US Life Expectancy May Have Peaked 1053
Hugh Pickens writes "Live Science reports that although life expectancy in the United States has risen to an all-time high of 77.9 years in 2007 up from 77.7 in 2006, gains in life expectancy may be pretty much over, as some groups — particularly people in rural locations are already stagnating or slipping in contrast to all other industrialized nations. Hardest hit are regions in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, in Appalachia and also the southern part of the Midwest reaching into Texas. The culprits — largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services — are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity. What the new analysis reveals is the reality of two Americas, one on par with most of Europe and parts of Asia, and another no different than a third-world nation with the United States placing 41st on the 2008 CIA World Factbook list, behind Bosnia but still edging out Albania. 'Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing through 1999 those who were already disadvantaged did not benefit from the gains in life expectancy experienced by the advantaged, and some became even worse off,' says a report published in PLoS Medicine by a team led by Harvard's Majid Ezzati, adding that 'study results are troubling because an oft-stated aim of the US health system is the improvement of the health of "all people, and especially those at greater risk of health disparities.'"
Don't tell Kurzweil (Score:4, Funny)
USA! USA! USA! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember, the USA is better at everything. Why? Because!
Don't ever question that or you'll be a traitor. Why try to change what is already perfect?
Re:USA! USA! USA! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's as if the debate turned from trying to help poor people who are uninsured into some weird debate over I don't even know what. I seriously look at it and have no clue exactly what problem the Democrats are trying to solve. If anyone else has an idea, please say it. As for me, it's enough to make me vote Green Party.
Re:USA! USA! USA! (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as someone starts talking about those damn Democrats or those damn Republicans I know there will be no sensible discussion following.
How about which policies and which initiates you think have merit, which need tweaking, and which are bad ideas, irregardless of which clique is pushing it through the propaganda machines?
To myself, someone without strong ties to either political party, I see two groups who are almost identical. They use very similar strategies, similar ways of using their power, similar ways of blocking and discrediting the other party and any initiatives of the other party no matter how good or bad they may be. Both parties spout crazy rhetoric designed to appeal to certain people's greed and insecurity. They just have chosen different people to court.
I have voted Republican and Democratic in local and national elections depending on which candidate and which issue I felt was better. I HATE this idea that you are "with us or against us." It ruins all sensible progress in politics.
Re:USA! USA! USA! (Score:5, Informative)
Just remember, the USA is better at everything. Why? Because!
The technical term for this idea is American Exceptionalism [wikipedia.org].
"American exceptionalism (def. "exceptionalism") refers to the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among developed nations[1] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins. The roots of the term are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville,[2] who claimed that the then-50-year-old United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy.[citation needed] The term itself did not emerge until after World War II[3] when it was embraced by neoconservative[4] pundits in what was described in the International Herald Tribune as "an ugly twist of late".[5] More recently, President Barack Obama noted that "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."[6] He also said that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."[7] Research shows that "there is some indication for American exceptionalism among the [U.S.] public, but very little evidence of unilateral attitudes".[2]
The theory of American exceptionalism has a number of opponents, especially from the Left.[8][9] The U.S. Democratic Party in particular is said to be "fundamentally opposed to" American exceptionalism.[10] They argue that the belief is "self-serving and jingoistic" (see slavery and civil rights issues, Western betrayal, and the failure to aid Jews fleeing the Nazis),[1] that it is based on a myth,[11] and that "[t]here is a growing refusal to accept" the idea of exceptionalism both nationally and internationally.[12] "
what? (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation needed]
The "US health system" has a stated aim? I thought the aim was to maximize the profits of the insurance companies, which we know can only be done by denying health care to those at greater risk. Where, exactly, is this stated?
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
You Bet It's Peaked (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait until government Death Panels start pulling the plug on Grandmas!
Re:You Bet It's Peaked (Score:5, Informative)
I'll get a "woosh" for this, but you might want to read this AP article [google.com]. Or not, if you're a Rushie.
Re:This isn't the NHS; Public vs Private Accountab (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? Otherwise why have it?
Because a whole lot of working class people DON'T have it.
Next, it will have to cheaper than private insurance. The whole point is universal coverage. That means the poor should be able to afford it as well.
The current system gives no health care to the poor at all until it's too late. Then they're admitted to the emergency room, where thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on them despite the fact that they're past helping. The indigent actually have insurance; it's called "Medicaid". It's the upper lower class and the middle class who can't afford insurance and who can't get medical care until it's both too late and incredibly expensive.
I'd point to my late friend Linda [slashdot.org], but she's not a good example. She stayed away from the doctor out of fear; had she seen a doctor I don't know if she could have been saved ot not, but she would have suffered a lot less. But in her case it wasn't the system's fault.
I now know you can die of cowardace. But may who who could be saved and WOULD seek medical treatment can't. You're paying for this, as the hospital eats the cost of treatment for those without insurance as part of their operating expenses. You insurance company is paying for people who they're not insuring, and that cost is passed on to you in the form of your insurance premiums.
That's why the US dosn't have the highest life expectancy, and why it has the highest cost per capita. There is no more wasteful system on earth.
Well, tax the rich, of course
See above. You're already paying a tax, only the government doesn't collect it, your insurance company does.
So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost.
The insurance companies' costs go down, because they're no longer paying for patients who aren't insured.
It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern.
That also cuts costs -- the middleman is gone.
Oh, and it can make it's own rules because it has the backing of the United States Congress
The insurance companies make the rules now. Congress is accountable to YOU, the insurance companies are only accountable to their stockholders.
How long do you think it will take before every private health insurance company is out of business?
Not soon enough, in my opinion. They're nothing more than parasites.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business.
Nope, because most of its customers don't have a choice -- you're insured by whatever company your employer decides on.
I agree with the rest of your post.
CDC Data for Obesity (Score:4, Insightful)
When you look at the 20 year trend chart for obesity in the United States [cdc.gov], it's clear that there's going to be repercussions. It's appalling what has happened. The cost of obesity isn't going to manifest right away, but over the next two decades, it's going to hit the mortality rate hard. And to think that people fear disease but don't seem to be doing too much about preventable self-inflicted health problems.
Best health care system in the world! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe not. Maybe only 37th.
Seriously, the way the insurance companies are sabotaging health care reform what we need is what I call the nuclear health care reform option. Maybe something like along the line of if reform doesn't pass:
1) All members of congress that blocked it must pay for their own health insurance out of their own pockets. No more public health care for them like most of them currently have through their Congressional pay and benefits package..
2) No more bonuses or stock options for the top tiers of insurance company execs as long as they deny insurance to people. And cap their pay at 100K per year and force them to pay for their health benefits out their own pocket. No health benefits as part of their compensation. They have to purchase their own plans.
If they pull the trigger and kill reform, then we should pull the trigger on them. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The only health care program that really works is the single payer option.
Re:Best health care system in the world! (Score:4, Informative)
Works fine from where I'm sitting (UK). Always been able to access it, never had treatment refused. The same is true for everyone else in my family.
Re:Best health care system in the world! (Score:5, Insightful)
Works fine from where I'm sitting (UK). Always been able to access it, never had treatment refused. The same is true for everyone else in my family.
Funny. The BBC [bbc.co.uk] disagrees.
The NHS cannot, and never has been able to, offer every treatment to everyone who needs it.
The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK. But it is not a bottomless pit of funds and some treatments have to be restricted.
Raising taxes to pay for every possible need is politically unthinkable, as it would require a massive increase in income tax to raise enough revenue to make a significant difference to spending.
This means some treatments have to be restricted, or rationed.
Guess you have been lucky to not need any of the restricted or rationed treatments.
Re:Best health care system in the world! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, obviously. No system in the world can offer every possible treatment to anyone who might want it - to do so would take unlimited resources, which nobody has. And that includes the USA - it's just your insurance company that makes the choice (or if you're rich you can pay for yourself, but you can do that here too).
The major difference is that it's essentialy impossible for UK citizens to be uninsured - so no refusal of cover for "pre existing conditions", no trying to wriggle out of payment for treatment and no bankruptcy due to medical bills.
However, I think the most telling information about the NHS is that private insurance *is* available in the UK, but few people bother with it (under 10%, and mostly through employers).
Re:Best health care system in the world! (Score:4, Insightful)
since the Democrat party
Holy retard shibboleth Batman!
Shouldn't you be at a town hall meaning, screaming about birth certificates or something?
What a crock.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really easy to blame insurance companies, especially since the Democrat party has been on the propaganda trail blaming the insurance companies, but they've actually been quite acquiescent about the whole thing.
this is the image they have cultivated, but its a lie.
The truth is while the insurance companies themselves claimed they were for reform, they shadow-funded several groups which are out there right now undermining reform and propagating lies through TV spots and astroturfing.
Hint: those TV spots you see talking gloom and doom are NOT from the RNC, and certainly not the democrats. Theyre the health reform version of "hands off the internet", the notorious anti-neutrality astroturfing group.
I can tell you as a person who is "uninsurable at any price" because of crohns while 600 lb men get coverage for gastric bypasses that the insurance companies ARE to blame, they are responsible for every single massive lie being propagated today. It's vicious, ugly, and criminal what they're doing to make sure people like me, who are crippled by easily managed chronic conditions, remain bankrupt and suffering.
You may not like their solutions, but that's ok, we can come up with a solution. But believing that a single payer system will magically solve everything is just silly. Such a drastic overhaul of any system is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
yes, there are so many horrible problems that every other industrialized nation has one, and anyone in those nations suggesting getting rid of them is marginalized as a dingbat (if they say so from a political office, they don't have it in the next year).
Third World America (Score:4, Interesting)
Large portions of the low life expectancy part of America also take in close to 20% more federal funds than they put into the system. If you've ever stopped off at a gas station between New Orleans and Atlanta on I-10, you'd know how low the standard of living is there. We're talking large swaths of the states in that area with average incomes barely breaking the $20,000 mark. In defense of Texas, the portion they're talking about is between Beaumont and Texarkana, right on the border, bleeding into the Tyler/Longview area. Houston/Dallas/Austin have some of the highest standards of living (and lowest cost of living) in the country.
Re: Third World America (Score:5, Informative)
the portion they're talking about is between Beaumont and Texarkana, right on the border
Which makes me wonder if this was a study of US Citizens or merely US Residents?
It might be hard to eliminate the illegal population from those areas, without finishing the job that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stopped and annex all of Mexico.
Wrong border. Beaumont-Texarkana lies along the Texas-Louisiana border.
All of Texas has a high Hispanic population, but that area wouldn't be outstanding in that regard. Maybe even lower than most of the state. It's just a backwards "piney woods" region, sort of a cross between the Ozarks and the Bayou Country. Voodoo-practicin' hillbillies, or something.
Not to belittle the people who live there. (I can get away with hillbilly jokes as an in-group member.) It's just a very economically backward part of the state. Oddly, because Dallas banking and Houston oil lie just to the west of its two termini.
SOCIALISM! (Score:5, Insightful)
I Want My Country Back! Death Panels! Death Panels! Death Panels!
*ahem*
Sorry, I've been watching too much tv...
USA vs Europe (Score:5, Interesting)
For unadjusted life expectancy, the U.S. ranks #14 out of 16 countries, but for the adjusted standardized life expectancy, (adjusted for the effects of premature death resulting from non-health-related fatal injuries) the U.S. ranks #1.
Re:USA vs Europe (Score:5, Informative)
I am from Denmark, but married to a US citizen. We have a lot of opportunity to compare notes. While Danish doctors are often somewhat rude and will cheerfully refuse to give you a prescription for stuff you are sure you need, we would never see a case like my wife's uncle. He lost his leg because he didn't see a doctor about the pain, and his reason for not seeing the doctor was that he was worried the visit would not be covered by his insurance. When he finally went, it was too late, and they had to amputate. So it goes. Meanwhile, in Denmark the government is often imploring the citizens to see their doctor more often, to keep health costs down by spotting problems before they become expensive to treat.
Personally, I have received many, many treatments ranging from setting of broken limbs to specialist examinations for this and than, and every night I use a C-PAP machine, paid for and maintained by the socialized health system, but supplied by a private specialist. I can, in fact, choose any doctor I want as my GP, or just make an appointment or show up as a walk-in. The only practical limit is that in order to see a specialist, I need a referral from a GP. This has never been a problem for me.
Our system? Socialized with a private option, with an overflow to the private system if the public system is too tardy - again at no extra expense for the user. You can add a private insurance if you wish, and many people choose to do so for things such as dental, plastic surgery etc, but it's really not required to stay hale and taxable
Re:USA vs Europe (Score:5, Informative)
Here [blogspot.com] is a comparison of life expectancies between the US and Europe.
I guess it is based on bullshit data. For instance, Switzerland has a much higher life expentancy, see here [admin.ch]. 80 years for men, 84 for women.
adjusted for the effects of premature death resulting from non-health-related fatal injuries
Why this adjustment ? Oh, to make data fit to your conclusion ? You live in a violent country [washingtonpost.com], deal with it.
Re:USA vs Europe (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it is based on bullshit data. For instance, Switzerland has a much higher life expentancy, see here [admin.ch]. 80 years for men, 84 for women.
adjusted for the effects of premature death resulting from non-health-related fatal injuries
Why this adjustment ? Oh, to make data fit to your conclusion ? You live in a violent country [washingtonpost.com], deal with it.
Close - it is bullshit analysis. What they did was fit a curve to the OECD data set for injury and per capita income, then using the U.S. per capita income and the assumption that it is a normal OECD country they calculate its "adjusted" life expectancy. They are thus crediting the U.S. with both a typical OECD injury death rate and a typical OECD relationship for GDP to life expectancy, when in fact it is much lower.
Re:USA vs Europe (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently Switzerland, Norway, and Canada have a problem with violent resurrections. How else would eliminating the effects of violence from the picture decrease the mean lifespan?
Re:USA vs Europe (Lying With Statistics) (Score:5, Informative)
Do check out the blogspot post, but then check this out:
According to "OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2008", p. 137 (http://tinyurl.com/mt3g76):
"It has been claimed (Ohsfeld and Schneider, 2006) that adjusting for the higher death rate from accident or injury in the United States over 1980-99 than the OECD average would increase US life expectancy at birth from 18th of of 29 OECD countries to the highest. In fact, what the panel regression estimated by these authors shows is that predicted life expectancy at birth based on US GDP per capita and OECD average death rates from these causes is the highest in the OECD. The adjustment for the gap in injury death rates between the United States and OECD average alone only increases life expectancy at birth marginally, from 19th on average among 29 countries over 1980-99 to 17th. Hence, the high ranking of adjusted life expectancy mainly reflects high US GDP per capita, not the effects of unusually high death rates from accident and injury."
In other words, the figures in Table 1-5 are not U.S. life expectancies adjusted for fatal injuries, but rather a model that assumes that both the relationship of life expectancy to per capita GDP and injuries in the U.S. follow OECD trends.
That is - they are falsely giving the U.S. credit for having the same basic life expectancy as other other high GDP OECD countries, when in fact it is markedly lower.
Check it out for yourself, the Ohsfeld and Schneider report is at:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/9780844742403.pdf [aei.org]
See p. 20-21.
Uh, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
And nobody will EVER need more than 640K of RAM.
Forget the fact that things like the internet and the Human Genome project have lead to a flood of medical research, the likes of which we've never seen, that is bound to produce results.
Sorry, but that's about the most ridiculous statement Slashdot has posted today.
1st world "poverty" (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight- in the US, our lowest classes are so well fed, with so many calories, that they become overweight. Because they are poor, they can't afford to lose weight.
Astounding. In many other countries, the poor starve to death.
We're so rich that even the poorest of our poor is suffering from over-abundance.
Every American should take a trip to a real 3rd world country at lease once in their lifetime. It would solve a lot of the entitlement issues we have.
Not entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I learned about the US that is hard to grasp for someone from say Holland is that there are areas in the US where you just can't buy produce. No vegetables.
Sure, you can DRIVE to another area, but that costs money.
Now I can't say exactly how true this is, but the simple fact is that even in "poor" areas in holland you can easily WALK (in less then 5 minutes) to a supermarket. Often one of a regular big chain like the AH. Which carries in all its stores, fresh vegetables.
They are still relatively expensive however.
If you do the math, then cheap fast food (the cheapest no-brand frozen pizza's) can be a LOT cheaper then even buying healthy base products and making your own. Good luck making a meal for 99 euro cents (cost of a frozen pizza). That of course assumes that such fresh products are even available, which in america they apparently aren't always.
You do get fat from eating to much, but you also get fat from eating the wrong things. Eat only frozen meals and your waist line will expand.
What europeans forget is the sheer scale of america. Everything is really bigger over there and this includes the slums. What might a be a bad neighbourhood in holland, consisting of maybe a few streets, is an entire suburb housing the same number of people as major town in holland.
Amsterdam, the dutch capitol has 750.000 people and is surrounded by farm land. It would fit several times into a large american city. In fact, the entire country is less then a 1/3rd of the state of new york.
Being poor can make it very hard to eat right especially if you are in a poor area where there just ain't a market for expensive healthy food.
Compare the prices, cheapo no-brand coke vs apple juice (and I am not even talking about the stuff with no sugars or artificial flavors added).
Frozen poptarts vs fresh bread (and wonder bread does not count as bread, it is a building material).
Remember, it is not the expensive fast foods that make people fat (well they do) but the stuff we are talking about here is the no-brand really crappy cheapo kind that is decades away from cutting down on articficial flavors and saturated fats.
When I buy fries, mine are made from real potatoes, cut on the spot, properly fried in expensive fluid fat that is replaced often. When you do it on a budget, you have cheapo thin fries (more fat) that are fried in your own cooker with months old solid fat.
Poor people eat unhealthy because healthy food is really expensive. live on a budget for your whole life to find out.
Re:Not entirely (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe if someone does their shopping only at some corner convenience store instead of going a few extra miles to a real grocery store, but that's true of anywhere.
If you're poor enough that the difference between $1.50 Cambell's soup and $1 frozen pizza is critical, then you're not going to have the time or the $3 for bus fare to get to the real grocery store a few miles away. There really are areas where you can't easily get to a grocery store: they are called "food deserts" by those who work on issues surrounding food supplies in poor urban areas.
Re:Not entirely (Score:5, Informative)
All over the place, according to the USDA:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/ [usda.gov]
Re:1st world "poverty" (Score:4, Informative)
In industrialized countries, obesity is more a problem for the poor. Fatty, sugary (corn syrup!) foods are cheap. They contain lots of calories, but not much other nutrients. The healthy food (fresh veggies and fruits, full grain rice, bread and pasta, quality meat etc) is more expensive.
Re:1st world "poverty" (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight- in the US, our lowest classes are so well fed, with so many calories, that they become overweight.
I know! It's like people who somehow dehydrate on a boat, even though they're *surrounded by water*! Because, as we both know, just like food, it doesn't matter what's in it or where it came from, it's all equally good for you, right?
Always look at the bright side. (Score:4, Funny)
Rust belt and gutting of manufacturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Being poor is most likely to shorten your life expectancy and we have gutted most of the manufacturing in our rural communities. I suspect this has more to do with these areas life expectancy than government funding, education or anything else.
Partly health care, partly lifestyle (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a step back and ask if you believe that (a) Americans are genetically more likely to die young; (b) if America as a location is inherently more deadly from pesticides or something. Neither one flies for me.
You are left with only the two variables I can think of. Health care and lifestyle. Where "lifestyle" includes everything from "your personal diet and exercise" to "national norms in diet and exercise", to "crime" Japanese just eat less fatty foods; Europeans walk more. MOST nations have less bullet-related deaths.
A conservative of my acquaintance tried to pass it all of as the latter. I believe his harsh words were "subtract the crack babies and they're the same as Canada".
So I did some research which I alas can't cite, but it took me about 30 minutes with Google, so I'll leave it as an exercise. Limited to over-65 white males with kidney disease, Canada STILL had better survival rates. 65+ females with heart disease? Canada in the lead, by statistically significant amounts. I remember it running like that across a whole matrix of hospital-admissions reasons. Liver, digestive tract, neurological...pick your organ, it's better to get sick in Canada. The stats even apply (with much less force to be sure) for the American insured, probably because American "insurance" has a way of disappearing on you when most needed.
So, sorry conservatives, health care explains a lot. (Canada, sorry to admit, has ALL your obesity problems, and then some in a few provinces.)
Not to forget the early-deaths, but not all of those are bullet-related. A factoid from the current debate includes this one: children born into uninsured households have a 50% higher chance of dying before the age of 1. It doesn't take a lot of baby deaths to really haul down an average.
So, in summary: American lifestyles could improve. So could American health care. Blame both.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not really much wrong with your analysis, but you should be aware that it is not just people who think differently to you who are arguing from a political perspective. The real question (and it is a question that I can't answer satisfactorily to myself) is what happens to the children of these "nitwits"? The fact is that if a kid is brought up in a household where the adults are not able to look after themselves properly, are the kids more likely to grow up like the adults in their lives? That's the difficulty; you and I and lots of other people are brought up right, we get education as to what is healthy and what is not. But these kids (ie the children of the nitwits) don't get that opportunity. We can dismiss the parents for being nitwits (but remember they may also have been brought up in an unhealthy household) but can we so easily dismiss the children? I grew up in an old-fashioned liberal family. As I have grown older, my views have shifted and I take a slightly more conservative stance. But I cannot (and I hope I never will) dismiss the children of inadequate parents. Doing that is a step too far, in my opinion.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the system in America is that it is designed to kick people when they are already down and then hold them there. People of all races and upbringings make mistakes. The American system is much more unforgiving to those who get caught making mistakes.
This [insidehighered.com], for example, and ridiculous bank overdraft fee policies among others.
-- Ethanol-fueled
References please (speaking from England) (Score:4, Interesting)
"My understanding is that in England, most of the time if you are born in the "working class", your children will die as part of the "working class". If you look at U.S. statistics, you discover that most of the people in the bottom quarter of wealth in the population ten years ago, aren't in the bottom quarter today."
Might be true, might be false, I don't know. But I'd like to hear your references. Also - you should match like with like. You suggest people in England born poor die poor, but people in USA (of undeclared age, you're not suggesting new born) ten years later are more wealthy. This is not matching like with like. Give me equivalent statistics for both places and I'd be interested to hear more. You might expect somebody aged 20 to move up the wealth scale in both countries by the time they reach the age of 30. It's a different argument to suggest that somebody born into a socio-economic group in England is more likely to die in that group than in the USA.
Interested to read your arguments once referenced though, they are certainly an interesting theories.
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Insightful)
The English class system is extremely complex, but it's largely a question of attitudes (and to a lesser extent tastes) rather than money.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Informative)
Your understanding is wrong. The US has less economic mobility than most developed nations.
Read this [americanprogress.org] for more.
Oddly enough, generous funding for higher education and universal health care are two of the reasons for higher economic mobility elsewhere. At the time of the report, you were techinically right - the UK was about as bad as the US (and both lagged behind other European societies). Since then, the US has actually fallen even lower in mobility.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
So when do we start rounding up the children of disadvantage parents and where will we put them so they can be raised to your high standards? Or do we rewrite the rules of the world to make sure those children are taken care of to your high caliber of lifestyle? What incentive do their parents have to give a damn if their kids will be cared for no matter what way they are raised? What incentives are given to parents who control their reproductive urges, but would normally be able to care for those children?
Have you ever seen Idiocracy?
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
From my perspective, both republicans and democrats have a good side: the republicans want to empower the individual citizen and free him from the limitations of government, and the democrats want to help the poor and downtrodden. These are both noble goals.
But somehow in practice, these both seem to be forgotten. And it's the American public that gets hurt, by both sides.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it a bit cynical?
None of the plans the Dems are proposing have the gov't take over the health care. The most they're proposing is a public option. The main objection is that it's a trojan horse -- the gov't will run health care and this is the first step. However, that would be another bill, that people can vote against if they'd like.
I used to be a little conservative, but in my view, the Republicans aren't anymore. They stand for big government (so long as it's used for spying and pork barrel military projects) and restricting freedom (USA PATRIOT Act). And while the Dems went along for the ride, they've not gotten out of the car.
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's kind of funny the way conservatives maintain that the public option will be so crappy it's worse than nothing AND it will destroy the market for private insurance AT THE SAME TIME!
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Informative)
What the fuck, even in the United Kingdom with the NHS for over 60 years now, there is a thriving private insurance industry, with private hospitals. Some employers even over private health insurance, and some people take it out privately.
This is clearly uninformed nonsense, along the lines of claiming that Stephen Hawkings would be dead under the NHS, when he is in fact British and gets excellent treatment without which he would be dead under the NHS.
The thing is that life expectancy is closely tied to your socioeconomic group. The top group in the USA has worse life expectancy and health outcomes than the lowest group in the UK, despite expenditure on health care in the USA being twice the percentage of GDP that it is in the UK.
I don't for one minute claim our health care system is perfect, but it is *FAR* less broken than the one in the USA.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Slashkos (Score:5, Funny)
The combined experience of the Nordic countries for half a century now should stand as proof that, even if everything in life is provided for you, the vast, vast majority of people still go out and work for a living.
See, Socialism warps your mind. Can't even count on them to be decently lazy when the situation calls for it!
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Insightful)
1. After cutting the upper-class taxes there was a recession. Regan did it in the 80s and Bush did it in the last decade. Each time the economy stagnated. Progressive policies are very good for the economy as Poor people spend money. That money revs up the economy and keeps it going. People saving money or investing money does not actually rev the economy in the same way but they get all the benefits (see link on growth of economy later in this post)
2. I agree that there is some problem in American school systems. But most of the problem is that American culture of apathy and short attention spans. Kids don't have the attention span to finis...
3. You talk abut how socialism is such a weak systems but Russia had essentially 3rd world infrastructure and yet was a superpower on par with the US for most of our lifes. I don't think we could have done the same given the same infrastructure as them with government that we have. Also most of Europe does quite well with higher standards of living. Also I grew up on welfare. None of my family is on welfare anymore but it was a critical service when dad walked off and refused to pay child support. Since my family has worked directly with the poor (Health services and counseling) I think I have a better idea of who receives welfare than you do. It is often those with medical problems, mental problems, or even drug problems. Drug problems you say? Well let them rot! Well that is the problem. You have a drug conviction and suddenly you can't get many jobs, or and you can't get funding for college. How and the hell do you handle these people? You either put them on welfare or you throw them in jail which is still state funded living. But yay you are still hard on crime and the war on drugs goes on! Rah rah!
But what really incensed me with your post was your assertion that people have an easier time getting ahead in America. BZZZT! Nice try the US is harder to advance out of poverty and it is getting harder all the time. For all our vaunted freedom you can move around in the middle class, but if you want to be an executive you really NEED be in the right class or society to get your funding or to land that job due to your uncle's connection. There are some people who manage to found a company and build it to that level, but what are we talking about one in ten million? I get better odds at the lottery.... Every company founder I personally have known has gotten kicked out when the company stabilized and an interm CEO (who gets along with the VC and board) has been appointed to manage the continued growth of the company. I have yet to personally meet someone who actually manages to fight off the wolves and make it past upper middle class. But hey, they exist, I mean we see them on TV.
And before you rip on my liberal ideal with no real world backing let me drop some links. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html [nytimes.com] I see those darn Scandinavian countries are more upward mobile despite their socialist trends and higher standard of living! Yes click around on that link and you will see the US is actually HARDER to climb out of poverty. But don't worry your capitalistic master are having a great time jerking your leash. You know that when the economy is growing rapidly the middle class still shows no upward mobility? http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html [americanprogress.org] but I guess the upper class sees great returns on their investments.
Basically the American dream is a great PR piece to help insure there is cheap labor to fill factories. But Rah Rah for Capitalism. The idea that giving the money to private companies is also fallacious they tend to be very good at maximizing profit. (FOR
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Interesting)
Another common criticism is that the US has high infant mortality rates. This is likely because of premature babies, which aren't always counted in infant mortality rates in other countries. If you are planning on having a baby prematurely, the US is a good place to do it (but please don't plan on that).
There are a lot of problems with the US health care system, for example, it is hard to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, the cost of malpractice lawsuits (and other things) drives up costs, not everybody has insurance (although we end up paying for them anyway when they go to the emergency room: no one can be turned away without treatment, which is good), but shouldn't we try to solve the real problems that are in the system, instead of trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch? There are relatively simple solutions to all these problems, and as any programmer knows, drastically changing the structure of your program is only going to introduce more problems.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Funny)
Obesity causes more health problems, and as a result more spending. But of course, Moore wouldn't say that, because now instead of blaming the big, bad corporations and government, he would be asking his viewers to take some personal responsibility (which seems to be a progressive idea).
Maybe he didn't say that simply because he is, well, fat.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great, if you're positioned to receive that best care or you subscribe to the lotto mentality that so many Americans do. Otherwise, it's beside the fucking point. Why should most people give a shit if a country has the best stuff, if they have no realistic chance of ever getting to use it?
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Interesting)
And the relevance of that is? The most amazing care in the world is of no consequence if you can't afford it. I can't see how a system optimized for the super-rich can be considered the best for a society as a whole. A better measure would be where someone on an average income would be best served, or someone with no income.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Interesting)
But every shill is an idiot, so the "but I repeat myself" follows. I was paraphrasing the famous American humourist, Mark Twain, who once said, "Are you a member of Congress? Are you an idiot? But I repeat myself..."
The best comparator for the US with regard to life expectancy is Canada, because while we have many similarities, we (Canadians) live several years longer than you (Americans.)
The two biggest differences between the countries are that our income distribution is significantly flatter than yours, and our health care system is universal and paid for via taxation (there is a nominal fee structure in some provinces, but it is equivalent to taxation.)
There are other differences: we have greater ethnic diversity than you--our Native American population alone is 4%. One in three Canadians is an immigrant. We have to deal with two official languages as well as a number of important minority languages: Hindi on the West Coast, Cree on the prairies, etc. We have a much more thinly spread population, so delivery of care and having enough people in one place to pay for big-ticket items is quite a bit harder for us than for you, with your larger, richer, denser population.
Those things are going to make it harder to deliver quality health care to Canadians, making our much longer lifespans quite remarkable. We also have a relatively large fraction of our male population working in mining, fishing, logging and farming, all of which kill people at much higher rates than other occupations (which is why they are done by men, because men dying has always been ok in all societies everywhere.)
How much of our longer lifespan is due to our flatter income distribution and how much is due to universal health care is not clear, but I think between them those are the major factors. Our flatter income distribution is achieved through more strongly progressive taxation at the top, and more robust income support at the bottom, which gives people at the bottom more latitude to make mistakes and learn from them productively, and gives people at the top less incentive to climb to the top by stepping on the faces of the oppressed masses.
Canadian society is also more democratic than American, with much hand-wringing over a recent federal election turnout that wasn't quite as low as the highest American turnouts in the past thirty years.
We are also politically and economically much more free than Americans, with far less implicit and explicit coercion regarding diversity of political opinions--as witnessed by our healthy minority and regional parties.
As a sometime small business-person who has friends doing similar work in the States I can say first hand that the burden of regulation/paperwork/bullshit on me is much smaller than in the US. You can incorporate here federally over the Web for $220 and the federal/provincial joint agreement in my province automatically handles provincial incorporation as well.
So those are some of the factors that MIGHT influence the difference, but you'd have to actually look in detail at the data and see:
a) who is dying
b) what are they dying from
to get a better sense of the actual causes. It's known as empiricism, and I highly recommend it.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
And one of those stupid things, apparently, is to be too poor for health insurance. [familiesusa.org].
And yes, at one point long ago, back probably before you were born, the United States used to pride itself on being the longest average lifespan in the world.
Finally, not everybody has the chance to "get an education" that you did. Not everybody was taught how to make "good lifestyle decisions". And even if they were- Americans over the past 40 years have been basically thrown out with the trash, including nerds.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
And one of those stupid things, apparently, is to be too poor for health insurance.... Finally, not everybody has the chance to "get an education" that you did. Not everybody was taught how to make "good lifestyle decisions".
Um, yes, he explicitly said he thinks poor people are only poor because they're stupid. Being too poor and ergo stupid to have health insurance is just a natural and just consequence. You think pointing out that not everyone was as lucky and privileged as he is going to sway his opinion, as if he didn't realize when he made that statement? No, he clearly thinks that if he hadn't had any advantage and started in the same situation as any poor person, he'd end up in the same place he is today because his natural awesomeness would just shine through. That lazy or dumb poor people exist is all the proof he needs, while the existence of lazy, dumb, but amazingly arrogant rich people isn't proof of anything at all.
drudge-dot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh stop already with the politics
Yeah, you'll show em when you get political on the matter!
"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner." Not that there aren't stupid people everywhere, but in America we still have the right to be wrong to a much greater extent than the nanny states in Europe.
So then are you saying that anyone who makes less money than you is inherently stupid in comparison to you?
Enough with this continual blather about the 'disadvantaged/poor/etc.' if you nitwits aren't going to deal with the actual problem.
Then kindly enlighten us 'nitwits', if you could.
To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money.
Really? I don't know where you live, but I haven't heard of many people who are born into families with money and then end up broke.
They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money.
Which is ignoring the fact that some good decisions require money...
Things like failure to get an education
That is an excellent example of one. If you are in a poor family, you might not even have access to enough credit for student loans.
Though even more so, if we want to talk about health care (which most reasonable people would agree has at least some correlation to life expectancy), we should note the relationship between health care and education:
If you want a higher education:
Hence many people of lower income status are stuck in failure spirals. While providing them with health care may not be enough to get them out, it should at least be able to help some people, both from that classification and others.
Normally I wouldn't flame so hard but this entire article so reeks of slashkos politics I just couldn't hold back. Enough with the thinly disguised political stories outside the politics topic. Raise your hand if you actually think this was 'news for nerds' and not the DNC talking points being put into action.
Were you not reading yesterday when a conservative opinion got made the slashdot front page [slashdot.org] and lead to a conservative orgy in the discussion?
But don't worry, there may be some conservatives running around with left-over mod points who will mod your post up to +5 just as they did with several from other conservative authors yesterday.
I thought that was what the current argument was about, whether we were going to HAVE a single "US health system" or not
Perhaps you haven't been reading the news? Congress gave up on single payer health care at least a full month ago. It won't happen in this congressional session, period. Really the discussion now is just on how much the democrats will fold on any sort of change whatsoever; will they fold like a nice origami piece (perhaps a swan or a dove would be nice), or completely down like a lawn chair (to be stuffed away for the indefinite future in someone's garage)?
Slashrush (Score:5, Insightful)
To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money. They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money.
Yes, like choosing parents who are alcoholics and drug addicts. Like choosing to be brought up in homes where there are no books. Like choosing to be brought up by people with no connections to wealth. Like choosing to live in the ghetto with horrible teachers imprisoned in decaying schools with no school supplies.
YOU, sir, are the problem. YOU, sir, are the reason these folks are "Stupid" (your word).
become a single parent
Or are brought up by one, or worse, in a foster home.
waste money on substance abuse
Or are brought up by meth addicts and crackheads. There but for the grace of God goes YOU, and you should thank whatever deity you do or don't believe in that you weren't brought up under these circimstances. If you had been, you would now be as dirt poor as they, and you'd likely be smoking crack instead of getting drunk on fine wine and your own ignorant vanity.
Re:Slashrush - PS (Score:4, Insightful)
PS - as few people who are born into poverty become rich as those born into wealth become poor. Like the Blood Sweat And Tears song says, "those that got shall get, those that not shall lose." There are a few, like my late uncle, who are born into near poverty and became rich, and hard work played a big part of his success, but luck played an even bigger part. Had he not been born with excellent eye-hand coordination and creativity (it runs in the family, and that's pure luck) and met his one legged business partner in the hospital (also pure luck), he would likely NOT have become rich making better artificial limbs than were available at the time. He would have been middle class, like my parents.
And had he been born in a slum he would be poor.
Your ignorance is appalling.
Re:Slashrush (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, he was just about as low as you can go on the totem pole in America.
40 years later, he died, living in a house he had built and paid for, on 40 acres of land overlooking a river. He had married and had a daughter (my mom). He left a small, but not unsubstantial amount of money behind.
My parents were lower-middle-class, but my dad managed to start his own tool and die business, (he was also the son of pennyless immigrants who came from Germany in 1919) and lived a comfortable, if not extravagant lifestyle.
I was able to go to college, working to pay for most of it, and get a degree in Computer Science, my brother has a degree in Chemistry and Math. We have both made good livings, and live on the high-end of middle class, bordering on upper class.
My parents weren't given anything. They didn't grow up in a mansion. Their parents literally had *NOTHING* on coming to America. Nothing was given to them either. They lived through the Great Depression and World War II. About the only break my parents ever had was that my dad *wasn't* drafted to go to Vietnam.
I've been saving money, I've bought used cars, I've paid off bills, and by the time I retire, I'll have enough money socked away that, were I to choose to do it, I could reasonably provide for my children for the rest of their lives.
I did all of that *WITHOUT THE CHARITY OF OTHERS*. All I had to do was make good choices and work at what was important. No, my parents weren't drug addicts (surprising, being teens in the 60's), but they worked their way up from nothing. No one gave them a house or car or college education. They worked for everything they got. It takes one good decision to break the cycle, but you would rather claim that no one can make that decision, and that the "privileged few" are somehow so enlightened and empowered that they should make decisions for the poor. But you ignore the consequences.
Had my grandfather come to the United States and been told, "Nope, you can't work your way up on your own. Here's your free money, and free house, and free education from your government because you can't do it yourself," do you think he would have ever become more than a mooch off of society?
Although, given his personality, he would probably have spit in the face of someone who tried to do that. And that's the point. If you have a government who can come into a home and tear up a family for a "good" reason, then they can do it for a "bad" reason too. If they can give you health care, then they can take it away from you too. And government builds *nothing* - they produce no products - they only take from the people. Every penny spent by the government was first earned by someone else's work, and then stolen at gun point (because only a government can steal money out of your wallet and then throw *YOU* in jail if you resist) from the person who earned it.
That grandfather knew exactly what a government that hands out health care and registered guns "to cut crime" and who complained about people "earning too much money" was like, because he came from Germany in 1938. His family would lose everything the next year when all their money and land was seized because they were "too rich" and the money and resources were needed by the Third Reich. That's what a government that can give you anything can do -- they can take *everything* away from you.
I donate more money to charities each year than Obama and Al Gore put together (according to their released tax returns -- though, admittedly, that's not hard) because I know "there but for the grace of God go I," but I do it *voluntarily*. The same way you should if you feel pity for those people.
Re:Slashrush (Score:5, Insightful)
I did all of that *WITHOUT THE CHARITY OF OTHERS*. All I had to do was make good choices and work at what was important.
What do you consider charity? Roads, sewer, power, education, fire and police protection, the security of an army?
For every person you show that has pulled themselves up by their bootstraps by making all the right decision, I can show you a person that also made all the right decisions and still got cancer or got plowed into by a drunk driver... and that's it. One unfortunate incident and your life changes dramatically for the worse.
I won't deny your hard work in getting to your position now - in fact, I congratulate you for it. But get off your high horse and admit that your success is likely equal parts hard work and luck with a little state-sponsored encouragement thrown in.
Re:Slashrush (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically you're saying that a monthly rent of an apartment back then was equivalent to 32 hours of lowest-paid work? Assuming, of course, that your grandfather ate rats in his ghetto-style apartment. Getting a job with no education (you didn't forgot that, did you ?) and unable to speak more than a few words is a nice bonus too.
Try to make up your mind.
They were given a job on ridiculously low qualifications. They were also given almost-free housing.
No, it takes a good opportunity to break the cycle. Such as, for example, your grandfather landing a job.
I agree that people shouldn't make decisions for the poor, but providing opportunities - such as free college education - is a good idea.
Perhaps. But unfortunately experience shows that if the poor are left to the nonexistent mercy of voluntary charity, the end result is them dying in the streets. This, then, gives me a choice: either I turn on you with a gun and demand that you pay for social security - along with me, of course - or I watch them die. Most people apparently prefer the former choice, and vote politicians who then do the forcible wealth distribution on their behalf.
No, people like you are. You tell the story of your grandfather making it - mostly by luck, it seems - and think that this means that anyone can if they just try hard enough. It's a stupid fantasy, and sadly common with libertarian crowd.
Well, not being able to get a job with no education like your grandfather did most likely has something to do with it. Oh, sorry: one man made it 72 years ago, so obviously they just aren't trying hard enough.
Which is a pretty good argument for having said government change said system, actually.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
I would fully reply to your trolling but I just don't have the energy to do it right now.
Life expectancy and infant mortality are used quite often to compare the relative health of different countries. I will quote from the article.
You are bitching that this post is right from the Democratic party talking points. I would ask you, how is it that we pay more for health care "per capita" (that means per person, since you trolls often fail to understand things) yet have a lower life expectancy that fucking CUBA?
It seems to me that when your health care system is that inefficient, the common sense thing to do is fix it. Yet the idea to try and fix an obviously broken health care system is denounced as DNC talking points.
There are poor and disadvantaged in every country, and people in every country in the world make bad decisions, like substance abuse or an XBOX?!? (I didn't know the XBOX played a major role in our health care woes, but whatever.)
The point is that every country has its disadvantaged, yet America's disadvantaged are further disadvantaged by bad health care. And everyone in America pays higher prices per person for health care. Even those perfect people like you who don't make bad decisions.
This IS news for nerds, and it is a valid science article about health. It is a serious problem, and trolling it won't make your Republican talking points any more true.
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Insightful)
You seriously want things here to be like Cuba? You can't actually be that stupid, can you?
No, he doesn't and that was precisely his point. If somewhere as shitty as Cuba has a higher life expectancy then those in your own country then there is something majorly wrong going on.
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a sociology course. The single greatest statistical correlation with how much a person will earn, is how much their parents earned.
Let me put it in a more clear way... the people in the bronze age were at a reasonable similar biological state to what we are now. Enough to consider them well within the same species.
Yet, we have tons of advantages that they didn't have. Why? Because we were biologically superior? Because we work harder for it? Wow, no. It's because we're standing on the shoulders of giants.
The same works on the small scale. Children stand on the shoulders of their parents, and if their parents aren't giants, then the children won't be giants.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
Got it.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone in government could come up with a good mechanism to sort out the truly disadvantaged folks from the idiots who make dumbass decisions then i could get behind such a plan to pay for the people who are disadvantaged.
I've got this little theory that when my state decided to stop paying for good mental health institutions to lock up the mentally ill, the number of idiots who make dumbass decisions exploded.
Might I make a suggestion that somebody with "a problem with the area between the ears" is just as disabled as the guy missing an arm or a leg- and needs to be treated as such?
Funny thing is, if we did that- if we treated mental problems as vigorously as we treat physical problems- the number of single parents and idiots going home to drink and play XBox all night would probably go down drastically.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
When did they classify stupidity as an actual mental condition needing treatment?
When they mandated compulsory education?
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaning, there are fewer grocers or supermarkets, and those stores that do exist stock more highly processed and unhealthy foods. Kinda tough to follow food guidelines when you can't even buy the elements of a healthy diet.
You know, I've been to some nice fancy grocers that specialize in all organic foods and such, and I've also been to a lot of run down supermarkets in bad neighborhoods. While the ratio of healthy to unhealthy food is certainly different in each case, I've NEVER seen a since store that didn't have healthy items. Pretty much everywhere has a produce section. Pretty much everywhere sells oatmeal, or cereal (health stuff like bran flakes - not Golden Crisps or the other mostly sugar cereals). Everywhere sells bread and cold cut meat.
Don't get me wrong I know it's harder to buy stuff like fresh fish or other seafood from a crappy rundown store, but again, that's market forces, and it's not the ONLY option if you're looking to eat healthier.
I actually grew up in one of those southern areas of the country, and it's quite obvious why it's having an effect. We deep fry everything down here. Most families are now deep frying their Thanksgiving turkey for heavens sake. When I grew up my grandmother fixed fried bread, and "butts meat" (which is more or less salted and fried fat). Despite my protestations, even when cooking a vegetable such as cabbage, or potatoes, or the like, my parents would throw a ham-hock or a slab of bacon or something in the pot with them. To them you simply COULDN'T cook vegetables without throwing fatty meat in the pot with them. Salt? Don't get me started. They eat salt on EVERYTHING, and not in small quantities. A small side salad will get a teaspoon or two of salt added. All fruit (when they eat fruit) had salt sprinkled on it before eating it. I've even got a few family members that will pour salt into a BEER before drinking it.
Result: I've had 2 uncles who had heart attacks in their 30's. On my mom's side neither grandparent lived past 55. My dad and every one of his 4 brothers has high blood pressure, and 2 have diabetes. It's not because there weren't healthy options in the stores, it's because they refuse(d) to buy and eat them.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything is more expensive in the ghetto because of crime rates, causing higher prices, local shortages, more dispair, fewer options, which feeds more crime, and so on. It's a self-sustaining cycle, heading downwards.
Back in The Day (mid-80's), I did some retail work for an East Coast chain. One store I worked at was out in Deepest Darkest Suburbia. Zero problems there except for the occaisional kid trying to shoplift a 6 pack of beer. The clerks could interact with the customers easily. The other was at the edge of the ghetto in the nearest metro area which had been in serious decline for ages ('Rust Belt'). There, the clerks lived in a cash cage with 3 inch lucite armoring, and made change through a sliding drawer. Where the suburban store haddn't seen a robbery in 10 years at that point, the metro store had the reputation of getting a robbery attempt at least once a month.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
prevention Re:Slashkos (Score:4, Interesting)
If people took care of their body then they wouldn't need to see the doctor's all the damn time.
Actually, there has been quite a bit of talk about prevention programs, things like physical education in school, and other inexpensive options to try to get people to take better care of themselves.
The problem is, that there is no good way to correlate it to money saved. If we spent X number of dollars on getting people to get off the couch and walking, it would be nearly impossible to say that it saved Y dollars on long-term health care (regardless of whether you choose a Y less than, greater than, or equal to X). And with all the calamity over the cost of the health care reform that hasn't yet passed either house, it is hard to sell prevention right now.
Re:Slashkos (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada and the United States share a common culture, same foods, etc, but the murder rate in the US is 3x what it is in Canada (4.2 instead of 1.4). If you remove US homicides committed by guns, the murder rate is the same. This is quite ironic, given that Canada has more firearms per capita then the US - Canada just does a better job of gun control.
As for the lack of health care in the US, the US has more people who have no coverage than the entire population of Canada. People without health care will die of untreated chronic conditions, as well as treatable acute conditions that are not tended to in time.
Canada -- Life Expectancy: 78 years (men), 83 years (women) (UN) - average is 80.4 years.
Also, the US infant mortality rate sucks [phac-aspc.gc.ca] 7.8 per thousand as opposed to 5.6 in Canada - almost 40% higher.
Yes, we need to get people to take responsibility for themselves. Allow doctors to refuse repeated treatment to smokers who don't quit, Ditto for alcoholics and crackheads and people who thing that "all you can eat" is a order from god, not a suggestion. Give custody to the other parent when one continues to smoke, binge drink, do crack, and/or over-stuff their pie-holes.
Make them "pay at the pump" with additional sin taxes on sweetened soft drinks, junk food, booze and simply ban the all-you-can-eat buffets outright.
Make it as socially unacceptable to be fat as it is to smoke - people get fat one bite at a time, and want to lose it without the hard work that going on a diet calls for. A waist is a terrible thing to mind, but so is seeing a couple of 400 pounders of blubber at the next table in a restaurant. Cows eat more gracefully - and they take more time to chew.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The key is to extend the amount of work you can squeeze out of a person before they finally keel over.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Since we are 30th in life expectancy we have a LOT of room for improvement. My best friend Jim Dawson died in 1992 two weeks short of his 40th birthday. If he would have had health insurance, he'd be alive today, bringing up our life expectancy even (a very tiny bit) more. Multiply him by all the other people who have died from treatable diseases who had no health care, and it would go up a LOT. Both my parents are past today's life expectancy.
Note that the places where expectancy is low in the US is where there's the least chance of those poor folks having insurance? How is it a suprise that without health care you don't live as long?
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't JUST a health care availability issue. In the US, it is largely a cultural thing too, IMHO. According to the article, it notes it is lower in the southern US. I live in New Orleans, and I can attest to how it is different down here. Food, drink and fun are such an integral part of life down here. We like our food fried, butter is your friend, etc. And down in the south, drinking is much more a part of life. I never saw people get so hot under the collar when you mentioned you got a little bombed the other night and had to be careful driving home....until I started talking to people from up north. Down here, not as much a stigma.
Heck, we still have drive through daiquiri shops down here, and bars give you a 'to go' cup to take your drink with you when you leave.
We still smoke a lot too in the south...especially in NOLA.
But, back to the food. Southern food is really good. Many of us down here "live to eat" rather than "eat to live". Obesity is huge down here. I've been changing my life around, cutting back on booze, and trying to eat better and exercise regularly, and it is still hard. You know they old saying "never trust a skinny chef"? Well, damned near everyone down here I know is at the least a great home chef...we love to cook and eat. Families still get together over food quite a bit down here...nothing like a big crawfish boil to get a group of friends to hang out, be good company and have some drinks.
Sure, we do have a large number of poor in the area...but, medicaid covers most of the truly poor, poor, poor people. The people in the projects are covered...I've seen that in practice.
And also, especially in this area...(from here to Houston really IMHO), it is known as Cancer Alley [wikipedia.org] . I know the wiki says it is anecdotal, but, I've seen studies and reports on the news from the past telling that it is prevelant down here due to the large number of oil/chemical processing down here. We also are exposed to everything in the MS river, that comes from the rest of the country.
But you know...I've come to the conclusion, that there is Quality of life, vs Quantity of life. You have to strike a balance. I'd hate to life a boring, bland life that was long, than one that was a bit shorter but full of adventure, food, fun and friends. So far...I've been blessed with the latter.
I personally love living in the south, and especially New Orleans. The people are so much nicer, and you still see people being polite to each other. Quality of life vs Quantity of life.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
We like our food fried, butter is your friend, etc
That's my grandmother to a T. She grew up in a rural area where food was cooked in lard, bacon eggs and toast for breakfast, plenty of pork, butter, etc.
Her doctor told her she had high cholesterol and she had to get the cholesterol down or she'd die. The doctor died instead. So she got a new doctor, who told her the same thing. He died, too.
Five doctors later, she finally died - at age 99 when she fell in the nursing home and broke her hip.
But you know...I've come to the conclusion, that there is Quality of life, vs Quantity of life.
Grandma outlived my Grandpa, who died as a result of an industrial accident, then a second husband, who died of cancer (also work related, he was a non-smoker). She outlived three of her four sons, all of her brothers, sisters, and friends. When she was 95 she told me "I don't know why people want to live to be a hundred. It ain't no fun bein' old!"
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Funny)
Haruumpph! Only if Obama's death panels didn't decide to euthanise him first!!
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Informative)
Depends on your income. If you make enough to disqualify you for the free stuff, that doesn't mean you automatically make enough to afford health insurance on your own. Rule of thumb is, if you make minimum wage, you can't get the freebies. And I'd love to see somebody pay 2200/yr for the cheapest medical insurance advertised on tv when they make about 16.5K before taxes.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:5, Informative)
"And I'd love to see somebody pay 2200/yr for the cheapest medical insurance advertised on tv when they make about 16.5K before taxes."
Also, if you're in the situation the OP's friend was in you couldn't get health insurance for 10x that much money. American health insurance companies can refuse, outright, to cover you if you have a pre-existing condition. So, someone making minimum wage, and having a hard time even putting food on the table, has to choose between paying that $2200/yr in the off chance they develop a serious illness later in life, or they can go without it and be unable to receive adequate medical care should they end up getting seriously ill.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's what insurance is.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:5, Informative)
Change insurer for non-medical reasons (premium, employer change, so on)? Welcome to waitlist hell, and scrutinization for pre-existing conditions, even though the populace's preponderance for a given condition didn't change as a result of your enrollment.
It's a bastardized, one sided situation, and where health insurance is your ONLY realistic option, because collusion and collaboration between insurance providers has ensured that most healthcare rates are jacked up way out of the realm of ordinary affordability, it's very delineating, you either have, or you have not.
Pop Quiz: Do you really think your overnight stay in emergency had an actual cost of $12,000? Do you wonder why the same chiro treatment costs $50 without insurance, but they bill the insurance provider $165 for it? Do you think that the insurance carrier is covering that $115 out of the grace of their heart, or because they employ such amazingly stellar investment gurus that they can do so on the return from the dividend from your premiums?
Where's that bridge and that "for sale" sign?
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Informative)
Do you wonder why the same chiro treatment costs $50 without insurance, but they bill the insurance provider $165 for it?
I can't speak for everyone, but I know why we bill that way: because the insurance companies will pay a set percentage of the "reasonable and customary" charge for each procedure performed. If that currently happens to be 30%, then a $50 procedure gets billed at $165 so that it actually gets reimbursed at $50. If notice comes down that the new rate is 25%, then expect that to go to $200 overnight. There's also the need to periodically raise rates above the reasonable and customer charge to pull the average upward. If everyone starts billing $200 for the $165 procedure, then insurance will only "allow" $165 at first and will reject the extra $35. After a few years, they'll adjust the allowance to some multiple of the new rate.
Yes, it's horribly screwed up. That's still better than travesties like Medicaid that often reimburses for procedures at less than the cost of the supplies needed to perform them. Yes, you read that right. There are certain billing codes that Medicaid pays at about 5 to 10 percent of what insurance would. It's hard to make up profits with volume when you are literally, tangibly losing money on each treatment. That's why almost no doctors will see new Medicaid patients without a referral from a colleague. Every doctor I know does a lot of free/charity work, but you have to save some time for paying patients if you want to keep the doors open.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, wait, wait. Exactly HOW did Obama want to prevent cost overruns ? Because there's (of course) a catch. All snake oil salesmen have catches. Big catches. So what's the catch ?
Well, I'm just an outsider, but the catch seems to be that the medical sector (insurers, doctors, pharmaceutical industry, etc.) will make less profit. And yes, that seems to be a big catch. Oddly, most handwringing doesn't seem to be about that. Well, at least not openly.
Regarding those `death panels', that is so obviously a non-starter for any politician who wants to be reelected (or has a hart), I am surprised any people fall for that propaganda. Political discussions in the USA are often not very subtle, but really. Aren't the people that bring up that kind of nonsense just laughed away?
If fire insurance were like medical insurance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you should be able to buy fire insurance after your house burns down.
Do you have the slightest clue how insurance works?
Here's what would happen if fire insurance were like health insurance.
Under this system fire insurance is provided by your employer, who gets a group discount from the insurance companies. Neither your employer nor the insurance company is allowed to disclose how much the insurance costs, because they both consider it a trade secret. Once a year, in November, you get the chance to change your fire insurance company if you are unhappy with them. But since you probably haven't had a fire, what is there to be unhappy about?
If you lose your job, you lose your fire insurance but the insurance company is required by law to allow you to pay an exorbitant sum to continue your insurance for 6 months. They will also allow you to buy a cheaper plan, which will replace your house with a tent if it burns down. By the way, the most common way to lose your job is to have a house fire.
If you are self employed or unemployed, you might be able to buy insurance. It will be much more expensive than the group plans that employers get. You will also be disqualified if you have had a fire in the past, smoke, or have been seen with matches or a cigarette lighter.
The way the fire insurance system works is that your insurance company will provide you a list of twenty fire inspectors. You are required to have a fire inspector in order to get access to a fire station. You will call all twenty and their secretaries will tell you that they aren't taking any new clients. You will eventually get taken on by one of them because your mother is one of his clients.
The inspector is paid a flat fee per year per client by the insurance company. He gets paid this amount whether he inspects your home or not. Each time he does inspect your home he might get a small payment from the insurance company, but you need to give him a $20 additional payment. This is to encourage you not to get your home inspected. If your home has apparent problems that need further investigation, the inspector does not get additional payments from the insurance company. If your home needs repairs to prevent a fire, the insurance company will pay for them, but the inspector might get charged a fee for referring you to a contractor. This is to encourage your fire inspector not to refer you to a contractor to perform repairs.
The fire inspector contracts with a fire station to handle emergencies. It might not be the closest fire station to your home. None of the firefighters working at the fire station are employees of the fire station. They are all independent contractors who are paid by the person who has a fire, or by the insurance company. The only employees at the fire station are the 35 people they have on staff to handle billing the 65 insurance companies that they contract with.
If you have a fire, the first thing you do is call your fire inspector. If he agrees that there is a fire, he will call the insurance company to get authorization to call the fire station. Some fraction of the time these authorizations will be denied.
When the fire station gets the call they will also call the insurance company for authorization. When each fireman gets to the house, they will ask for a copy of your insurance card before putting out the fire. If any of the people involved forgets to get authorization, they won't be paid by the insurance company. They will either bill you, or eat the expenses.
Fortunately it was just a minor fire entirely contained in a frying pan. After the fire has been put out, and a contractor has started repairs, you will receive a bunch of bills that have "THIS IS NOT A BILL" written on them. You will get one from each fireman, one from the fire station, one from your fire inspector, one from the contractor who is repairing your house and one from each of the construction workers the contractor has hired. They will come wit
Re:Wait, really? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not improbable at all, especially if he lived in a rural area. You can't be denied care for an emergency condition in an ER, but if you're in the ER, it's an emergency. If it's an emergency brought on by a chronic, untreated ailment, odds are you're in pretty bad shape and at a much greater risk of death than if you'd been treated for the underlying cause earlier on. As an example, if you show up in the ER with an undiagnosed malignant tumor in its last stages, you can still be saved, but your odds of being saved are extremely decreased by that point.
Furthermore, many rural areas in the U.S. do not have ready access to the most modern treatment options available. If I go fifteen miles north, as the crow flies, over the mountains I can see out my front window, those people have horrible treatment options. They are, basically, limited to less than half a dozen family doctors and a small free clinic that is not capable even of treating a broken bone. The quickest access they have to modern medicine in an emergency is a 40 minute helicopter flight to the nearest university medical center.
Our doctors, hospitals, specialists, and medicines are, by and large, incredible in the U.S. Our access to them, however, is pretty sorely lacking for a great number of people.
I don't know that he's telling the truth, and I don't know that his brother/friend (sorry, I forgot the relationship) did everything he could have, but, based on the rural area I grew up and still visit sometimes, I could absolutely see how it happens.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Negative sir. That's the honest truth. If I walked into the hospital tomorrow with no money, and a life ending ailment. I'd live out the rest of my life to the fullest, but I can accept death. I don't know why you can't accept that life ends... sometimes premature.
If you were drowning in a lake, and there were people standing by the lake who were capable of pulling you out and saving you, and those people just stood there - would you then accept death?
I suspect you'd spend your last few minutes being extremely pissed off and wondering why the hell they weren't throwing you a rope.
They weren't throwing you a rope because it was too much hassle, or too expensive.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There were no charitable organizations or free clinics that he could have gone to? (doubtful)"
You have no personal experience with trying to get medical care while poor do you? Are you just talking out your ass? Charitable organizations willing to cover the medical bills for a major illness are few and far between in this country. Even if you happen to be in an area where there is one, you still have to get them to accept you as a case and, often, there is a huge waiting list. Don't agree? Then, put up or shut up. Name off a few such agencies yourself. If they're so common, then you must know some by name.
"I also doubt that not having health care was the primary concern for this death. What was the cause?"
Ah, the old "blame the victim" game. You know nothing about this person's situation but you are ready to assume the worst about them because it fits your personal agenda/beliefs. The truth is that not having health care leads to an inability to see a doctor for regular checkups or even minor treatment. In fact, as others have pointed out, you aren't guaranteed any health care at all unless you have an immediate emergency (and a terminal condition doesn't count until you are minutes away from death). Many serious illnesses (such as Cancer, AIDS, Gangreen, Rabies, etc.) are either easily treated if found early leading to either a cure (for gangreen and Rabis) or a vast increase in lifespan (for Cancer or AIDS). These same illnesses are virtually impossible to treat if they're only addresses minutes before they kill the patient.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you fucking serious? This guy is talking about a family member with a potentially life threatening illness that can't be treated due to inequitable nature of our society and you suggest he eat a zero carb diet?
Of course cancers feed off sugar, cancer is YOU gone haywire, your body metabolizes sugar preferentially and so would cancer. But just like the rest of your body, any cancer (other than a brain tumor, and your body WILL PRODUCE the glucose needed to feed your brain and then a brain tumor) could metabolize any other source of energy as well.
Let me guess, your suggestion to someone with a bad computer virus would be to unplug the PC as the virus feeds off of electricity.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ironic? (Score:5, Funny)
let me ask you a question: (Score:4, Insightful)
what exactly is this ignorant aversion to socialism all about?
if a guy breaks his leg, do you walk by him in the street?
no, you help him up
that's all universal healthcare is, on a societal scale. the cost of NOT helping those with medical need is far greater to society than helping those who are in need: a guy who can't provide for his family, a guy who can't show up for work, a mother who can't care for her chidlren, etc.: these situations have cost. add them up, and getting these people healthcare they can't afford currently means FINANCIAL SAVINGS for society
why is it you are so propagandized you can't see this?
did you ever actually stop and consider what "socialism" actually means on a philosophical level rather simply kneejerk in mindless propagandized ignorance?
Re:let me ask you a question: (Score:5, Insightful)
The expansion to a "societal scale" is the problem. It's the difference between me helping the guy up, and me hiring a bunch of goons to hold guns to other people's heads to force them to help him up.
But the point of your original post, and of mine, was that we can agree to disagree, and go our separate ways.
Is your movie almost done?
Re:wow only 77 (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, not exactly. You'd get a clearer picture if you broke the US population down by demographics.
The US has more immigration, for one thing, and a greater disparity between rich and poor. Our drug problems seem to be worse. Mexicans use our Emergency Rooms for free and then go back to their country so they don't have to pay, but we're stuck with the bill. Or some stay here. Mexican immigrants have lower life expectancy.
Stillborne births are counted differently in some European countries, with a baby sucking one breath in the US being counted as living for one day, while the same baby in some European countries (don't know about the UK) would be called a stillbirth and ignored by the statistics. (Accounting for this still just brings the US up only into the top 15 or so countries in ranking, but it is a factor.)
The high end care in the US is some of the best in the world, and people come here from Europe for cancer treatment. Also, the fact that the US doesn't have price controls and Europe does means that the American market is the primary engine funding drug development. Europe is basically a free rider. If America enacted price controls on drugs (and why shouldn't we, to be economically competitive with the rest of the world) then Europe would see the drugs its cost-controlled medical system had access to dwindle.
Incidentally, the rate of organ transplants in the US is much higher than in Europe.
Also, frankly, the average American diet is awful. To give just one example; we don't test cattle for BSE (Mad Cow) because "it's never been found on this continent" though the lack of testing would make it impossible to find it so it's kindof a circular argument. US cows are slaughtered younger, so symptoms wouldn't appear in infected animals. Also, wild deer have been found with a BSE like prion, indicating that it is, in fact, on this continent. (Avoid US beef like the plague that it is.)
And hydrogenated oils should have been, by the FDAs own standards, approved only as an additive rather than a foodstuff.
Re:wow only 77 (Score:4, Interesting)
The US has more immigration, for one thing
No, it doesn't:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate [nationmaster.com]
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop-immigration-foreign-population [nationmaster.com]