no correlation between the life expectancy ranking and our superior healthcare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Go ahead post the one that says it's because of our inferior healthcare. I'll read it, all of it not just your soundbites.

 

"The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents. None of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents."

Healthcare related? of course not you fucking retard.

 

"Americans consume the most calories among peer countries and get involved in more accidents that involve alcohol."

Healthcare related? of course not you fucking retard.

 

"People living in the U.S. lose more years of their life before they reach 50 due to alcohol and drugs compared to all the other nations in the study."

Healthcare related? of course not you fucking retard.

 

The question is, did you read it Corky?

 

If you'd like to discuss the prevalence of guns in America there are plenty of other threads for that. But the OP of this thread is a major fail, there is no correlation between the life expectancy ranking and our superior healthcare.

 

 

Jesus. Not even a righty blog? I thought you have tons of links.

 

Hahahahahahaha.

 

What a dweeb!!!! Run hoe to mommy; I think your head gear is loosening and could fall off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. Not even a righty blog? I thought you have tons of links.

 

Hahahahahahaha.

 

What a dweeb!!!! Run hoe to mommy; I think your head gear is loosening and could fall off.

 

Hey moonbat, speaking of running home to moomy, why do you keep dodging my question?

 

What School of Economics supports your claim that raising taxes helps economic growth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...