US slips to 49th in life expectancy

According to the peer reviewed academic journal Health Affairs, a study by Columbia professors, Peter A. Muennig and Sherry A. Glied has examined proposed reasons why since 1999, the US has slipped from 24th in life expectancy to 49th.

Link to article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/s...ectancy-study/

Link to publication/study (PDF):
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...010.0073v1.pdf

Personally, I'm getting kind of tired of having to see the facts of how far down the drain we are going while having my ears bombarded by screams of Tea Partiers saying that our health care is still the best because it isn't "socialist".

I blame your food.

The 'dismantling of socialism', otherwise known as disbanding proper governmental health and safety regulation while establishing extensive industry subsidies, has had dramatic consequences. The FDA is run by food lobbyists, congress is in the pocket of the industrial-agricultural complex. It is not good for your weight or your health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I blame your food.

The 'dismantling of socialism', otherwise known as disbanding proper governmental health and safety regulation while establishing extensive industry subsidies, has had dramatic consequences. The FDA is run by food lobbyists, congress is in the pocket of the industrial-agricultural complex. It is not good for your weight or your health.

---

I agree, but I only think that the food we eat is half the problem. The other problem is the ideological question of whether or not it is ok to have the health of the public be run in a for profit format and not a for health format. So far, the US has it's right wing dominating the question and is supporting the status quo that for profit companies rejecting those who's treatments are too expensive to protect the bottom line and stay profitable is preferable to government that is willing to spend more then it makes to pay it's clients for the treatments they need.

The problem with American food is that all the bad stuff in it is in large part derived from excess corn which is supported by large corn subsidies. Even if corporations didn't want to support the subsidies anymore, it's a matter of national security for the US to be able to provide enough corn to feed its population and not be dependent on other countries to staple foods.

I think the extremely simplified solution to the health problem is by 1.) banning corn derived preservatives and additives like HFCS, taking the excess corn and selling as much of it as we can and give it away to needy nations when we can't sell anymore. Makes us look good, and makes our food healthier. The only issue with that is the replacement for HFCS is cane sugar which would be more expensive. But then again, from what I remember Cuba has a lot of sugar production that could easily be traded with if we only took down that stupid embargo of ours. And 2.) Implementing at least a basic public option that everyone pays into. Those that want better care can pay private insurance companies and organizations for adding better coverage and rates onto the basic public coverage.

I think if we take those steps, the tide of life expectancy can be reversed back to first world status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I blame your food.

---

Food and murders and traffic accidents may cause the overall low ranking (so I don't see what that's supposed to show) but they say it doesn't explain the drop relative to other countries.

Quote:

---

We found that none of the prevailing excuses
for the poor performance of the US health care
system are likely to be valid. On the spending
side, we found that the unusually high medical
spending is associated with worsening, rather
than improving, fifteen-year survival in two
groups for whom medical care is probably im-
portant.
We speculate that the nature of our health care
system—specifically, its reliance on unregulated
fee-for-service and specialty care—may explain
both the increased spending and the relative
deterioration in survival that we observed. If
so, meaningful reform may not only save money
over the long term, it may also save lives.

---

I don't understand this part though. What does what?

It says our survival rate has increased ~3%. Canada and the UK went up 4%.

Anyway I don't know why they quote the study as the source of the "49th" ranking since they just cite the ciaworldfactbook in the introduction.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

we are .2 below denmark

Not sure what to make of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Food and murders and traffic accidents may cause the overall low ranking (so I don't see what that's supposed to show) but they say it doesn't explain the drop relative to other countries.



I don't understand this part though. What does what?

It says our survival rate has increased ~3%. Canada and the UK went up 4%.

Anyway I don't know why they quote the study as the source of the "49th" ranking since they just cite the ciaworldfactbook in the introduction.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

we are .2 below denmark

Not sure what to make of it all.

---

Whoops, you are right. Skimmed too much of the intro in an attempt to read the meat of the article. I guess it's really more of the two professors analyzing what this shift means and what the causes are. I will edit accordingly.

EDIT: Also the paragraph you quoted from the article is saying that prevailing arguments about why our health care system isn't working (not enough money, unhealthy food etc..) don't hold up and that it is actually most likely the nature of our system (a for profit system) that is the most likely cause of decreasing trends in the health of the demographics they looked at.

What you should make of it is that for as much as we spend, we are not #1; also it is not spending or food that is holding us back from better statistics according to the study. It's probably because our system quite frankly isn't socialist enough.

I wonder what caused australia's relative jump.

Anyway, so the question is "why did we drop a relative 1%"?

The conclusion of the article was what I didn't know what to make of. It suggests that the # of uninsured might be the culprit, then say that the RAND experiment found health care didn't have much effect on mortality, that it was just weeks for the population as a whole, then said that was uncertain, then said that investing in things other than medical care might be the best way to go, then said the profit stuff in our system might be decreasing health but said they had no idea how much (that part is speculation as they said acin).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I wonder what caused australia's relative jump.

Anyway, so the question is "why did we drop a relative 1%"?

The conclusion of the article was what I didn't know what to make of. It suggests that the # of uninsured might be the culprit, then say that the RAND experiment found health care didn't have much effect on mortality, that it was just weeks for the population as a whole, then said that was uncertain, then said that investing in things other than medical care might be the best way to go, then said the profit stuff in our system might be decreasing health but said they had no idea how much (that part is speculation as they said acin).

---

Yeah it was speculation. Forgive me for reinforcing that speculation with my own personal bias.

Or to look at it another way: "USA improves life rating for 24 countries!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I wonder what caused australia's relative jump.

---

Less deaths from wrestling with crocodiles recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Personally, I'm getting kind of tired of having to see the facts of how far down the drain we are going while having my ears bombarded by screams of Tea Partiers saying that our health care is still the best because it isn't "socialist".

---

If you have insurance and/or money, America does have the best healthcare in the world. America offers the most advanced treatments, many of which are not offered in other countries because of cost inefficiencies. That is the meaning behind that line.

IMO, the problem is the decline of the middle class, which is largely uncontrollable by the government without engaging in protectionism. Poor people tend to eat worse, smoke more, and generally live more unhealthy lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If you have insurance and/or money, America does have the best healthcare in the world. America offers the most advanced treatments, many of which are not offered in other countries because of cost inefficiencies. That is the meaning behind that line.

IMO, the problem is the decline of the middle class, which is largely uncontrollable by the government without engaging in protectionism. Poor people tend to eat worse, smoke more, and generally live more unhealthy lives.

---

I don't doubt that we probably have the best health care...for the rich (well anyone who can afford it really but that usually only the rich).

So I don't see how having a basic public option with private options for wealthier people wouldn't solve the issue of cost. Let the private companies take their risk to develop state of the art medical procedures and treatments and have them off load the cost as usual but have the rich pay for it on their own and when the patient is poor have the government pick up the check.

I agree though that the decline of the middle class if not unchecked will render any reform pointless as fiscal self sustainability becomes increasingly difficult.

At the risk of what has been repeated for years by Health Economists, Public Health Experts and Management consultants - failure to have Primary Care means that you have a much greater burden of morbidity which saps the economy's efficiency. This in turn causes more serious health problems that needn't have happened - and hence end up costing more in direct costs, let alone indirect ones.

I don't think that there is a "best" way as several countries are above average on the cost:benefit ratio. I do think that America is one of the "worst" on this basis.

~:smoking:

There has been a rise in maternal mortality in the US over the last decade across the board, but the situation is acute among non-whites:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/181934.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I blame your food. .

---

+1,000,000,000,000

Americans eat allot and all of its bad.

This has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with lifestyle. People are uninformed about food and it is literally killing us

It's sad to think that people need to be "informed" about such basic things as calorie intake. Are these things not on packages of food in the USA? Here one can quickly see that drinking a 2L bottle of e.g. Fanta is in fact a decent percentage of one's daily calories.

That America spends so much on diets shows that it's not hidden information, merely ignored information. Healthy food is not expensive (getting the best, freshest stuff might be). No one is so poor they have to pack on the weight.

Exercise. Not a hidden secret either. Again, just ignored. Although to get fantastically fit might require more time than many wage slaves have without causing the rest of one's life to be impacted (me included), moderate exercise only costs time.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It's sad to think that people need to be "informed" about such basic things as calorie intake. Are these things not on packages of food in the USA? Here one can quickly see that drinking a 2L bottle of e.g. Fanta is in fact a decent percentage of one's daily calories.

---

Well the picture kind of changes if you're the type of wage slave which has two or three jobs to make ends meet and simply don't have time to prepare proper meals (cause that would make you late for the evening shift). Also I gather that in the USA there's more of a real issue that it is quite possible for people to simply be “out of range” of healthy food (it's simply not sold anywhere near them).

... Then again, in France it is possible to be out of range of tap water that can actually be drunk. It reeks. Like a dirty swimming pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Healthy food is not expensive (getting the best, freshest stuff might be). No one is so poor they have to pack on the weight

---

Since I've recently had to move to more expensive accomodation and thus had to tighten my spending, I've actually started eating much more healthily. My main criteria for what I buy now is $/kg and my the best way to get that was, to my suprise by buying fresh fruit and veggies. On a $/kg basis fast food just can't compete. Things like chips and biscuits start at about $10+/kg, decent meat also usually starts at about $10+/kg. Compare that to food like carrots, onions, oranges, apples which are all about $2 or $3/kg. The only thing cheaper is pasta at $1/kg or bulk buying potatoes at about $0.60/kg.

Buying ONE meal from McDonalds (which leaves you hungry again in about half an hour) will cost me about $7 or so which could easily feed me for a day or two if I eat fresh veggies and pasta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Since I've recently had to move to more expensive accomodation and thus had to tighten my spending, I've actually started eating much more healthily. My main criteria for what I buy now is $/kg and my the best way to get that was, to my suprise by buying fresh fruit and veggies. On a $/kg basis fast food just can't compete. Things like chips and biscuits start at about $10+/kg, decent meat also usually starts at about $10+/kg. Compare that to food like carrots, onions, oranges, apples which are all about $2 or $3/kg. The only thing cheaper is pasta at $1/kg or bulk buying potatoes at about $0.60/kg.

Buying ONE meal from McDonalds (which leaves you hungry again in about half an hour) will cost me about $7 or so which could easily feed me for a day or two if I eat fresh veggies and pasta.

---

Heeeeey, that's pretty cool, mane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Since I've recently had to move to more expensive accomodation and thus had to tighten my spending, I've actually started eating much more healthily. My main criteria for what I buy now is $/kg and my the best way to get that was, to my suprise by buying fresh fruit and veggies. On a $/kg basis fast food just can't compete. Things like chips and biscuits start at about $10+/kg, decent meat also usually starts at about $10+/kg. Compare that to food like carrots, onions, oranges, apples which are all about $2 or $3/kg. The only thing cheaper is pasta at $1/kg or bulk buying potatoes at about $0.60/kg.

Buying ONE meal from McDonalds (which leaves you hungry again in about half an hour) will cost me about $7 or so which could easily feed me for a day or two if I eat fresh veggies and pasta.

---

People dont think like that, good for you that you are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

People dont think like that, good for you that you are

---

Yeah, I know, eh? Imma start thinking like that, thanks sheep!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Since I've recently had to move to more expensive accomodation and thus had to tighten my spending, I've actually started eating much more healthily. My main criteria for what I buy now is $/kg and my the best way to get that was, to my suprise by buying fresh fruit and veggies. On a $/kg basis fast food just can't compete. Things like chips and biscuits start at about $10+/kg, decent meat also usually starts at about $10+/kg. Compare that to food like carrots, onions, oranges, apples which are all about $2 or $3/kg. The only thing cheaper is pasta at $1/kg or bulk buying potatoes at about $0.60/kg.

---

Off topic, but are there any Asian butcher's near you? They sell meat cheaper than most other places, especially "Western" cuts, as they tend to use the tougher more flavoursome meat over the "Western" preferred cuts. So you can get a couple kilos of rump for $30-40. But yes, buying 10 kilos of unwashed potatoes is the way to go, or any other veggies for that matter, so cheap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well the picture kind of changes if you're the type of wage slave which has two or three jobs to make ends meet and simply don't have time to prepare proper meals (cause that would make you late for the evening shift). Also I gather that in the USA there's more of a real issue that it is quite possible for people to simply be “out of range” of healthy food (it's simply not sold anywhere near them).

---

Easy way to address this is make food in bulk: make something at the weekend large enough for 5 or so meals. Bag it and put it in the freezer. Either defrost in the microwave or leave out in the morning when required. OK, does not make for the greatest variety, but it's not impossible. If you do that a few times you have several options. Eat with pasta / bread / cous cous at the side. Preparation time on the day? Less than 10 mins.

Do you have online food shopping in the USA? Here I purchase almost everything in large online shops that get delivered to my door. I get most of my veg frozen which OK, isn't as good as fresh, but has a much longer shelf life.

~:smoking:

I know that Finland has one of the most expensive food in EU and our household of two spends between 400-600 euros per month on food. We buy most of our food stuff organic and eat lot of protein, greens, whole grain and fruit compared to carbs. How does this compare internationally?

For just myself, last month I spent 200AUD(141EUR). The majority of what I eat is fruit and non-green vegetables due the aforementioned low price, but I mix a variety of more expensive vegetables, spices and a little meat into my meals for variety. I usually have either pasta, rice or potatoes with my largest meal of the day to flesh it out more, and I always have whole grains (which are mostly carbohydrates by the way) for breakfast.

Thanks for sharing that.I know that whole grain are carbs, but thats the main carb addition in our diet, low carb,not non carb, paleothic diet.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Buying ONE meal from McDonalds (which leaves you hungry again in about half an hour) will cost me about $7 or so which could easily feed me for a day or two if I eat fresh veggies and pasta.

---

You may wanna rethink the pasta, mate.

Generally, fresh veggies, fish (practically anything from the water really), meat (not all - you want poultry, game, possibly beef; pork is to be avoided at all cost) and some grain (rice is by far the best, potatoes distant second and bread/pasta last). Throw in some fruit every once in a while of course but don't overdo it, lots of sugar there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You may wanna rethink the pasta, mate.

Generally, fresh veggies, fish (practically anything from the water really), meat (not all - you want poultry, game, possibly beef; pork is to be avoided at all cost) and some grain (rice is by far the best, potatoes distant second and bread/pasta last). Throw in some fruit every once in a while of course but don't overdo it, lots of sugar there.

---

Why should pork be avoided at all costs?
Why such a reduction of carbs?
Could you explain to me the difference in fruit sugar and candy sugar and how the body processes them differently?

Or are you just parroting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I know that Finland has one of the most expensive food in EU and our household of two spends between 400-600 euros per month on food. We buy most of our food stuff organic and eat lot of protein, greens, whole grain and fruit compared to carbs. How does this compare internationally?

---

For two people not that bad, if it's organic pretty cheap actually. To get my cost I salute the Turks, good meat and veggies for only a fraction of what it costs in the supermarket, and much friendlier service. Also a lot of pasta, all I need is some fresh garlic and olive oil and some pecorino to make a fantastic meal. Tomato, some onion and fresh basil (buy a plant) ditto. It's possible to live from 50 euro a month, but I spend 400 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

For two people not that bad, if it's organic pretty cheap actually. To get my cost I salute the Turks, good meat and veggies for only a fraction of what it costs in the supermarket, and much friendlier service. Also a lot of pasta, all I need is some fresh garlic and olive oil and some pecorino to make a fantastic meal. Tomato, some onion and fresh basil (buy a plant) ditto. It's possible to live from 50 euro a month, but I spend 400 or so.

---

You mean you give money to those Islamic infiltrators?! I'm shocked and appalled Fragony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why should pork be avoided at all costs?
Why such a reduction of carbs?
Could you explain to me the difference in fruit sugar and candy sugar and how the body processes them differently?

Or are you just parroting?

---

Well fruit sugar is fructose and sugar from sweets is sucrose, but they are essentially the same (appart from fructose tasting sweeter) which is why he said that we should avoid eating too much fruit. Fruit is the better choice though because it has other stuff, whereas sweets are almost all sugar.

EDIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple#Health_benefits
An apple for example has carbs, fibre, protein, and various vitamins, with sugar only being about 10%. That sugar is the same as what's in a sweet, but the apple overall is much better than the sweet