U.S. life expectancy will soon be on par with Mexico’s and Croatia’s(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
U.S. life expectancy will soon be on par with Mexico’s and Croatia’s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/21/us-life-expectancy-will-soon-be-on-par-with-mexicos-and-croatias/
75 comments
Interesting, but if you continue the same article you quote, it refutes that as a major cause of the difference:
"But these reporting differences cannot account for the full extent of the gap between countries, says Paul Wise, MD, a pediatrician at Packard Children’s and a health policy analyst at Stanford. “The reporting differences are a minor part of the story but not an excuse for why the U.S has such a high mortality rate.”
Because even when researchers look only at births that meet the criteria for all European countries — 500-gram babies born at 22 weeks and later — the United States doesn’t fare any better. In 2009, Marian MacDorman, PhD, a statistician at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics drew up a new ranking list, comparing the United States with 20 European countries and excluding the deaths of all babies born before 22 weeks’ gestation. The United States still ranked below most European countries."
http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.htm...
"But these reporting differences cannot account for the full extent of the gap between countries, says Paul Wise, MD, a pediatrician at Packard Children’s and a health policy analyst at Stanford. “The reporting differences are a minor part of the story but not an excuse for why the U.S has such a high mortality rate.”
Because even when researchers look only at births that meet the criteria for all European countries — 500-gram babies born at 22 weeks and later — the United States doesn’t fare any better. In 2009, Marian MacDorman, PhD, a statistician at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics drew up a new ranking list, comparing the United States with 20 European countries and excluding the deaths of all babies born before 22 weeks’ gestation. The United States still ranked below most European countries."
http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.htm...
If you read the rest of the article it also talks about the higher-than-average rate of premature births. No one really knows why.
Also, whether or not you count a pre-mature birth as a "life" is only one of several differences in how counting is done.
I guess my take is that some of the difference is due to counting and some is due to differences in healthcare.
Also, whether or not you count a pre-mature birth as a "life" is only one of several differences in how counting is done.
I guess my take is that some of the difference is due to counting and some is due to differences in healthcare.
Still,
In December, the U.S. government reported that life expectancy had declined in 2015 for the first time since 1993 as death rates for eight of the 10 leading causes of death, including heart disease, rose.
points to there being a real problem, not just a problem with how the number is calculated.
In December, the U.S. government reported that life expectancy had declined in 2015 for the first time since 1993 as death rates for eight of the 10 leading causes of death, including heart disease, rose.
points to there being a real problem, not just a problem with how the number is calculated.
[deleted]
The topic discussed in the article is important, but the data is not convincing. Based on the lead chart itself, which shows relative improvement, the USA as a whole is in the company of Japan, Sweden, Norway - all countries doing well, with universal healthcare, high life expectancy, etc. It makes you think that the situation is not as dire as the article makes it to appear.
https://github.com/axibase/atsd-use-cases/blob/master/USMort...
> If you have good insurance and you live on the East Coast and the West Coast,
> you probably get the best health care in the world...
> In many parts of the country, top health care simply isn't available.
https://github.com/axibase/atsd-use-cases/blob/master/USMort...
> Based on the lead chart itself ... the situation is not as dire as the article makes it to appear.
The lead chart shows the U.S. ranked 32nd of 35 nations, for both women and men. (My quick count might be off by a little.)
In addition, this sounds bad to me:
[The U.S.] has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the “largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs,” the researchers wrote.
Tellingly, the United States was the first high-income country to see a halt to the pattern of increasing height in adulthood, a reliable indicator of improving public health, according to Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London, who led the research team.
Some Americans get a “bad start to life in nutrition and education” and suffer “high rates of homicide,” Ezzati said. “And then lack of universal insurance. Some people probably get diagnosed too little and too late.
The lead chart shows the U.S. ranked 32nd of 35 nations, for both women and men. (My quick count might be off by a little.)
In addition, this sounds bad to me:
[The U.S.] has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the “largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs,” the researchers wrote.
Tellingly, the United States was the first high-income country to see a halt to the pattern of increasing height in adulthood, a reliable indicator of improving public health, according to Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London, who led the research team.
Some Americans get a “bad start to life in nutrition and education” and suffer “high rates of homicide,” Ezzati said. “And then lack of universal insurance. Some people probably get diagnosed too little and too late.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_ex...
Taken as a whole, the US is low on the list. Taken by state, it really depends on where you live.
Taken as a whole, the US is low on the list. Taken by state, it really depends on where you live.
Interesting (and perhaps emblematic) that DC has the highest life expectancy for whites, yet the lowest for blacks compared to any states that keep that statistic.
D.C.'s population includes, to a first approximation, the governing elite of.the nation (including both government officers and lobbyists, etc.) who come to D.C. because that's where the capital is, and the local population that is there because they can't afford to leave. The former is overwhelmingly white (and higher socioeconomic status that whites generally in the nation), the latter is overwhelmingly black and poor.
So, a story from my wife...
Back in high school, her friend had received a scholarship to visit DC. Being young and from Cambodia, she and her friend at the time had a rosy impression of the US from movies and other media. The assumption must have been that DC, being the capital, would epitomize the glamorous, American-dream image that is exported globally. Apparently on the first night there though, the friend decided to go out exploring the city but very quickly ended up in a dodgy area. Already a little perplexed by the surroundings and some strangely-behaving characters that were wandering around, the friend heard a commotion from above and looked up to see four guys sitting in a tree, yelling and smoking crack / meth (or maybe weed, but I'm guessing not). After returning from the trip, the friend faced some incredulous reactions in response to this story from their other classmates, but now that they're older and more aware of reality in the US, it's probably not so unbelievable.
Back in high school, her friend had received a scholarship to visit DC. Being young and from Cambodia, she and her friend at the time had a rosy impression of the US from movies and other media. The assumption must have been that DC, being the capital, would epitomize the glamorous, American-dream image that is exported globally. Apparently on the first night there though, the friend decided to go out exploring the city but very quickly ended up in a dodgy area. Already a little perplexed by the surroundings and some strangely-behaving characters that were wandering around, the friend heard a commotion from above and looked up to see four guys sitting in a tree, yelling and smoking crack / meth (or maybe weed, but I'm guessing not). After returning from the trip, the friend faced some incredulous reactions in response to this story from their other classmates, but now that they're older and more aware of reality in the US, it's probably not so unbelievable.
Not surprising for whites. D.C. Is home to many of the richest and most powerful families in the nation, most of which are still whites. It's long been studied that the rich have much better access which leads to a higher life expectancy on average.
The blacks is a head scratcher. You would expect Baltimore or Chicago to crush DC thanks to their famous gang violence but maybe those states don't provide statistics.
The blacks is a head scratcher. You would expect Baltimore or Chicago to crush DC thanks to their famous gang violence but maybe those states don't provide statistics.
> You would expect Baltimore or Chicago to crush DC thanks to their famous gang violence but maybe those states don't provide statistics
D.C. has a high violent crime rate, but Republican politicians recently don't trumpet it to attack the local government and the party behind it the way they do Baltimore or, particularly, Chicago's, perhaps because while D.C. has an elected (and Democrat-dominated) city government that is allowed some latitude, it's government is Constitutionally a Congressional power, and Congress regularly exercises that power to prescribe local policy or veto local government acts, so they'd end up pointing the finger at their own failures if they were to blame government in D.C.
D.C. has a high violent crime rate, but Republican politicians recently don't trumpet it to attack the local government and the party behind it the way they do Baltimore or, particularly, Chicago's, perhaps because while D.C. has an elected (and Democrat-dominated) city government that is allowed some latitude, it's government is Constitutionally a Congressional power, and Congress regularly exercises that power to prescribe local policy or veto local government acts, so they'd end up pointing the finger at their own failures if they were to blame government in D.C.
[deleted]
Surely other countries have disparities of their own, though.
I know that race plays a significant factor here. I wonder how much that drags down some of those southeastern states?
edit: Reading farther down breaks things out by race, which suggests that it is only partially responsible. White life expectancy in those southeastern states is quite a bit worse.
edit: Reading farther down breaks things out by race, which suggests that it is only partially responsible. White life expectancy in those southeastern states is quite a bit worse.
I'm a resident of Alabama, 49th on the list. Unhealthy lifestyles is the biggest cause and it cuts across racial lines.
* Astronomically high rates of obesity, diabetes, etc. across all genders, races and incomes.
* Poor diet. The food is delicious, but bad for you. In many places it is very difficult to find healthy food and when you do it tends to be limited in selection and expensive.
* Lack of physical activity. Everything is car oriented, no or very little public transit. Nothing is walkable, and you really don't want to when it's 100 degrees outside in the summer.
The thing that always surprises me is how our bad habits cut across all other demographic lines. I know just as many unhealthy rich people as poor people. Any way you slice it, the unhealthy lifestyle here is a problem.
(FWIW, I'm overweight but working like hell to get down since my doctor warned me that I was pre-diabetic. 50 pounds down, 40 to go!)
* Astronomically high rates of obesity, diabetes, etc. across all genders, races and incomes.
* Poor diet. The food is delicious, but bad for you. In many places it is very difficult to find healthy food and when you do it tends to be limited in selection and expensive.
* Lack of physical activity. Everything is car oriented, no or very little public transit. Nothing is walkable, and you really don't want to when it's 100 degrees outside in the summer.
The thing that always surprises me is how our bad habits cut across all other demographic lines. I know just as many unhealthy rich people as poor people. Any way you slice it, the unhealthy lifestyle here is a problem.
(FWIW, I'm overweight but working like hell to get down since my doctor warned me that I was pre-diabetic. 50 pounds down, 40 to go!)
> Nothing is walkable, and you really don't want to when it's 100 degrees outside in the summer.
YMMV, but I and many others who water fasted (nothing but water) 3-20 days report finding those temperatures far more tolerable, comfortable even. Many people find losing weight easier on periodic water fasts (once a month, for example) than counting calories, so this might aid your weight loss quest (congratulations on your exceptional personal and disciplined accomplishment).
After a certain point during a water fast, your body undergoes physiological changes drawing blood closer to the core, and your extremities feel cold as a result. Further beyond that point (seems to depend upon how keto-adapted you are before you start the fast), if you have fat reserves, the body adapts to burning fat, and the cold sensitivity becomes a little bit better. Personally, I found I really enjoy blistering hot and even humid+hot weather while fasting. High 30-low 40 C, 100+ degree F hot is a pleasant fireplace-like warmth while fasting as long as I'm moving; if I stay still without sunscreen then I can start to feel uncomfortable from the burning sensation on my skin, but my body still is happy with the outside temperature.
If this effect applies broadly across the population, then encouraging people in hot and humid climates to adopt walk-able urban layouts even during the height of summer heat waves might involve encouraging some form of caloric restriction. If you want to experiment with this effect, try doing short-duration fasts by skipping an odd meal here and there now, and by this summer, and you could be walking in the AL sun for an hour or so each day to help hit your end of the summer goal weight.
YMMV, but I and many others who water fasted (nothing but water) 3-20 days report finding those temperatures far more tolerable, comfortable even. Many people find losing weight easier on periodic water fasts (once a month, for example) than counting calories, so this might aid your weight loss quest (congratulations on your exceptional personal and disciplined accomplishment).
After a certain point during a water fast, your body undergoes physiological changes drawing blood closer to the core, and your extremities feel cold as a result. Further beyond that point (seems to depend upon how keto-adapted you are before you start the fast), if you have fat reserves, the body adapts to burning fat, and the cold sensitivity becomes a little bit better. Personally, I found I really enjoy blistering hot and even humid+hot weather while fasting. High 30-low 40 C, 100+ degree F hot is a pleasant fireplace-like warmth while fasting as long as I'm moving; if I stay still without sunscreen then I can start to feel uncomfortable from the burning sensation on my skin, but my body still is happy with the outside temperature.
If this effect applies broadly across the population, then encouraging people in hot and humid climates to adopt walk-able urban layouts even during the height of summer heat waves might involve encouraging some form of caloric restriction. If you want to experiment with this effect, try doing short-duration fasts by skipping an odd meal here and there now, and by this summer, and you could be walking in the AL sun for an hour or so each day to help hit your end of the summer goal weight.
Congrats on your weight loss! Do your self s huge favor and remind yourself everyday for awhile once you plateau how easy it is to put the weight back on. It requires a systemic change to lifestyle, either less sedentary or less calories, in order to maintain your new weight.
Source: disappointed myself not once but twice before I figured it out.
Source: disappointed myself not once but twice before I figured it out.
> our bad habits cut across all other demographic lines. I know just as many unhealthy rich people as poor people.
Thanks for the story and I know little about Alabama personally, but I'd be very surprised if the data said that health and healthy habits are not dependent on wealth.
Thanks for the story and I know little about Alabama personally, but I'd be very surprised if the data said that health and healthy habits are not dependent on wealth.
Notice that is because Mexico and Croatia are expected to have a higher rate of improvement towards 2030, vs. the U.S. only improving by a couple of years. It's not that U.S. life expectancy will decline (although it did last year for the first time), just that others will improve more.
> It's not that U.S. life expectancy will decline (although it did last year for the first time), just that others will improve more.
Is that acceptable? Other wealthy nations are improving much more rapidly. Certainly the U.S. could be doing better. It's immoral, a tragedy, and an embarrassment.
From the article;
The reasons for the United States' lag are well known. It has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the “largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs,” the researchers wrote.
Tellingly, the United States was the first high-income country to see a halt to the pattern of increasing height in adulthood, a reliable indicator of improving public health, according to Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London, who led the research team.
Some Americans get a “bad start to life in nutrition and education” and suffer “high rates of homicide,” Ezzati said. “And then lack of universal insurance. Some people probably get diagnosed too little and too late.
Is that acceptable? Other wealthy nations are improving much more rapidly. Certainly the U.S. could be doing better. It's immoral, a tragedy, and an embarrassment.
From the article;
The reasons for the United States' lag are well known. It has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the “largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs,” the researchers wrote.
Tellingly, the United States was the first high-income country to see a halt to the pattern of increasing height in adulthood, a reliable indicator of improving public health, according to Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London, who led the research team.
Some Americans get a “bad start to life in nutrition and education” and suffer “high rates of homicide,” Ezzati said. “And then lack of universal insurance. Some people probably get diagnosed too little and too late.
And has anyone compared the rates of drug use? Not illegal drugs, the prescriptions. When i lived in the US i was shocked by how many people lived lives soaked in various drugs year after year, young people. That isn't normal in other countries. At some point this trend, paticularly the opiods, has to start shortening average lifespans.
I've seen research saying healthcare providers in the U.S. are much more likely to prescribe drugs than in other wealthy countries.
> At some point this trend, paticularly the opiods, has to start shortening average lifespans.
I don't know what effects drugs, including opiods, have on lifespan. Certainly, taking the right prescription drugs extends lifespan in many cases. But even the wrong one might affect quality of life more than lifespan.
> At some point this trend, paticularly the opiods, has to start shortening average lifespans.
I don't know what effects drugs, including opiods, have on lifespan. Certainly, taking the right prescription drugs extends lifespan in many cases. But even the wrong one might affect quality of life more than lifespan.
Opiates taken recreationally (or prescribed, but taken at doses above what is directed) can reduce life-span due to the lowering of oxygen intake, interestingly. That's ignoring all the other problems inherent in them (overdose, etc.)
Paul Krugman rather famously rate about this a couple years ago [1]. Much of the disparity is from an increase in middle aged whites dying from alcohol and similar causes.
[1] https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/heartland-of-da...
[1] https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/heartland-of-da...
Well, it's not just US health care that has a problem. Consider this: ETH has 19.2K students and a $1.68B annual budget, while Stanford (a comparable university) has 16.3K students and a $5.5B annual budget.
Ignoring whether it's related to healthcare or not, ETH Zurich is a public institution, whereas Stanford is private. Perhaps a more comparable university would be UC Berkeley (which many would consider to be on par with ETH), which has 38.2k students and a ~$2.5B annual budget.
In case you don't want to do the math, ETH Zürich's per-student cost (~88,000) is 33% higher than UC Berkeley's (~65,000). Stanford's (~340,000) is 5.2x Berkeley's and 3.9x ETH Zürich's.
[deleted]
SlateStarCodex's "Considerations On Cost Disease" is a good take https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost...
ETH is not a comparable university to Stanford. It has neither the international reputation & network (which is part of what is being purchased), nor the output (in any regard: science, technology, alumni).
There are several public universities in the US that would however be comparable to ETH: UC Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UNC, etc. ETH still isn't on the level of even a Berkeley when it comes to science or technology output.
There are several public universities in the US that would however be comparable to ETH: UC Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UNC, etc. ETH still isn't on the level of even a Berkeley when it comes to science or technology output.
It's almost as if quality of life and longevity are not primarily due to having the latest, most expensive technology; but rather by having access to practical, affordable solutions.
The article references the healthcare at the costs, but doesn't provide any details.
Does anyone know of studies showing life expectancy at the coasts or by state instead of country aggregate?
Does anyone know of studies showing life expectancy at the coasts or by state instead of country aggregate?
Found some interesting stats:
- http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy/?active...
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_...
TLDR; Coasts being always superior isn't really an accurate depiction. Hawaii (1), CA and Connecticut (tie for 3 and 4) definitely are coastal, but also rich. Minnesota (2) is definitely a surprise for me. NC, SC, and Georgia aren't rank that high and FL is marginally higher.
- http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy/?active...
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_...
TLDR; Coasts being always superior isn't really an accurate depiction. Hawaii (1), CA and Connecticut (tie for 3 and 4) definitely are coastal, but also rich. Minnesota (2) is definitely a surprise for me. NC, SC, and Georgia aren't rank that high and FL is marginally higher.
It's not that surprising when you look at this: http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
A lot of states with the highest life expectancy are among the least obese states. That means there is something about the lifestyle there that promotes better health.
A lot of states with the highest life expectancy are among the least obese states. That means there is something about the lifestyle there that promotes better health.
It's shocking to me how closely related life expectancy seems to be with a state's political alignment based on those lists. I'd love to see the correlation coefficient of percent of conservative voters vs life expectancy.
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/life-expectancy-by-state
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/life-expectancy-by-state
What's also interesting, CA ranked one of the worst in uninsured in that same article http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/uninsured-by-state
I found it interesting that of the 25 states that saw the largest increase in life expectancy from 1985 through 2010, only 5 were not on the coasts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_changes...
My goodness. This article is written backyards. It uses positive phrases in negative ways that make it much harder to read...
How about a comparison of health quality between Republican and Democratic areas?
I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but given the country's current demographics, there's an obvious problem. "Democratic" areas are also to a large extent the areas with money, and population density, and crime, and industry, and higher education, and all sorts of variables you'd want to be able to control for. This enables all sorts of deceptive political infographics...
> "Democratic" areas are also to a large extent the areas with money, and population density, and crime, and industry, and higher education, and all sorts of variables you'd want to be able to control for.
Maybe you wouldn't control for them; for example, some of those variables may be consequences of being Democratic areas. I'd guess higher education is, as the GOP often wants to cut funding for it.
Maybe you wouldn't control for them; for example, some of those variables may be consequences of being Democratic areas. I'd guess higher education is, as the GOP often wants to cut funding for it.
Consequences such as Democrats ruling over the most violent and highest murder rate areas (both per capita) of the nation for decades? Along with Democrats controlling the areas of the nation with by far the highest infant mortality rates. There's no question it's a direct consequence of their governance.
I'm sure there are positive and negative consequences to both parties' governance; it would be interesting and valuable to discuss, learn about, and figure out.
That's not what the parent comment is doing, unfortunately. It's sad that yet another HN discussion is derailed.
That's not what the parent comment is doing, unfortunately. It's sad that yet another HN discussion is derailed.
[deleted]
Why is it a bad thing?
The title alone does not necessarily imply anything negative, I guess. You could take it to mean that Mexico and Croatia will achieve astonishing gains in life expectancy in the near future that will put them on par with the richest nation on earth. Of course, if you read the article and know any further details of the situation around health care in the US (that life expectancy actually declined recently, that the US spends more on health care per capita than any other nation by far without a corresponding improvement in health outcomes), then it's pretty obvious why this is a bad thing. Unless you mean that people living as long as possible is not worth pursuing...
Shouldn't be surprising. Mexico is an emerging first world nation with universal health care, one of the best run systems in the world. Mexican-Americans live longer than white Americans indicating a long lived biology. And non-smoking Mexicans already live longer than non-smoking Americans while the smoking rate is dropping.
Croatia is also an emerging first world nation (though coming via the second world rather than the third as Mexico is) closely related to nations like Italy and Hungary with admirable levels of health and education. It has the support of the EU and all the experience in developing quality social services that implies.
Croatia and Mexico are good countries to share company with in the longevity statistics.
Of course people will try to scare you by implying those are backward countries. It's like when people compare your education statistics to Finland (#1 in elementary education) and Hungary (home of John von Neumann, known as the smartest man of the atomic and computer ages by the great minds that founded both sciences, and the Polgar sisters). Just because you aren't familiar with a nation doesn't mean it isn't great in some way.
Croatia is also an emerging first world nation (though coming via the second world rather than the third as Mexico is) closely related to nations like Italy and Hungary with admirable levels of health and education. It has the support of the EU and all the experience in developing quality social services that implies.
Croatia and Mexico are good countries to share company with in the longevity statistics.
Of course people will try to scare you by implying those are backward countries. It's like when people compare your education statistics to Finland (#1 in elementary education) and Hungary (home of John von Neumann, known as the smartest man of the atomic and computer ages by the great minds that founded both sciences, and the Polgar sisters). Just because you aren't familiar with a nation doesn't mean it isn't great in some way.
I live in Mexico and pay for private health insurance because I want nothing to do with the government ran health system. Don't know what makes you think it's one of the best ran in the world.
I have also lived in Mexico (as an expat) and was blown away by the free public healthcare system. After seeing the doctor, I asked how much the diagnosis and treatment would be. The nurses laughed at me, said "Aye guerito, que lindo", handed me a prescription and sent me on my way.
If the same issue were to come up here in the US, I would have 2 options:
1 - with current ACA insurance - pay $200 + 50% of cost = $700
2 - with no insurance - about $1200 out of pocket
Which option do you think I (and most other people) would prefer?
If the same issue were to come up here in the US, I would have 2 options:
1 - with current ACA insurance - pay $200 + 50% of cost = $700
2 - with no insurance - about $1200 out of pocket
Which option do you think I (and most other people) would prefer?
I pay for private health care also because Dr. SIMM either isn't available or isn't convenient for me. But the fact remains that health care that works for the vast majority of things modern medical science can actually improve is available to every citizen.
And the thing that makes the system one of the best in the world is that it provides care at prices that middle class people can afford and where those prices are public quickly and easily to everyone. And it does so with a relatively small cost compared to GDP.
Compare that to the expense of Canada's system or the insanity of the USA system.
And the thing that makes the system one of the best in the world is that it provides care at prices that middle class people can afford and where those prices are public quickly and easily to everyone. And it does so with a relatively small cost compared to GDP.
Compare that to the expense of Canada's system or the insanity of the USA system.
Ideology?
> Mexico is an emerging first world nation with universal health care, one of the best run systems in the world.
You are joking right? Have you ever set foot in an IMSS Hospital? Describing it as a third world health care service is being generous.
Source: I'm Mexican.
You are joking right? Have you ever set foot in an IMSS Hospital? Describing it as a third world health care service is being generous.
Source: I'm Mexican.
I guess your idea of US hospitals is what E.R. and George Cloney shows you. Sorry for disappointing you but American hospitals and Mexican hospitals are very similar, you have amazing facilities, but you also have some in terrible shape. (I've been in both including IMSS). Source I'm Mexican.
You are joking right? Have you ever set foot in an IMSS Hospital?
Yes. And I've experienced the USA health care system also.
Health care that doesn't require waiting in a dingy room and health care that is effective at treating nearly every condition that modern science can treat well is not the same thing. IMSS will cure you or keep you from getting worse or dying at the same level of effectiveness as the USA's system at 1/30th the cost and you probably can get it for free.
I pay for private care because it's nicer and I don't like waiting, but that private care is very, very affordable also compared to the USA or Canada.
I won't say Mexican health care is perfect, but it is good and it is accessible.
Describing it as a third world health care service is being generous.
I've seen third world health care when I was in Guatemala. It's not just a matter of slow and dingy but of frauds, total lack of available services, dangerously unsterile practices, public ignorance of safe public health practices in both medicine and food handling, and a whole panoply of faults and dangers. And Guatemala is above the world's average income and about average in education/literacy levels. Mexico is not a third world country just because public services aren't as nice as we'd like.
Yes. And I've experienced the USA health care system also.
Health care that doesn't require waiting in a dingy room and health care that is effective at treating nearly every condition that modern science can treat well is not the same thing. IMSS will cure you or keep you from getting worse or dying at the same level of effectiveness as the USA's system at 1/30th the cost and you probably can get it for free.
I pay for private care because it's nicer and I don't like waiting, but that private care is very, very affordable also compared to the USA or Canada.
I won't say Mexican health care is perfect, but it is good and it is accessible.
Describing it as a third world health care service is being generous.
I've seen third world health care when I was in Guatemala. It's not just a matter of slow and dingy but of frauds, total lack of available services, dangerously unsterile practices, public ignorance of safe public health practices in both medicine and food handling, and a whole panoply of faults and dangers. And Guatemala is above the world's average income and about average in education/literacy levels. Mexico is not a third world country just because public services aren't as nice as we'd like.
This comment has many extraordinary claims. Some strong evidence would change them from claims to knowledge.
Here's an interesting discussion of life expectancy and what it may mean or not mean with regards to how health care is provided.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
Not really a great source for serious analysis. Here are some headlines from their front page:
* NOAA Created Fake News by Manipulating Climate Data
* President Trump Already Better Than President Obama Regarding Terrorism, Says Project 21's Nedd
* Ad: Are you tired of supporting corporations that support the left?
* Four Obama regulations Trump can undo right away
* NOAA Created Fake News by Manipulating Climate Data
* President Trump Already Better Than President Obama Regarding Terrorism, Says Project 21's Nedd
* Ad: Are you tired of supporting corporations that support the left?
* Four Obama regulations Trump can undo right away
This is neither a discussion nor interesting.
Indeed. And in particular, consider the thesis of the argument:
> Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.
Says who? The authors use these benchmarks to determine if life expectancy and infant mortality are valid units of measurement. Their actual claim, implicitly, is that life expectancy is unrelated or unaffected by quality of the health care system. And the infant mortality's numbers are biased against the US (here their argument is better but why would the UN knowingly include such biases?). The argument they present is weak...to put it charitably.
> Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.
Says who? The authors use these benchmarks to determine if life expectancy and infant mortality are valid units of measurement. Their actual claim, implicitly, is that life expectancy is unrelated or unaffected by quality of the health care system. And the infant mortality's numbers are biased against the US (here their argument is better but why would the UN knowingly include such biases?). The argument they present is weak...to put it charitably.
The thing is it's not even really an argument, it's a rationalization. It's so strange to me that someone would even try to argue that life expectancy doesn't reflect the quality of health care. what conceivably could be gained by attempting to prove such a counter-intuitive thing?
My reading between the lines is that the health care system is set up perfectly well to accommodate long lives, if and only if you can afford to access it. The authors actually controlled for GDP per capita, so they made their aims plain. Their explanations for poor health outcomes for disadvantaged minorities was also income related.
Not once did they ask the question "why are health outcomes so stratified by income and wealth in the U.S.?", because their ideology is that that is acceptable.
Not once did they ask the question "why are health outcomes so stratified by income and wealth in the U.S.?", because their ideology is that that is acceptable.
Obesity is the problem. And it's so easy to improve: Stop allowing people to use food stamps on unhealthy foods, particularly soda and other sugary drinks.
That's kind of a weird approach. Wealthier men tend to be more obese. White women seem to be the only group who's income and obesity levels seem related.
It's right there in bold: "Most obese adults are not low income (below 130% of the poverty level)."
But maybe food stamps aren't allocated the way i think they are.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db50.htm
It's right there in bold: "Most obese adults are not low income (below 130% of the poverty level)."
But maybe food stamps aren't allocated the way i think they are.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db50.htm
We spend ~5 billion/year giving people free soda. Cutting back on is an extremely easy way to reduce obesity. Maybe it won't solve it. Maybe it won't even make a big difference. But it will certainly help the cause.
According to the NYT, "SNAP households spent 9.3 percent of their grocery budgets on sweetened beverages. That was slightly higher than the 7.1 percent figure for households that do not receive food stamps."
I mean, soda might be a weird thing for you, but it's clearly something that's a standard part of the American diet. It's a 100 billion dollar industry. I don't really understand how removing soda for poor people would have a substantial impact on obesity.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-...
edit
"removing soda for poor people" isn't really even the case. it's just not allowing food stamps to pay for soda. I think, effectively, people will just use cash for that, and not change their habits. So $5 less for gas, or rent, or whatever they might actually use the cash for.
I mean, soda might be a weird thing for you, but it's clearly something that's a standard part of the American diet. It's a 100 billion dollar industry. I don't really understand how removing soda for poor people would have a substantial impact on obesity.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-...
edit
"removing soda for poor people" isn't really even the case. it's just not allowing food stamps to pay for soda. I think, effectively, people will just use cash for that, and not change their habits. So $5 less for gas, or rent, or whatever they might actually use the cash for.
> "removing soda for poor people" isn't really even the case. it's just not allowing food stamps to pay for soda. I think, effectively, people will just use cash for that, and not change their habits. So $5 less for gas, or rent, or whatever they might actually use the cash for.
It's worse than that, because SNAP isn't intended to, and generally doesn't, provide 100% of your food budget. So removing unwanted things from the list of what you can buy with it is completely ineffective because yesterday people were buying soda with SNAP and meats with cash and tomorrow they just buy soda with cash and meats with SNAP.
This is one of the reasons why replacing things like SNAP with a UBI gives an efficiency gain. Because of that substitution effect, the entire bureaucracy dedicated to making sure people buy "the right things" with SNAP doesn't actually restrict what people buy and is a pure dead-weight economic loss.
Compare education subsidies, which actually do restrict what people buy, and are therefore worse than a UBI because they do this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...
And if you actually want people to drink less soda, stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup.
It's worse than that, because SNAP isn't intended to, and generally doesn't, provide 100% of your food budget. So removing unwanted things from the list of what you can buy with it is completely ineffective because yesterday people were buying soda with SNAP and meats with cash and tomorrow they just buy soda with cash and meats with SNAP.
This is one of the reasons why replacing things like SNAP with a UBI gives an efficiency gain. Because of that substitution effect, the entire bureaucracy dedicated to making sure people buy "the right things" with SNAP doesn't actually restrict what people buy and is a pure dead-weight economic loss.
Compare education subsidies, which actually do restrict what people buy, and are therefore worse than a UBI because they do this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...
And if you actually want people to drink less soda, stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup.
> And if you actually want people to drink less soda, stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup.
Eliminate all sugar subsidies would have better health outcomes. Big Sugar is a real lobbying force to reckon with in US politics. Considering how damaging sugar is to the US healthcare system's overall affordability that all US citizens pay for, I'm not opposed to an instantaneous elimination of the subsidies, and let the chips of the attendant unemployment associated with Big Sugar fall where they may. Those subsidies come with a horrendous long tail of consequences.
Eliminate all sugar subsidies would have better health outcomes. Big Sugar is a real lobbying force to reckon with in US politics. Considering how damaging sugar is to the US healthcare system's overall affordability that all US citizens pay for, I'm not opposed to an instantaneous elimination of the subsidies, and let the chips of the attendant unemployment associated with Big Sugar fall where they may. Those subsidies come with a horrendous long tail of consequences.
9.3 is 31% higher than 7.1. That's a pretty significant increase. I wouldn't call that "slightly higher"
Also, sugar is a standard part of the American diet. But Americans are obese. Here is at least one expert who thinks sugar is the problem: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic...
Also, sugar is a standard part of the American diet. But Americans are obese. Here is at least one expert who thinks sugar is the problem: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic...
I'm totally missing the relationship between being poor and being obese. I just do not follow the link you're asserting. It seems like a big non sequitur.
I'd sort of think, that you, as an economist would go for more of a national tax on soda. Basic basic macro, subsidize what you want, and tax what you don't. You seem to not want soda and also want to punish food stamp users. A tax like that would be regressive, and seem to support your (as i understand them) twin goals.
Instead, you're advocating piling on regulation, making both government and commerce more difficult. I kind of think you're just trolling me, but i'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
What exactly is the link between getting food stamps and being obese, and how dose resolving that alleged connection solve obesity in the united states?
edit
I see, after a careful reading, you're not asserting it would solve obesity. You're asserting that soda, if not subsidized would be consumed less, thus improving the situation.
I think you're underestimating people's willingness to use food stamps for other things and cash for soda. I think you're not really evaluating soda vs sugar and are sort of arbitrarily picking that one thing.
I think the costs of the regulations you're proposing would overshadow any effect on the 5% of 5% who's behavior actually changes.
But, ok, now i see, you're not trolling. You're moving the goalposts from soda to sugar - but ok, you're not crazy.
I'd sort of think, that you, as an economist would go for more of a national tax on soda. Basic basic macro, subsidize what you want, and tax what you don't. You seem to not want soda and also want to punish food stamp users. A tax like that would be regressive, and seem to support your (as i understand them) twin goals.
Instead, you're advocating piling on regulation, making both government and commerce more difficult. I kind of think you're just trolling me, but i'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
What exactly is the link between getting food stamps and being obese, and how dose resolving that alleged connection solve obesity in the united states?
edit
I see, after a careful reading, you're not asserting it would solve obesity. You're asserting that soda, if not subsidized would be consumed less, thus improving the situation.
I think you're underestimating people's willingness to use food stamps for other things and cash for soda. I think you're not really evaluating soda vs sugar and are sort of arbitrarily picking that one thing.
I think the costs of the regulations you're proposing would overshadow any effect on the 5% of 5% who's behavior actually changes.
But, ok, now i see, you're not trolling. You're moving the goalposts from soda to sugar - but ok, you're not crazy.
It might 9.3% of their budget because their budget is much smaller. I would bet the 7.1% is possibly skewed due to a lot more people with spare cash finding better ways to fulfill the pleasure aspect (but it's probably craft beer/etc). In the end, buying soda is a combo of poor education/willpower/contemplation.
FWIW, I'm pushing 50 and besides the occasional party, I've never had soda in the house from birth to present, and I probably only treat myself to a soda a 1-2 times a month.
FWIW, I'm pushing 50 and besides the occasional party, I've never had soda in the house from birth to present, and I probably only treat myself to a soda a 1-2 times a month.
When I try to stop drinking pop, I just eat more little Debbie's.
A Texas hospital sent a west African man home with a bottle of antibiotics to treat his viral infection. Turns out, he had Ebola.
Life expectancy is dropping in the US? Shocking. Do tell.
Life expectancy is dropping in the US? Shocking. Do tell.
- In the US, a baby is more like to get intensive medical care if it's born with a condition vs. other countries where they are often labelled as "stillborn"
- The US has a higher than expected premature birth rate. These babies are more like to die, so that pulls down the average life expectancy.
For example, in the United States, arrivals of all living infants are counted as births, but a few European countries (the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland) have more restrictive definitions. For example, France and the Netherlands report live births only if the infant weighs at least 500 grams — a little more than a pound — or were born at 22 weeks’ gestation or later.