http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/06/25/45_million_americans_--_who_are_those_guys_part_2?page=2
...
Elder: Ezekiel Emanuel, a medical adviser to the President (and brother of Rahm, the chief of staff), once told me, "Life expectancy is one of the dumbest ways to measure the quality of a nation's health care." Quality of medical care does not -- by itself -- determine life expectancy. For example, deaths from accidents and murders are much higher in America than in other developed countries. Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider calculated that if accidental deaths and homicides during the '80s and '90s were removed from the calculations, life expectancy in America would have ranked at the top of all developed countries. What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese -- almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.
As for infant mortality, a 2007 study by economists June and David O'Neill found that low birth weight drastically increases an infant's chance of dying. They compared U.S. infant mortality (6.8 per 1,000 births) with Canada's (5.3). Teen mothers are far more likely to have low-weight babies, and America's teen motherhood rate is three times higher than Canada's. They determined that if Canada had America's low-weight birth distribution, Canada's infant mortality rate would rise from 5.3 to 7.06. If America had Canada's low-weight birth distribution, our infant mortality rate would fall from 6.8 to 5.4.
So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.
...
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAhhh yes the other insidious face of UHC (not that it's so universal when advocates of it only claim it for their particular country, what happened to the rest of the world control freaks?) The state makes an ever increasing claim on your actual person, your body, and how you treat it.
Preventive health care is also part of health care. This includes measures against obesity and teen pregnancy.
The state increases it's claim on you.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnd with UHC, this will change how? Won't it be interesting to see if this magical UHC actually helps the numbers? My guess is no.
Preventive health care is also part of health care. This includes measures against obesity and teen pregnancy.
Originally posted by zeeblebotAnother factor is our multiethnic nation. Many minorities drag the life expectancy numbers down because of their prevalence of disorders like type II diabetes and lower life expectancy because of intraethnic murders. Once these factors are taken into account we run circles around socialized medicine countries.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/06/25/45_million_americans_--_who_are_those_guys_part_2?page=2
...
Elder: Ezekiel Emanuel, a medical adviser to the President (and brother of Rahm, the chief of staff), once told me, "Life expectancy is one of the dumbest ways to measure the quality of a nation's health care." Quality of medical care do ...[text shortened]... uences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.
...
Originally posted by whodeyWell, not necessarily, I was simply observing that preventive health care is rather poor in the US. If you take teen pregnancy for example, the US is pretty much on par with the UK, but the per capita rates of teen pregnancy are ten times higher than in the Netherlands. Most countries with universal health care/single payer/mixed system have externsive government programmes to encourage healthy diets - I don't know how much they help, though, since there is also a cultural factor at work.
And with UHC, this will change how? Won't it be interesting to see if this magical UHC actually helps the numbers? My guess is no.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoCanada is ethnically diverse.
Another factor is our multiethnic nation. Many minorities drag the life expectancy numbers down because of their prevalence of disorders like type II diabetes and lower life expectancy because of intraethnic murders. Once these factors are taken into account we run circles around socialized medicine countries.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI just can't picture telling an inner city single mother from the ghetto to "eat healthy" and somehow that will make everything better.
Well, not necessarily, I was simply observing that preventive health care is rather poor in the US. If you take teen pregnancy for example, the US is pretty much on par with the UK, but the per capita rates of teen pregnancy are ten times higher than in the Netherlands. Most countries with universal health care/single payer/mixed system have externsive ...[text shortened]... diets - I don't know how much they help, though, since there is also a cultural factor at work.
Originally posted by PalynkaI think they published it in the Journal of Blogs.
I can only find a book, have these guys published this study?
It sounds weird to me, considering the US has a lower per capita car crash deaths than several European countries.
There also seems to be something fishy about the numbers. Supposedly, if you correct Candanian infant mortality by using US teen pregnancy rates, Canadian infant mortality is higher than the US' infant mortality. But if you use Canadian teen pregnancy in US infant mortality numbers, the Canadian infant mortality is lower? Something doesn't add up here.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat seems fine to me (depending on how these back of the envelope calculations were actually done, of course). It's definitely possible if the main driver of the difference in mortality rates is not the health care system but the age distribution of the mothers during birth.
Supposedly, if you correct Candanian infant mortality by using US teen pregnancy rates, Canadian infant mortality is higher than the US' infant mortality. But if you use Canadian teen pregnancy in US infant mortality numbers, the Canadian infant mortality is lower? Something doesn't add up here.
Originally posted by PalynkaIntuitively I would say it's only possible if the chance of an infant dying is affected by other infants dying, which seems strange to me. But intuition is a dangerous thing in mathematics and I'm too lazy to do the calculation right now.
That seems fine to me (depending on how these back of the envelope calculations were actually done, of course). It's definitely possible if the main driver of the difference in mortality rates is not the health care system but the age distribution of the mothers during birth.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not sure if I understand what you're saying...
Intuitively I would say it's only possible if the chance of an infant dying is affected by other infants dying, which seems strange to me. But intuition is a dangerous thing in mathematics and I'm too lazy to do the calculation right now.
Canada - 5.3
US - 6.8
Plug birth age distribution of Canada into US, (call it US*) then US* -> 5.4
Plug birth age distribution of US into Canada, (call it C*) then C* -> 7.06
Is it C*>US and US*>Canada that's bothering you? This difference could be due to different mortality rates per age. It's possible if the US has less in certain categories and more in others, relative to Canada (namely, if they deal relatively better than Canada with teenage births and vice-versa, but they have more of them).