Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on October 08, 2010, 10:52:38 am
-
Figured a few of you might be interested in this.
New York, NY, October 7, 2010 - The United States continues to lag behind other nations when it comes to gains in life expectancy, and commonly cited causes for our poor performance - obesity, smoking, traffic fatalities, and homicide - are not to blame, according to a Commonwealth Fund-supported study published today as a Health Affairs Web First. The study, by Peter Muennig and Sherry Glied at Columbia University, looked at health spending; behavioral risk factors like obesity and smoking; and 15-year survival rates for men and women ages 45 and 65 in the U.S. and 12 other nations (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom).
While the U.S. has achieved gains in 15-year survival rates decade by decade between 1975 and 2005, the researchers discovered that other countries have experienced even greater gains, leading the U.S. to slip in country ranking, even as per capita health care spending in the U.S. increased at more than twice the rate of the comparison countries. Fifteen-year survival rates for men and women ages 45 and 65 in the US have fallen relative to the other 12 countries over the past 30 years. Forty-five year old U.S. white women fared the worst - by 2005 their 15-year survival rates were lower than that of all the other countries. Moreover, the survival rates of this group in 2005 had not even surpassed the 1975 15-year survival rates for Swiss, Swedish, Dutch or Japanese women. The U.S. ranking for 15-year life expectancy for 45-year-old men also declined, falling from 3rd in 1975 to 12th in 2005, according to the study, “What Changes in Survival Rates Tell Us About U.S. Health Care.”
News Report: http://www.lifesciencesworld.com/news/view/160075
Journal Article: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.2010.0073
-
Somewhat relevant:
The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Germans drink a lot of beers and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
-
Somewhat relevant:
The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Germans drink a lot of beers and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
Wait... where does Canada figure in? We have good statistics and over half of us speak English :) Must be the French influence and the proper pronounciation of Z and the proper spelling of honour, colour, and so forth.
-
and the proper pronounciation of Z
What are you talking about? You guys break the Alphabet Song! :p
-
OH NOOOO NOT PUBLIC HEALTHCARE!!!
-
I see how this is gonna go.
Liberal Euro HLPer: lol u merkins are stoopid u dont haf public healthcare
Liberal US HLPer: but we weawwy want it : ' (
Conservative US HLPer: sohshalisum glenn beck sed soh lol
Liberal HLPers: NO U
Conservative HLPer: NO U
Liberal HLPer: I HATE U AN I HOAP U DIY
Conservative HLPer: IMMA SHUUT U WIF MAI GUN > : (
Liberal HLPer: LOL READNEHKK
(FOR 6/8/12/15 pages)
Janos: hello i want to lick your armpits
Dekker: milf milf milf milf milf milf milf milf milf
Nuclear: i luv scotch here it goes down down into mah belleh
Admin: this r stoopid locked
Admin: oh wait how do i locked threads
Admin #2: idk lol maibe likE THIS
Nuke/Dekker: hai i cant post in locked threads!
Admin #2: quiet you
-
lol u merkins are stoopid u dont haf public healthcare
EDIT: Seriously, though, there are services in which private sector does not perform better than public sector. Or rather, private health care can not provide same level of coverage and quality as public health care, even if perceived quality of private health care were marginally higher.
Public health care has a tendency to increase production rates on other areas since people can actually get medical attention without worrying about not being able to pay for it...
-
but we weawwy want it : ' (
-
free market anarchism anyone?
-
I'm more concerned about the economic effects of universal public healthcare than the SOCIALISM/NO U arguments that go around here (nowadays anyway).
And I've got too many friends who really, really need it who would benefit very, very much by the policy to be against it.
-
I'm more concerned about the economic effects of universal public healthcare than the SOCIALISM/NO U arguments that go around here (nowadays anyway).
Well it's really simple.
The health care business funding becomes part of government budget (where ever you guys get it from, most countries have taxes, some borrow credit from China, it's up to you).
The actual health care sector continues functioning much like before, but instead of treatments being paid mainly by the patients and by extension insurance companies, the treatment costs come for State's coffers.
You could say that this is a bad thing because the buying power decreases because of increased income/value added tax, discourages working, aand so on. But on the other hand, people don't need to pay for health insurance (which from what I've heard isn't exactly a certified way to get treatment anyway, if your health problem doesn't happen to be covered in the insurance policy).
In short term, yes, there may be some reduction in consumer buying power. In the long term, however, you have to factor in quality of life, increased public health, subsequent increased tax revenue since healthy people tend to be more productive, etc. etc.
Frankly, from an outsider's view it's appalling that people there consider it normal to make a commercial business out of such a fundamental thing as healthcare.
And I've got too many friends who really, really need it who would benefit very, very much by the policy to be against it.
Haters gonna hate...
-
I'm uncertain of certain aspects of the new plan, and even whether it is as a whole a particularly good implementation, but I do hope that the presumably incoming Republican majority in at least one of the houses doesn't **** up the parts that actually benefit me, particularly the ability to get back on my parents' healthcare plan until age 26. I'm currently on a form of medical assistance for what I have going on, but I'd love to get off that and leave it to people who need it far more than I do.