Americans Are Seriously Sick 1519
jd writes "A study by US and British researchers on frequency of illnesses shows that even when you compare like groups in the US and the UK, people in the US are considerably sicker than their counterparts in the UK. This is after factors such as age, race, income, education and gender were taken into consideration. The most startling conclusion was that although the richest Americans were better off than the poorest Americans, they did no better (health-wise) than the poorest of the English. Previous studies of the entire population had shown similar results, with America placing around 25th amongst industrialized countries on chronic disease prevention, but it had been assumed that minorities and economics were skewing the results. This study suggests that maybe that isn't the case."
Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
No doubt many other people are going to write in talking about "fat americans" being the problem - and its true that nutrition in America is a serious problem, but the comparison is to England, [bbc.co.uk] so not the cause of the differences.
Personally, I work on average 8 months a year and spend the rest of the time travelling - I am rarely stressed and almost never sick.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wholeheartedly agree. Having worked for 10 years in the US and now happily back in the UK, the lack of meaningful time off is stressful and damaging. And don't get me started on the unpaid overtime culture in the US that appears to be protected by statute - in IT anyway.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Japan has the same minimum leave policy (10 days + stats), but on top of that, the leave policies are rarely enforced. It would normally be seen as selfish and inconsiderate of one's coworkers to actually use all of your leave, anyway. In many cases, company employees work completely unpaid "service overtime" out of obligation. Still, Japan is among the healthiest and longest-lived countries in the world.
I'd say there must be more to the picture. Like any complex system, the health of a nation probably can't be pinned on one single factor.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wanna talk suicide rates?
TWW
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, since differences in suicide rates are probably greatly overshadowed by other more common diseases and health standards, I don't think suicide have much to do with the discussion still. Both in Japan and USA is it a minority problem. Yes, Japan may have it be more common, but who knows why when countries with other stressful environments don't?
The Japanese work long, not hard (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in The States they really make people work hard, especially managers. And there are always PLENTY of managers in the work place.
I guess it is because managers can legally be made to work crazy hours with no compensation.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
i guess a diet of fish and rice and ninja skills really pay off vs bacon and eggs and TV remote skills...
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
the other factor which comes in here which benefits the japanese is the way they eat or better, what they eat. A lot of fish, a lot of vegetables, green tea... To sum it up: they eat little fat and healthier stuff.
compare this to USA or UK, where fast food dominates what people eat, where coffee and coke often is the only stuff people drink the whole day.
other thing: the majority of my american coworkers here never go to doctors. they take pills and drugs the whole day. instead of changing their way of life, calming down, solving their personal problems, eating better stuff (!) they try to cure everything with drugs, drink coke the whole day, eat a kilo of steak every day and then complain that they suffer from heartburn and again take pills against heartburn
of course this is not representative, might be strange co-workers here. but on the other hand i noticed something the last time i was in new york when i watched TV ads: i have never travelled to a country where there are dozens of tv ads every hour for products to reduce heartburn - this confirms my observation. instead of eating different stuff people buy these drugs. this is obviosuly not the right solution. in the long run this affects your health.
Answer is easy: tea plus less working hours (Score:5, Funny)
Tea has much better health [internethe...ibrary.com] benefits [alanmacfarlane.com] than coffee (and in fact even helped keep illnesses down in grime filled cities in the Industrial Revolution). So Americans drink more coffee to keep them awake so they can work longer hours hence getting more stressed and more ill.
Betcha don't feel so clever about the Boston Tea Party now!!!
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
One more point: poverty (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot on, poster. One point you missed though: despite the long hours and few vacation days in the US, there are more Americans in poverty now in real terms than at any time since the Great Depression. For tens of millions of Americans, despite all the work they are still dirt poor. This is for several reasons:
- Minimum wage is not tied to any meaningful cost of living index.
- The official 'Poverty Line' is similarly not based on any meaningful cost of living index (it is uselessly taken as 3 times the cost of food; food is dramatically cheaper now than even 25 years ago, and much less healthy, so this metric is positively retarded).
- Rent on property has gone sky high as the economy has grown, meaning the cost of even the crappiest housing is essentially unaffordable for a minimum wage worker.
And lastly, Employers are becoming increasingly exploitative, harkening back to 19th Century labor practices. Labor is less organized now and unions are weaker (where is a Wal Mart workers union for their 900,000 employees?). With so-called 'unskilled' jobs, employers encourage high turnover so they don't have to give pay increases with all sorts of draconian practices.
On this last point, culpability falls largely on the government. Without regulation, unbridled capitalism is taken America steadily in the direction of Asian sweatshops. Supply and demand in the labor market defies all textbook economic logic because workers have no time to shop around for the best jobs, or to switch jobs when a better one becomes available and because they have no access to information about what other jobs might be available. Sure, you might get a dollar an hour more somewhere else, but if they withhold the first weeks' pay there, you can never switch because you won't ever be able to pay the rent or buy food if you miss a week's wages. Millions of people are that close to the edge. And so without rules - without government regulation - keeping companies from fucking low-wage workers, guess what? Those workers get fucked.
So the point you missed is that millions of Americans are in a state of profound poverty. Sure, the US has pretty good general public infrastructure - roads, water, electricity - so it doesn't seem like poor people are living in the same poverty and desperation that exists in places like India, but in many instances they are. The toll on a person's health from the stress of poverty alone probably outweighs the toll of long working hours and few vacations. Bill Gates works 80-hour weeks, so I hear. He probably doesn't have the kind of stress-related health problems that a single mother holding down two jobs has, even if she only works a 60 hour week.
Be sure to read Nickel and Dimed for more information about the impossibility of surviving in America on minimum wage.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Walking. Seriously!
In British cities, we generally do a lot of walking compared to US cities. I once asked *in the visitor's centre* for directions to the public library in a US city. After getting a load of driving directions, when I told them I didn't have a car, the woman behind the counter looked horrified, and was stunned into disbelieving silence for several seconds, before giving the classic response :
Turns out it was only a ten-minute walk away. And virtually every car I passed on the way honked at me. Why? Because they thought I was a bum - after all, only bums don't have cars, right?
I'm not saying this is true of every US city - certainly people seem to walk in New York, for example - but by way of contrast, I live in London and I probably do about an hour of brisk walking every day just getting between tube stations, the office, and my home. That's not counting actual "exercise time", that's just getting about day-to-day. Even when I used to work in the northern cities like Leeds and Stockton-on-Tees, which don't have the Tube, I still did about an hour walking around at lunchtime.
I'm not trying to troll here, but I think this picture says a lot : Only In America [msjc.net].
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever wonder why country people, especially farmers and people who do physical work, always seem healthier?
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can practically feel my blood pressure go up every time I have to drive near rush hour, since every other driver on the road is either an idiot or a maniac*. If I could ride a bicycle or use public transportation, I would consider it, but in Texas, it just ain't possible. I think the stress-relieving nature of the actual physical work also contributes to the lower stress levels - they go hand-in-hand.
*: Idiot (n): Person driving slower than the speaker. Maniac (n): Person driving faster than the speaker.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Funny)
No, they weren't honking at you because they thought you were a bum. They honked because they did not recognize you. Because they did not recognize you, they knew you were a _foreign_ visitor. So, they were trying to help you feel more welcome. I would not be surprised if some of them gave you the national one-finger salute as well.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
In Praise of Idleness (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems this is the only thread going today.
Anyway, I thought I should mention a great essay of Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness [panarchy.org]. His argument takes the extreme view that we should only need to work for four hours a week. Empirically, the argument derives from the experience of Britain during the second world war when most of the productive capacity of the country was spent on maintaining the war. And we didn't starve.
Of course, Russell is being a little toungue-in-cheek by calling his essa
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer is indeed simple: among industrial nations one of the most significant predictors of health is the gap between rich and poor. The larger this gap, the worse the health of both groups. It is not surprising that poor people have worse health, but it is interesting that riches don't buy better health. More information is available here [washington.edu], and here's a related editorial [washington.edu] from Newsweek.
In short, the study looked at the following health factors: life expectancy, infant mortality, death rates, disability, quality of life, self-assessed health, happiness and well-being. The high-level summary from the linked article: "Populations whose income is below a threshold (about $5,000 - $10,000 in US per capita income) generally have poorer health. Increasing income in such societies leads to better health. Above the threshold, national health is not necessarily related to absolute income, but rather to the gap between rich and poor. Studies in the past 15 years found that where income gaps are smaller, health appears to be better."
The researchers' hypothesis is that societies with a large gap between the rich and poor have a more hierarchical organization. Such an organization is based on coercion and resignation. More egalitarian societies do not engender the negative emotions needed to sustain a hierarchy.
Perhaps what is most surprising is that despite the maturity of this research, it seems (at least to me) that very few people are aware of it.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the U.S. obesity epidemic couldn't solve the mystery. The researchers crunched numbers to create a hypothetical statistical world in which the English had American lifestyle risk factors, including being as fat as Americans. In that model, Americans were still sicker.
I'm sure their methods were a little more rigorous than your heresay. I'd say that the GP is bang on, we're working ourselves to death.
Another interesting tidbit:
[...] the United States spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet trails in rankings of life expectancy.
The United States spends about $5,200 per person on health care while England spends about half that in adjusted dollars.
Spending is only going to keep you alive for so long when you're overweight and out of shape from a poor diet and little exercise. That culture of 50 hour work weeks (or worse) just compounds these problems and shortens lives even more.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, I thought the free market and privatization was supposed to make things cheaper? While state-run systems like the British NHS were supposed to be horribly inefficient and expensive?
Any economists care to explain what's going on here? Is the free market a failure, or is this the way it's supposed to be? Are those extortionate health costs translating into increased prosperity for America in some way?
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, I thought the free market and privatization was supposed to make things cheaper? While state-run systems like the British NHS were supposed to be horribly inefficient and expensive?
Any economists care to explain what's going on here? Is the free market a failure, or is this the way it's supposed to be? Are those extortionate health costs translating into increased prosperity for America in some way?
Markets work very well where prices are elastic; that is, a change in price causes demand to change. Healthcare, by its very nature, is inelastic. The number of broken legs that need to be serviced each year is roughly the same and changing the price to fix a broken leg will not change the demand for the service appreciably. The same goes for Heart Disease, Cancer or just about any other ailment.
The upshot of this is that free market will raise the prices indefinitely, as we have seen in the United States. In fact, in America it's got a whole lot worse because companies are providing healthcare for their employees. The fact that companies have much bigger pockets makes the inflation problem so much worse.
There are also other economic disadvantages to the American set-up. The chief one being purchasing power. The NHS can buy ten million flu shots in a go and can pass these savings on the tax payer. In the mean while, a person doesn't have the same clout. Moreover, you generally need drugs when you're sick and you're going to be prepared sacrifice a lot more in order to get the drug than you would for most products. Not a lot else matter if you're dying of cancer: You either buy the drug or you die.
The best way to run a health service is through "market inspired" communism. That is not as much as an oxymoron as you might think it is. The NHS is a prime example of this.
Simon.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any economists care to explain what's going on here? Is the free market a failure, or is this the way it's supposed to be? Are those extortionate health costs translating into increased prosperity for America in some way?
Its an easy answer, a very easy answer.
Westernized countries with socialized medicine have better across-the-board health than the USA, and spend 8-9% of their GDP on health care. In the USA, we spend 15% of the GDP on healthcare, and fully 1 out of 6 people have no health insurance.
Our health system fails miserably compared to socialized medicine in terms of cost (even when normalized by GDP), and most measures of how healthy you are. The common straw man is that the [Canadian][UK][French] system won't work, but there are a dozen different socialized medicine models out there, and some of them look quite good at all levels compared to the USA.
You'd have a hard time making an argument that health care in the USA is better than Cuba, if you used normal markers of health, like life expectancy, infant mortality, sick days, etc.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) To have a free market is to make money (not saying this is bad), but reality is that you can't make money with health care. Fixing a broken bone can be made profitable because it is a known science. Fixing a disease is not profitable and costs quite a bit of money. In your proposal where people "save" the money, ha! Diseases are a loss!
2) In a private system there still would be paperwork. Paperwork exists to create accountability! In a private system people will want accountability.
As much as I like free markets, health care and free market do not go together. Healthcare is a societal issue because health care from a profitability factor is a money looser. Healthcare is not like a car insurance. With a car you can try and avoid an accident, you can stop speeding. Accidents do happen, but there are ways to reduce them. Car accidents are human errors! Diseases on the other happen and there is nothing we can do to avoid them. They are a fact of life. You can diet, excercise, and lead a healthy lifestyle, but you can still be hit with cancer or some other disease! You can try to avoid them, but they will always hit you!
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet proper diet and exercise and vacations can dramatically reduce your chances of getting cancer or other diseases. I would say the car insurance analogy is better than you thought.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take cancer. People don't know where cancer comes from and think that some habits are better than others. Yet we all can get cancer, regardless if you excercise, etc. We think that certain habits will increase the liklihood, but we cannot say, "Excercise and you will not get cancer".
Let me give you an example; Lance Armstrong, incredibly healthy and a great athlete, yet he was on the brink of death due to cancer. Or how about Andres Galarraga? Or how about Scott Hamilton? How about Mario Lemieux?
This is why I say healthcare is a societal issue because healthcare saps money and is a money looser! With a spin on the car insurance ananlogy. When a driver has an accident we as a society don't mind charging that driver more or not giving him car insurance. If a person gets cancer can we say, "No you can't get coverage, you are on your own?" This is exactly what private healthcare providers do. I know, my mother survived breast cancer, but the private healthcare providers are refusing to cover her for cancer. If she gets cancer again she is on her own. This is wrong! But it is business because she is a "problematic" person.
The System is Down (Score:5, Informative)
When you see health plans marketed here in the States, it's done by showing healthy, happy people, not showing sick people receiving good health care. That's because insurers want to recruit customers who are in good health and leave those with diabetes or other chronic conditions for some other company. It's like a game of hot potato: who gets stuck with all of the diabetics and their lifelong health problems?
As for health care being a societal issue, that's right on. Some people can take action to be healthy and remain that way, and others may take action but still wind up getting heart disease or diabetes because of family history, etc. The people who live healthy lives and stay healthy, as well as the people who live less healthy lifestyles but still wind up not getting diseases -- these are the people who "pay" for the people unfortunate enough to get sick. The healthy peoples' low costs subsidize the costs of those who wind up getting sick. In a nationalized health care system, those costs are spread out over the entire society, and it's a wash overall.
In a private system, it's in the interests of insurers to seek out only the people who don't get sick -- also known as people without pre-existing conditions (those who haven't already been sick). Those with pre-existing conditions (diabetics) or those at risk for health problems (smokers, older people, etc.) are passed up, or charged far higher premiums, essentially locking them out of health care coverage if they aren't covered through their employer.
Here's an interesting factor that would be very, very difficult to isolate, but that may be having an effect on health in the U.S. vs. the U.K. -- how many Americans are staying in stressful, underpaid, overworked jobs because they don't want to lose their health coverage? Seriously, that's one of the top priorities for basically anyone here, whether they can keep their health coverage or not. If big employers like General Motors or Ford or Boeing start to phase out health coverage because of the cost it adds to their products, it's going to start to get even worse for us.
Not that it isn't already bad -- this is National Cover the Uninsured Week [covertheuninsured.org] here, which is a good time to remind everyone of the following:
* There are 46 million people in the U.S. without insurance (about 20 percent of the population).
* The country spends more than 20 percent of its GDP on health expenditures.
* We spend more per person on health care than most industrialized nations, and despite our "top of the line" care and technology, we have significantly lower indicators or health than most of those nations.
* Hospitals (emergency rooms in particular) that provide charity care are becoming the first point of contact for many people who are uninsured, which is making it hard for some hospitals to stay financially solvent.
It's not at all an exaggeration to say our health care system is in a crisis right now.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Informative)
Have you every tried paying cash in the US Health Care system? I had a dentist that I loved dearly, compared to some of the other dentists I've seen - this guy is the best in the field I've come across. My insurance used to pay him $650 for a root canal and crown. But he charged a cash customer $1500 for the same thing.
I have to pick up a couple medicines every month at the pharmacy. (Now I suppose Walmart & Costco are a few bucks cheaper, but not on my pharmacy plan) I pay a trivial deductable ($1 each on generics) for my medicines and a straight percentage for non-generics. They pay $65 for one of my scripts, but the cash price for it is $128 at Walgreens. They don't even hide that they are paying half what I would, I have hard caps on the policy and everything everyone is paid out is listed. Go try to find a pair of MRIs with & without contrast for $530 paying cash. I know why my GP isn't always happy to see me either, I know what he is paid for it.
Cash wont get you far in the American Health Care system, they rape cash customers blind. $50 for a hot towel, $75 for an ice pack... (*This is from my physical therapy bill before insurance, and these are the cash billing prices.)
I know there are some doctors you can negotiate with, and there is always the Doc-In-The-Box for routine things, but if you need anything more than the very routine, its a very expensive proposition. Some of the health care system is pure price gouging, but its targeted at the cash customer the worst.
I'm currently working as a contractor, and using COBRA for my old insurance policy. When its up, I'm going to buy this policy outright, its far from cheap, but I've done the math both ways. I can't win paying cash, and can't afford the risk of needing some specialized bit of care if I have any complications.
I'll tell you what I really think causes the difference between here and the UK. Although I haven't lived in the UK, I spent a year working in Germany. Its the food, its the stress, and its the climate of work. Half of the additives to the food you wont find in theirs - it makes a difference. The work environment was a lot better, shorter hours, less pressures for overtime (I was reminded of this several times when I suggested time tables that would be perfectly acceptable here - just work people 55 hours a week to do it.), very little stress coming out (there was virtually no crime where I was at). Even though I had the stress of dealing with a language I hadn't mastered, navigating a city I barely knew, and a bit of culture shock - I still came home with less need to unwind. Where I was at less traffic as well, of course it was expensive to drive. It was very typical on any job site I was at for them to offer us good coffee, and a few minutes to talk to everyone before starting. (That almost never happens here, just get led to the problem and dive in and avoid talking to anyone unless you have to, or they will think you are slacking off.)
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:4, Informative)
Have you every tried paying cash in the US Health Care system? I had a dentist that I loved dearly, compared to some of the other dentists I've seen - this guy is the best in the field I've come across. My insurance used to pay him $650 for a root canal and crown. But he charged a cash customer $1500 for the same thing.
It's not the doctors fault, he's not out to rape cash customers, he's trying to make ends meet. The reason that uninsured medical costs are so high is partially the fault of private insurance companies. Your doc could charge $800 for a root and crown, cover his expenses (lets say $650), and have some money left over to take home ($150). If he got $800 bucks every time, it would work. Unfortunately, the private insurance companies use their muscle to reduce the amount that they will pay, so the doc is forced to accept this lower payment ($650). Well that covers his expenses, but it certainly won't leave him with a paycheck, so he has to charge the uninsured a bit more to make up for it.
However, MedicAid and MediCare are the real reason why healthcare is out of control in this country. Docs are required by law to accept both, and neither of them pay anywhere near enough to cover expenses. While the insurance companies will haggle down the price to $650 with your dentist, MedicAid and MediCare give him $200, take it or leave it. The fact that the doc has to accept these programs leaves him screwed. He loses money on every procedure, and has to hike rates to make up for it.
you're complete wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government-run health care institutions and programs are the most efficient in the nation, handily beating private health care systems in terms of cost, overhead, and at least equalling it in quality. And I believe if you looked into it, you'd find the same for education. Both health care and education have been broken by the market.
I'm sorry, Adam Smith's invisible hand works almost everywhere, and frequently when it doesn't, it's failure is because of government, not big business
Adam Smith's invisible hand has a long list of preconditions to work, preconditions on the numbers and sizes of competitors, on information available to competitors and buyers, on the kinds of goods being exchanged, etc. Claiming that it "works almost everywhere" is just completely wrong and demonstrates an utter unfamiliarity with economic principles.
For health care and education, several of the preconditions are violated and therefore a free market approach doesn't work; the current failures of the US health care and educational system are a direct consequence of that (however, aspects of both health care and education can be left to the market--it just requires careful planning and design).
The free market works wonderfully when its preconditions are satisfied. It's the purpose of our government to ensure that free markets exist in as many goods and services as possible. It is also the purpose of our government to ensure that the small subset of goods and services the free market cannot supply efficiently are provided in some other way.
People like you, who have an irrational and factually wrong belief in the universal applicability of free market economics are at the source of a lot of our economic ills. It's adding insult to injury that after wrecking our health care and educational systems, you then turn around and blame the government for the mess you made through deregulation and privatization.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think what's right for you is right for everybody.
I know you'll shake your head at it like everybody does, but the typical vegetarian gets no cancer, never gets influenza (yes your flu last year could be avoided if you dumped meat) and will never have the depression, bowel disease, heart problems and overweight that inflict meat eaters!
My mom's cousin has been a vegetarian since childhood. She died two years ago of breast cancer.
Vegetarians are NOT immune to the flu. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you'll shake your head at it like everybody does, but the typical vegetarian gets no cancer, never gets influenza (yes your flu last year could be avoided if you dumped meat) and will never have the depression, bowel disease, heart problems and overweight that inflict meat eaters!
I would like to point out that I was vegan for three years and vegetarian for ten, and that I enjoyed the flu a half-dozen times in that stretch. People making claims like this are idiots.
I eat a little fish now, on advice from several doctors who were kind enough to point to well-done studies that argued for the health benefits. There is no reason that eating some meat is bad for you. There are, however, problems with getting an excess of iron (in men), too much fat from the wrong meats in excess, and so forth-- but the same downsides are true of anything with a lot of bioavailable iron or fat.
Meat does not magically cause the flu.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I too am a vegetarian & that yes, overconsumption of meat is indeed one of the causes of the US's chronic health problems.
However, go and look in your mouth - see the canines there? The notion that humans are not well adapted to an omnivorous diet is a stupid one.
Also - saying "going against nature" (whether said by people like you or people arguing that eating meat is 'natural') makes no sense in this day & age - the life you lead is no more natural then the life of a bird in a cage.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the absense of those refined pills, a vegan diet will kill you in the long term. Clear evidence that a vegan diet is NOT natural.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is Vitamin B12. It's not naturally occurring in plants, but exclusively synthesised by bacteria. The only natural bioavailable sources of B12 are meat products. That's why vegans are advised to eat foods enriched with B12 (and calcium). Chronic B12 deficiency leads to anaemia, nerve damage and eventually death.
Slamming back the odd Red Bull will take care of it though.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3)
One or two of them have gone ape and killed a sheep every now and then but generally they eat bamboo.
Re:Attack of a Pride of Monkeys? (Score:3, Interesting)
It takes quite a bit more plumbing to digest plant matter. Cows have three stomachs, koala's have a huge ass appendix. We're much closer to carnivore in the internal piping than a vegetarian.
Re:Attack of a Pride of Monkeys? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Informative)
Until you learn how they actually make [wikipedia.org] that (warning: you may never eat foie gras again).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Funny)
I propose an addendum to godwin's law. If someone mentions "It's true, I saw it on national TV" then they lose and the debate is over. Oh and everyone gets to laugh at them for weeks.
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&r esnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=humans+are+omnivorous&spe ll=1 [google.com]
Humans are not herbivorous.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie =utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define%3A+herbivore [google.com]
Humans may choose to be vegetarian, and it can be a very healthy diet.
Never met an obese vegetarian? I have. Obesity is related to exercise as well as diet. I
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
However - the main reason people in other parts of the world travel is to go and experience a different culture - that's something you're not really going to get in your own country.
The main reason Americans don't travel is because they know virtually nothing about the world outside of the US & everyone fears the unkown.
(Oh, and honestly, drop the "World's Best National Parks" in favour of "some of the most fantastic National Parks in the world").
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Useless? I think minimum time off is certainly a factor. If you disagree, why not go & search for the information you're after and post it here?
Anyway, I can't find the exact statistics you're asking for, but this Wikipedia article on the working week [wikipedia.org] says the USA has a working year of 1777 hours vs UK's 1652. That's more than a three week difference (on a 40 hour week - 3 1/2 weeks for the French).
Bank holidays can come out of annual leave (Score:3, Informative)
No, you are wrong.
UK law gives you four weeks holiday, which is 20 days a year if you work 5 days a week, but the law does not give anyone time off on bank holidays. Some employers will give you a paid day off, but some will make you use your annual leave allowance if you don't want to work on a bank holiday.
There is lots of information here [adviceguide.org.uk] and here. [adviceguide.org.uk]
From adviceguide.org.uk:
Re:Answer is easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pies (Score:5, Funny)
Duuuuuuuuh (Score:5, Funny)
US != Socialism
HENCE
Medical != US
Sheesh.. when we'll we learn?
Re:Duuuuuuuuh (Score:3, Funny)
When a guy who's sick of the flue hijacks a plane and flies it into a building.
We may be sick (Score:4, Funny)
Universal Healthcare? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps she's being a little unreasonable, but then again, if the Democratic Party continues to be ineffective, and impotent, perhaps we should be looking towards a party that does have the courage to stand up to the Republicans and actually get things like universal healthcare into the running for issues.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Universal Healthcare? (Score:5, Insightful)
At any rate, as cool as universal healthcare would be, TFA really isn't bringing that issue up. Rather, I think it alludes to the hire levels of stress or maybe more generally the unhealthy ways we Americans live. Universal Healthcare can't make you sleep 8 hours every night or eat all your vegetables, and I think that's really the point that should be driven home by the article... as Americans, we just aren't living healthily (and no amount of healthcare can make up for that.)
On the other hand (Score:4, Interesting)
"Americans Are Seriously Sick" (Score:5, Funny)
Assumed by whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't believe that was assumed by most public health experts, and certianly not ones outside the US. The US does not just have greater socioeconmic differences, but since thay have no proper pubic heathcare, those differences matter a lot more. And even if you belong to the group that can afford proper care, you still have to go get it; there is little follow-up by default. It would really be quite shocking if the US system resulted in high a level of public health as the more proactive systems found in western Europe. Now, I know that there are varying opinions on what are the responsibilities of society and of the individual, and I'm not going to go into that. But of there are effects. I assume that most of those against public healthcare accept those consquences as a fair price (for someone else) to pay, but if this result came as an unwelcome suprise, I would call that a tad naïve.
Re: TypoMan strikes! (Score:5, Funny)
Grab.
PS. Having said that, you've written "naive" with a diacritic, which I'd never bother with, so bonus points there.
Re: TypoMan strikes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Assumed by whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me a pessimist... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Not a supporter of socialist programs in general, but healthcare is too important to be trusted to human greed.)
Re:Call me a pessimist... (Score:4, Interesting)
Michael Moore's new movie about health care (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.p
The health insurance industry is a parasite the purpose of which is to interfere with your patient-doctor relationship and to deny your treatment.
Fast food (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently went out to stay at a friends house for a weekend, and on the first day we ate McDonalds in the evening. The next day I was feeling pretty sick. All I ate about two burgers and some chicken nuggets.
Re:Fast food (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fast food (Score:3, Funny)
fish and mushy peas (thats not that bad)
mushy pea butties (that cant be that bad)
meat pie butty (thats a bad one)
there are plenty more, but bacon, eggs and black pudding doesn't really highlight my point.
free as in beer (Score:5, Insightful)
Rates of smoking are similar in the US and England but alcohol consumption is higher in the UK.
There you have it, folks, DRINK!
(I am only half joking)
Re:free as in beer (Score:3, Insightful)
Nationality (Score:5, Informative)
The official nationality of people from the UK is British, not English. By referring to Brits as "English", you're pissing off a sizable number of people who are proud to be Scottish, Irish, Welsh, etc. Us English did some pretty nasty things to them in the past, so calling them "English" isn't exactly going to ingratiate yourself with them.
By referring to people from the UK as British, you're still going to piss off some Irish, but at least you're correct in your terminology. Yes, British is the correct term to use for somebody from the UK, even if they aren't from Great Britain. References:
Having read the article, I have no clue exactly which region of the world it is talking about, because it seems to use different regions as synonyms. It could be the UK, which is a country and member nation of the UN. It could be Great Britain, which is a geographical region within the UK comprised mainly of England, Wales and Scotland. Or it could be England, which is a region, home nation and constituent country of the UK, but which doesn't have its own government.
If I had to guess, I'd say that they were talking about the UK, even though they don't use the word "UK" at all, instead opting for "British" and "England". I base this guess on years of experience with peopel from the USA getting it wrong and the sentence "Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens." Hint: England spends nothing whatsoever on its citizens. The NHS in England is run by the UK government. It's the NHS in other parts of the UK that belong to their respective constituent countries - England actually has very little to call its own these days.
England, Great Britain and the UK are three completely different things. Mix them up, and you piss people off. It's a bit like mixing up California with the USA with North America. You'd think somebody was pretty ignorant to do that, right?
Re:Nationality (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember being rather shocked a year or so back when a writer that is a favourite of mine on ESPN.com described the Commonwealth Games as basically being a European-only Olympics.
Well, that's utter rubbish, of course. Countries as geographically diverse as Canada, Australia, India and South Africa (and many, many more) are all in the Commonwealth. European nations outside of the UK, such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain, are not.
Commonwealth has nothing to do with Europe but, to some people at least, the two seem to be interchangeable, which is very worrying.
For anyone that's interested, the Commonwealth is made up of those nation states, territories and dependencies that were formally part of the British Empire that want to be in it, which is pretty much all former parts of the Empire bar a few exceptions, such as the USA and the Republic of Ireland.
By the way, I'm from London and when asked for my nationality I opt for whatever's the most appropriate choice. In some cases, that'll be English but in others, such as when travelling abroad, it'll be British. But, as the parent poster has pointed out, they're definitely not interchangeable terms.
Mate, get used to it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nationality (Score:3, Informative)
> you're still going to piss off some Irish
Your going to piss off all of them. They are not British. Northern Ireland now you might annoy a few, but please don't refer to Ireland as British. It is not part of the UK either.
About that only thing British you can tag Ireland with is "British Isles", but even that isn't fully reconised in Ireland (despite it being only a geographical reference).
Re:Nationality (Score:3, Informative)
Sweet tooth & work stress (Score:3, Insightful)
"Americans reported twice the rate of diabetes compared to the English, 12.5 percent versus 6 percent. For high blood pressure, it was 42 percent for Americans versus 34 percent for the English; cancer showed up in 9.5 percent of Americans compared to 5.5 percent of the English."
I am dutch, but have been to the states a lot as my parents have lived there on several occasions. My impressions:
Higher diabetes rates could well be explained by the large amounts of sugar in lots of food products in America. Even the bread was very sweet to my senses, let alone the rediculous amounts of soft drinks consumed( "would you like a refill for that half-a-litre of coke you just drained?" ).
Higher blood pressure: higher work stress. I don't think I need expand on this, it's a well known fact that Americans work more and have less holidays/vacations.
Also less physical exercise will not help either conditions.
But the higher cancer rates quite baffle me. Strange stuff.
Re:Sweet tooth & work stress (Score:5, Funny)
From my experience in the UK with working with Americans, I would say that most stress for Americans comes from having to work with other Americans.
Re:Sweet tooth & work stress (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure it's got absolutely nothing to do with industrial pollution [uspirg.org]. Only a paranoid hippy would think that.
YEAH RIGHT!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Nationalized Healthcare Good For Business (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if I didn't have the health condition, and were fit as a fiddle, I'd be doing the equivalent of driving without car insurance. I'm one serious traffic accident or cancerous tumor away from financial ruin if I don't have healthcare.
So, I turn down all kinds of consulting gigs, and leaf wistfully through my file of business plans, and wonder, do I love my country more than I love my career? I'm poorer and less fulfilled by living in a country without a single-payer system. I'm dependent on a corporate benefits package, and unable to pursue the American Dream.
I could emigrate to New Zealand in a heartbeat, as they're looking for tech workers there and would put me on an immigration fast-track. I really like Montreal and Halifax, too... but I'm a New Englander at heart, and I would like to stay where I feel I belong, where all my family and freinds are.
Now I find out that even with a company-funded HMO, I'm not as healthy, either. I mean. what the hell am I getting for my healthcare dollar? It's a serious chunk of change out of my paycheck and my employer's operating budget, and an expense that gets more and more and more expensive every year without returning much in the way of improvement in quality of service or quality of life. As far as I can tell, I'm just paying to fund Washington lobbyists and golden parachute accounts for HMO and Big Pharma execs.
I think it's time to put to rest the United State's overpriced, poorly managed and underperforming healthcare system, and join the rest of the civilized worl in the 21st century.
Re:Nationalized Healthcare Good For Business (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise, under your model of "insurance", I would be dead, as I'd quickly be pauperized to the point of no longer being able to afford medicine, doctor visits or emergency care. I fail to see how any system preventing this, "socialist" or not, is BAD.
It's nice to know the doctrinaire right-wingers really are out to kill me.
Strange Result (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) Being more sick more often won't actually make a difference to how long you can expect to live? Sounds implausible.
(2) Americans get sick more often but their health care is better so they live just as long or longer? Sounds more plausible, although it seems like too much of a coincidence that better healthcare is almost exactly balancing worse health.
(3) Maybe better access to health care in the US results in a higher rate of diagnosis, rather than a higher rate of illness? That would explain the nearly identical lifespan, but only if the better access to healthcare makes little difference to lifespan.
(4) A difference in medical culture, where doctors in the US are more likely to diagnose and attempt to treat problems that doctors in the UK would just tell their patients to live with? I know that psychiatrists and psychologists in the US are very quick to diagnose and prescribe drugs compared to Japan or New Zealand (the other two countries that I am familiar with). Maybe there is something similar going on with the medical profession in general.
Lack of exercise and bad food (Score:4, Insightful)
Add the rotten food to the car culture and you have a disaster. The UK is sure to follow this trend although it is much easier here to live close enough to work that you don't have to drive (I cycle). Just 30 mins exercise a day would make a world of difference (I try to get an hour in) and there is no reason why you should pay to get it at a gym. Heck, even if you do drive try parking 15-30 mins walk away from work and go the rest of the way in on foot. When I do have to use my car I do that and I still get in quicker than I would if I tried to drive the last couple of miles.
There are few things coming to mind.... (Score:4, Insightful)
These are mentioned in article but not enough to explain it entirely.
Obesity.
Unhealthy food.
Lack of exercise.
Stress.
These are not mentioned in the article...
Air pollution from cars and power plants.
Chemicals that can cause health problems, dumped to environment getting to people.
Look at the cancer rate its double in US, so there must be something that causes that problem. And its probably the attitude towards environment biting back. When nobody cares if they pollute their neighbours habitat the result is that all get pollution in their environment. And in the end just like wild animals we humans get affected by the pollution we put in our environment, and we all get some health problems because of that.
How sick? (Score:5, Funny)
American employer: Oh, how sick?
American employee: Well, I'm in bed with my sister.
it's a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
the sad thing is, I have to state explicitly that I'm being sarcastic here...
Variance in Climate Extremes? (Score:3, Interesting)
The recent influx of diseases like West Nile disease suggests a warmer north is facilitating the spread of tropical diseases. I believe there's a suggestion that tropical climates or climates with extended warm seasons and no freezing winters breed a greater diversity of diseases and disease carrying hosts. Heat is also a stress factor and can complicate bad air conditions.
It would be interesting to see the demographics broken down between the northern U.S. and the far south.
just my loose change
"Self-reported health issues"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm British and I haven't been to the doctors in about five years. I know several people who aren't even registered with doctors. No-one I know of my age (36) has had tests for prostate cancer, checked themselves for testicular cancer or even has regular annual check-ups.
There's a possibility, IMHO, that relying on self-reporting of illness would produce this kind of result in the older generation of Brits, as they're still following the "just get on with life and don't bother the doctors" mentality of those who grew up in the aftermath of WWII.
My mother had a lot of pain in her lower back for years - when I eventually persuaded her to go to the doctors he got her to go to hospital. They did a scan of her lower back - nothing wrong with it - but noticed something wrong with one of her kidneys (it had never grown from when she was a child). So they took another scan higher up to have a better look at that. Then noticed something wrong with her liver. So they took another scan higher up and saw that she had severe cancer of the liver (despite her being a non-smoker and a very light drinker). She died about 6 weeks later.
She would never have thought of getting either her kidneys or her liver checked out. If she had then maybe she would still be alive. But, like so many people from her (and her parents) generation going to the doctor was only something you avoided as you didn't like to bother him/her.
As usual, your views may vary.
--
silas
It's all about Sleep (Score:5, Interesting)
The great thing about this discussion (Score:4, Funny)
It's the food supply, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not eating what you ate 20 years ago - that's no longer available. And that's why America is getting fatter and sicker faster than any other nation.
Re:It's the food supply, stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
People eat crap, because people LIKE crap, and they are too lazy to stop. It isn't the fault of "market forces" that people eat crap, because the market has made it cheaper and easier than ever before to eat healthy.
Something to add to this (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I get myself on Google and discover that Cubans have a longer life expectancy than Americans. Well, that shocked me.
This is a place where I can't drink the water, and the beef looked pretty scary. It's certainly possible that the more expensive stuff we have available to us (more food, more highly processed food), the worse our health could be. I read once that in Rome the rich people had plumbing with lead pipes (it was a luxury) but it ended up killing them faster from lead poisoning. It's possible something similar is happening to us in industrialized nations right now.
Re:This is a trash study (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe health care is a right, not a privilege for the rich, and I'm proud to pay my taxes towards the NHS that provides top notch treatment to EVERYBODY.
I'm guessing you're one of the lucky ones with private health insurance. Try living on the povery line and making a choice between getting that lump looked at or eating for a month. I know what most people are forced to choose in your so called land of the free...
Re:This is a trash study (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, which UK do you live in? I've had to deal with the NHS about a dozen times in my life, and with private hospitals just twice. I can say without a doubt that if I ever require anything important done, I will opt for private treatment every time.
The incompetence of our NHS, the apathy of their "professionals" and utterly abysmal levels of customer service lead me to believe it is just a scheme designed to ensure th
Re:This is a trash study (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that it's basic human decency to help those less fortunate than yourself, particularly those in potentially dire need.
The fact that when a single life is needlessly cut short, the whole society is affected in some way.
Failing all that, simple enlightened self interest. Even if you can afford to pay for your healthcare or insurance now, can you be sure of that in the future? Heaven help you if you fall on hard times, or require treatment that your insurance won't cover.
Re:This is a trash study (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a trash study (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the NHS with it's endless 'performance targets', NICE reviews, and Local Trust bureaucracies is actually doing a better job of making people better than the largely private US system, with it's deeper pockets, and strong-arm tactician pharmaceutical companies?
Re:This is a trash study (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Per Capita Healthcare Spending (Score:3, Insightful)
The point here in the US (with our wonderful for-profit system) is not to make people well. That went out the window years ago.
The point is to find a way to rule regular conditions (like an allergy to pollen during the springtime) as a sickness, and find a way to rake in a few dollars from it as a result.
I maintain that Americans are not actually more sick than residents of other countries, but that routine conditions that are regular and normal (colds in the winter,
Re:They mean, WHITE Americans (Score:3, Informative)
In the USA, that is the case:
"Nearly 217 million people, or 77.1 percent of the total population, reported as white," http://www.govspot.com/news/reports/population.ht