PDA

View Full Version : Best Healthcare in the Wrold



Buzz
11-03-2010, 08:19 PM
This cannot be, it must be a liberal conspiracy.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/2010/20101007-USLifeExpectancyFalls.htm

depittydawg
11-03-2010, 09:04 PM
This cannot be, it must be a liberal conspiracy.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/2010/20101007-USLifeExpectancyFalls.htm

You got to look at the bright side. If this trend continues, Social Security will never run out of money.

M&K's Retrievers
11-03-2010, 10:28 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Where did this crapola come from? Think our tax dollars are at work? Where is Sheriff Taylor?

Nate_C
11-04-2010, 06:53 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Where did this crapola come from? Think our tax dollars are at work? Where is Sheriff Taylor?

That seems like a good use of money, understanding our life expentancy in relationship to other countries? Though I don't agree with their approach. seems like they were tring to prove something to start with.

Yes this is true I have heard it from several places. However, I don't think they ruled out things like stress, bad diets...ect... In general Americans live much unheathier lives but that is our choice. I really don't think it is becasue of our healthcare system. Yes 20% of our population gets worse healthcare then in Socialized nations but 80% get better. We have the most advanced and proficient medical system in the world. We just need to control the costs better.

road kill
11-04-2010, 07:02 AM
"Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE


RK

dnf777
11-04-2010, 08:02 AM
For these numbers to be relevant, they must be considered by univariate analysis in regards to the countrie's "twinkie index". (# twinkies sold/population)

Buzz
11-04-2010, 10:10 AM
For these numbers to be relevant, they must be considered by univariate analysis in regards to the countrie's "twinkie index". (# twinkies sold/population)

Weren't they getting at that in this paragraph?


In terms of obesity, researchers found that, while people in the U.S. are more likely to be obese, this was also the case in 1975, when the U.S. was not so far behind in life expectancy. In fact, even as the comparison countries pulled ahead of the U.S. in terms of survival, the percentage of obese men and women actually grew faster in most of those countries between 1975 and 2005.

Gerry Clinchy
11-04-2010, 11:30 AM
The article does not get specific about how far behind ... it gives a placement for men, going from "x" to "y" compared to other countries on the list, but it does not give the actual decrease. For example, if US men went from an expectancy of 60.4 years to 60.3 years, while some other country stayed at its previous level of 60.6 years ... the other country may not have improved, but simply stayed the same; or it could have also decreased to 60.5 years, but got a higher placement on the list compared to 60.3 years.

We do know that certain countries (attributed to either diet or genetics) have had better resistance to such things as heart/artery disease. African-Americans are particularly susceptible, as I recall, to heart/artery disease. If our percentage of African-Americans is higher than Belgium, then we would expect that higher percentage to impact the overall longevity figures more than in Belgium.

I'd like to see more of the specifics to make a fair evaluation of the results.

Buzz
11-04-2010, 11:40 AM
I just noticed my spelling in the title. Nice. The flu bug that bit me must have been effecting my brain yesterday. I took my temp when I got home and discovered that my brain was getting fried!

david gibson
11-04-2010, 12:12 PM
I just noticed my spelling in the title. Nice. The flu bug that bit me must have been effecting my brain yesterday. I took my temp when I got home and discovered that my brain was getting fried!

i dont think you can blame it on the flu.... ;-)

wayne anderson
11-04-2010, 10:56 PM
Buzz, I believe it is "affecting,", not "effecting" (from an old SDSU journalism major, regards...

Buzz
11-05-2010, 04:57 AM
Buzz, I believe it is "affecting,", not "effecting" (from an old SDSU journalism major, regards...

The thought crossed my mind while I was typing, but I was too lazy to check. Besides, engineers are not supposed to be good at spelling and grammar.

I'm sitting here right now because I still have to flu to bad to be able to sleep. Three days of terrible body aches is starting to take it's toll...

Thanks Wayne!

YardleyLabs
11-05-2010, 06:11 AM
The article does not get specific about how far behind ... it gives a placement for men, going from "x" to "y" compared to other countries on the list, but it does not give the actual decrease. For example, if US men went from an expectancy of 60.4 years to 60.3 years, while some other country stayed at its previous level of 60.6 years ... the other country may not have improved, but simply stayed the same; or it could have also decreased to 60.5 years, but got a higher placement on the list compared to 60.3 years.

We do know that certain countries (attributed to either diet or genetics) have had better resistance to such things as heart/artery disease. African-Americans are particularly susceptible, as I recall, to heart/artery disease. If our percentage of African-Americans is higher than Belgium, then we would expect that higher percentage to impact the overall longevity figures more than in Belgium.

I'd like to see more of the specifics to make a fair evaluation of the results.

You can actually see the full article at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/29/11/2105/EX1. The graph below gives a better sense of what is being said:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol29/issue11/images/large/2010.0073figEX1.jpeg


In 1975, the US was in the pack with respect to costs and at the bottom of the pack with respect to survival rates. Thirty years later, US costs have grown dramatically faster, but the US has fallen further behind in survival. Efforts to explain the change based on differences in behavior (smoking, obesity) and other similar factors did not hold water. The belief of the authors, which is consistent with other literature as well, is that this results from the high percentage of people who are effectively excluded from full access to care because of the cost. A factor not mentioned that I believe has also been a factor over those 30 years, is that an inordinate percentage of or health costs have been redirected into "consumer" medicine -- activities that have little to no long term medical benefit in extending life but carry a high profit margin (e.g., the little blue pill:D). That is not to say that these things are bad, but i question whether or not they should be counted as medical care for insurance purposes.

Gerry Clinchy
11-05-2010, 01:25 PM
A factor not mentioned that I believe has also been a factor over those 30 years, is that an inordinate percentage of or health costs have been redirected into "consumer" medicine -- activities that have little to no long term medical benefit in extending life but carry a high profit margin (e.g., the little blue pill:grin:). That is not to say that these things are bad, but i question whether or not they should be counted as medical care for insurance purposes.

I would agree. It seems to fall into the same category as elective cosmetic surgery, which is not covered. Meanwhile such things as nutritional supplements ... like a daily vitamin are not covered either. I suppose you could get a scrip for it, and then have it covered?

blind ambition
11-10-2010, 04:04 PM
I for one would like to have our policy makers find out what the Japanese and Australians are doing. Though the Japanese HC system is often touted as the best in the world the Australians have made the greatest advancement and their societal mix and diets are closer to our own, which make them an obvious model to follow.

dnf777
11-10-2010, 04:47 PM
I for one would like to have our policy makers find out what the Japanese and Australians are doing. Though the Japanese HC system is often touted as the best in the world the Australians have made the greatest advancement and their societal mix and diets are closer to our own, which make them an obvious model to follow.

One word: DIET

Our western diet is the absolute worst in the world for longevity and health.

As a completely non-scientific, yet revealing study, just look at the people shopping in the vegetable aisle versus the people in the potato chip and twinkie aisle.

Look at the typical body habitus in McDonalds.

luvmylabs23139
11-10-2010, 06:03 PM
Now now, haven't you heard the news. A person can lose 27lbs in 2 months on "The Twinkie Diet".
All I can say is yuck!

Gerry Clinchy
11-10-2010, 09:33 PM
I've been looking at the graph Jeff posted.

Just roughly it seems from the graph:
US increased from 91.4 to 94.75 survival: +3.35
Canada: 91.75 to 95.75: +4.0
Australia: 92.5 to 96.5: +4.0
Belgium: 92.8 to 95.7: +2.9
Austria: 92.7 to 96.5: +3.8
France: 93.4 to 96.5: +3.1
Japan: 94.2 to 97.3: +3.1
Sweden: 94.4 to 96.5: +2.1
Netherlands: 94.4 to 95.75: +1.35
Switzerland: 94.8 to 97.4: +2.6
UK: 92.2 to 96: +3.8

Australia, Canada, Belgium & the UK have the greatest improvement. The US and Canada had the lowest survival rates at the outset. The highest improvement was 4.0 % survival and the US was .65% lower. Is that a huge difference? If the contention is that so many Americans are not receiving any health care, shouldn't it be worse than that?

Stress is a factor that is not mentioned, and indications are that stress can have a significant impact on health.

No question that US costs are way up there. Jeff mentioned the blue pill ... I wonder if the costs of the blue pill are included in the cost figure for the US. If so, what other meds of that nature might be included, like cosmetic surgery, for example; or obesity surgeries. A friend who is a breast cancer survivor, just told me about advances in the treatment of breast cancer, including reconstructive surgery. Are these things routinely used in the countries with the lower costs?

When we earlier discussed infant mortality, we found that each country came to their statistics differently. In the US infant mortality pertained to any child who died up to the age of one year. Most of the other countries based their statistics on deaths closer to the time of birth.

Buzz
11-10-2010, 11:28 PM
I've been looking at the graph Jeff posted.



Stress is a factor that is not mentioned, and indications are that stress can have a significant impact on health.



It's been a while since I read the story but it seems to me that they considered differences in diet. I don't recall if stress was mentioned or not, but you might have something there. I worked for a German company for many years, and one difference between our US and European counterparts was that the Americans were spread much more thinly, were worked way more hours, and had way less vacation time. They used to tell us, you Americans work way too hard.