So how are these derived? Because one stat I saw recently scared the hell out of me. In the US, the 5 year survival rate for people with prostate cancer is 100%. Yes, if you get prostate cancer in the US you have zero chance statistically of dieing and the rate after that is 99% survival. Canada? Well it's 90%. 1 out of 10 die. UK? Well it gets worse, it's only 77% in the five years after and then 65% overall. Now for a country that is supposed to rank so much higher and should be all about prevention how do almost a quarter of people who get diagnosed with prostate cancer die within 5 years and over a third die in total?
It's the little things like this that make the US the best country to live in and our health care is pretty much fine as is and if you get a serious disease you have the best care options available. Could some things need improved? Of colurse, but the answer is not an overhaul into government control when the programs they run now are failing.
I tend to think that there are a lot of other factors that enter into the equation when looking at life expectancy. I think Americans are probably one of the most unhealthy eaters in the world. We also probably exercise much less than the typical European country. Now I have no statistics to support this, but after spending time over there, I could not help notice the differences. Very few overweight people, and less people driving everywhere. They walk and bike to places. Where i live now, there are fat people everywhere. I don't think that life expectancy is a direct correlation to quality of health care.
It's the junk food. When i worked in Manhattan I saw plenty of fat people everyday. I passed 4 Starbucks in 5 blocks every morning. When I was in Paris I saw one McDonald's, no Chipotle's, no Pizza, pretty much no fast food. What I did see was a lot of small shops selling sandwiches, that was french fast food.
If people had some form of self control they would be healthier. Pure and simple. If we as country could reign in obesity then health care costs go down but why have personal accountability when the gubment is going to give you things for free?
I tend to think that there are a lot of other factors that enter into the equation when looking at life expectancy. I think Americans are probably one of the most unhealthy eaters in the world. We also probably exercise much less than the typical European country. Now I have no statistics to support this, but after spending time over there, I could not help notice the differences. Very few overweight people, and less people driving everywhere. They walk and bike to places. Where i live now, there are fat people everywhere. I don't think that life expectancy is a direct correlation to quality of health care.
I wondered about how much crime deaths and drug-related deaths affect the U.S. life expectancy. I'm sure we suffer a higher murder rate but I;m not sure about drug impacted deaths.
bh wrote:I tend to think that there are a lot of other factors that enter into the equation when looking at life expectancy. I think Americans are probably one of the most unhealthy eaters in the world. We also probably exercise much less than the typical European country. Now I have no statistics to support this, but after spending time over there, I could not help notice the differences. Very few overweight people, and less people driving everywhere. They walk and bike to places. Where i live now, there are fat people everywhere. I don't think that life expectancy is a direct correlation to quality of health care.
Easily the biggest single factor in determining average life expectancy is infant and child mortality. A lot of dead infants and children can swing your average life expectancy down pretty fast. Luckily for us, we're a whopping 33rd in infant mortality and something like 39th in under-5 mortality. Definitely something to be proud of.
DelPen wrote:It's the little things like this that make the US the best country to live in and our health care is pretty much fine as is
Sure, if you can afford it. If not, well, good luck I guess.
Well seeing as how we have the 2nd best cancer survival rate in the world behind Cuba, if you want to believe their numbers aren't fake, then I would say plenty of people are getting treatment, more so than any other country in the world.
bh wrote:I tend to think that there are a lot of other factors that enter into the equation when looking at life expectancy. I think Americans are probably one of the most unhealthy eaters in the world. We also probably exercise much less than the typical European country. Now I have no statistics to support this, but after spending time over there, I could not help notice the differences. Very few overweight people, and less people driving everywhere. They walk and bike to places. Where i live now, there are fat people everywhere. I don't think that life expectancy is a direct correlation to quality of health care.
Easily the biggest single factor in determining average life expectancy is infant and child mortality. A lot of dead infants and children can swing your average life expectancy down pretty fast. Luckily for us, we're a whopping 33rd in infant mortality and something like 39th in under-5 mortality. Definitely something to be proud of.
Well, first off, we are only 0.34% off from being #1. And once again, I think that there are numerous other factors that affect these numbers other than health care. It could be things like Americans are less likely to get abortions for risky pregnancies than a lot of other countries with better infant mortality rates. I watched a special a few months ago where they went into memphis and did a documentary on the young inner city mothers that get pregnant when they are 12-16 years old. I believe it was entitled "babyland". The gyst of the show was that the infant mortality rate in Memphis was something abismyl and it seemed to stem from poverty, drugs, and violence. It was a sad show, but really showed some of the worst areas of the country. I don't think this bill or any health care related bill is going to solve problems like these, which make our rates worse.
DelPen wrote:It's the little things like this that make the US the best country to live in and our health care is pretty much fine as is
Sure, if you can afford it. If not, well, good luck I guess.
Well seeing as how we have the 2nd best cancer survival rate in the world behind Cuba, if you want to believe their numbers aren't fake, then I would say plenty of people are getting treatment, more so than any other country in the world.
Oh, right, the stat you saw this one time somewhere without any context. I wonder what America's prostate cancer survival rate would be if we factored in all the people who never have their prostate cancer diagnosed because they can't get medical care?
HomerPenguin wrote:Oh, right, the stat you saw this one time somewhere without any context. I wonder what America's prostate cancer survival rate would be if we factored in all the people who never have their prostate cancer diagnosed because they can't get medical care?
bh wrote:Well, first off, we are only 0.34% off from being #1. And once again, I think that there are numerous other factors that affect these numbers other than health care. It could be things like Americans are less likely to get abortions for risky pregnancies than a lot of other countries with better infant mortality rates.
But those numbers are irrelevant, since infant mortality deals with live birthed babies who die under 1 year old. Abortions affect perinatal mortality rates, not infant mortality rates. You'd actually expect a country as supposedly tripped out on abortions as we are to have lower infant mortality rates, since presumably a larger than average number of fetuses with life-threatening birth defects will be aborted. Not so much though.
I watched a special a few months ago where they went into memphis and did a documentary on the young inner city mothers that get pregnant when they are 12-16 years old. I believe it was entitled "babyland". The gyst of the show was that the infant mortality rate in Memphis was something abismyl and it seemed to stem from poverty, drugs, and violence. It was a sad show, but really showed some of the worst areas of the country. I don't think this bill or any health care related bill is going to solve problems like these, which make our rates worse.
A health care-related bill that would help poor teenaged mothers get access to basic pre-natal and neo-natal health care isn't going to help reduce the number of poor infants who wind up dead? Not at all? Really?
Last edited by HomerPenguin on Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DelPen wrote:Face it, if you are going to get cancer there is no better place to be than in the United States. Every stat supports that statement as true.
Sure, as long as you get to see a doctor to get it diagnosed early enough for successful treatment. Those are the only folks we can keep stats on, sadly.
DelPen wrote:Face it, if you are going to get cancer there is no better place to be than in the United States. Every stat supports that statement as true.
If you've got good health insurance and/or can afford the services, I don't really doubt it. But that's not really the issue here. It seems to me that you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare stats from countries with universal health care to stats from countries that don't have universal health care.
HomerPenguin wrote:Oh, right, the stat you saw this one time somewhere without any context. I wonder what America's prostate cancer survival rate would be if we factored in all the people who never have their prostate cancer diagnosed because they can't get medical care?
Spoiler:
HomerPenguin is a communist
Spoiler:
I'm a Muslim too
Spoiler:
Also a gay atheist illegal immigrant welfare recipient who spends his weekends convincing pregnant women to get late term abortions
But those numbers are irrelevant, since infant mortality deals with live birthed babies who die under 1 year old. Abortions affect perinatal mortality rates, not infant mortality rates. You'd actually expect a country as supposedly tripped out on abortions as we are to have higher infant mortality rates, since presumably a larger than average number of fetuses with life-threatening birth defects will be aborted. Not so much though.
I'm afraid I'm not understanding here. Sometimes I have a hard time telling when you are sarcastic or not. When you said "something to be proud of" I took it as sarcastic. And are you saying that the US is tripped out on abortions or not? Also I'm curious how terminating high risk pregnancies wouldn't affect the infant mortality rates? Not trying to provoke, I'm just missing something here. I don't think I understand what the numbers are saying.
A health care-related bill that would help poor teenaged mothers get access to basic pre-natal and neo-natal health care isn't going to help reduce the number of poor infants who wind up dead? Not at all? Really?
#1 - isn't that what medcaid is for?
#2 - Well, the way the show was portrayed (and it was a while ago, so I'm only going on memory) the deaths were not because mothers didn't have access to care. Usually it was that they were too young to even know what care they needed. It was more of an education/culture problem. So while the bill might help some the real problem seemed to be poverty, drugs, and education.
#3 - If this bill drives up the cost of care even more, getting needed care is going to be far from guaranteed.
bh wrote:Also I'm curious how terminating high risk pregnancies wouldn't affect the infant mortality rates? Not trying to provoke, I'm just missing something here. I don't think I understand what the numbers are saying.
An aborted pregnancy is an aborted pregnancy, not a dead infant. Abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths are not counted in terms of determining infant mortality, unless somebody is playing fast and loose with the numbers.
A health care-related bill that would help poor teenaged mothers get access to basic pre-natal and neo-natal health care isn't going to help reduce the number of poor infants who wind up dead? Not at all? Really?
HomerPenguin wrote:An aborted pregnancy is an aborted pregnancy, not a dead infant. Abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths are not counted in terms of determining infant mortality, unless somebody is playing fast and loose with the numbers.
Gotcha. I guess what I was saying was that a country that terminates babies that have problems might be able to positively effect their infant mortality rate by eliminating those babies that have the highest risk of dying in the first year of life.
In truth I expected the USA to have less abortions per live birth than most European countries but the link you provided says other wise. Color me stunned.
If Congress rams this through as is because they actually beleive all the opposition is just from operatives from insurance companies we will see a huge trunover in the House and a dent in the Senate. Their base will happily stay home because they got what they wanted while the people they pissed off will be the ones who show up to vote. If they thought 1994 was bad this will be so much worse for Democrats.
I don'y know that Obama's latest town meeting did much for damage control. They insisted this wasn't a hand-picked audience but it looked and sounded like a Dem fundraiser. The Prez tried to tie a Republican senator to introducing end of life counseling which wasn't true. He claimed AARP endorsed his plan which was another falsehead. He claimed he wasn't for single payer but numerous clips showed him stating his support for single payer and also stating they may have to do a backdoor transition to that plan.
The first questioner was a state democratic representative who amazingly had a softball question as to why the president was being too nice "trying to be bipartisan". I guess demonizing opposition is now a bipartisan approach.
The icing on the cake was the question from the cute little kid about the mean signs. Turns out she was a plant.Her mom's an Obama organizer from out of state who had met Obama's family. She was sitting right beside the little girl when Obama picked her out. Randomly, of course. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... town-hall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And say the kid wasn't a plant, what the hell is he taking a softball from a child for when he should be outlining SPECIFICS of what he wants to do to theis country.
Oh, but the mom was just a wee bit more than a supporter, she was campaiging hard to be her districts delegate to the DNC and also they attended the Easter Egg Hunt at the White House this past spring. But no, bussing in a photo-op from out of state is what those angry conservative mobs do.
DelPen wrote:It's the junk food. When i worked in Manhattan I saw plenty of fat people everyday. I passed 4 Starbucks in 5 blocks every morning. When I was in Paris I saw one McDonald's, no Chipotle's, no Pizza, pretty much no fast food. What I did see was a lot of small shops selling sandwiches, that was french fast food.
If people had some form of self control they would be healthier. Pure and simple. If we as country could reign in obesity then health care costs go down but why have personal accountability when the gubment is going to give you things for free?
You just came up with the script for a horror movie targeted at conservatives...brilliant 
