Who would have guessed this?

The United States ranks only 36th in the world for life expectancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy

Not surprising at all. The rest of the civilized world suffers from government-controlled health care, which keeps them alive longer at considerably less cost. And since everyone knows that those last few years of life tend to be the worst, our system in the United States does us a favor by killing us off early and making sure little money is left for our children to fight over.

What do you mean by killing us off early, our system will keep us alive(if thats what you want to call it) until every last dollar of H.C. I. & savings are totally used up. After all should we expect any less from the most expensive or a best health care system in the world?

Culture more likely accounts for the difference. Americans are obstinate when it comes to their diet. People in the US don't know how, or what to eat and, if by chance they do know, they ignore a proper diet in favor of gratification through fast and/or rich foods. Americans shun red wine and adore the wrong fats and carbs. They don't exercise. Most compulsively overeat.

Americans worry more because they care more about their country than most Europeans. They are goaded into keeping up with the Jones. They are taught that money is everything. They are fed a line of worrisome drivel from a media intent upon sensationalism. Those cultural factors, no exercise and a poor diet, add up to a cultural formula for disaster in vital statistics. There is no cure in sight for our cultural behavior.

Even if health care were available "free" to all, it would take a generation or more to change the "doctoring" behavior of most Americans. As it stands, Americans rely too heavily on health care to correct the ills of a lifetime of poor living habits.

Did anyone take time to actually at the look numbers on this chart? Clearly there's not a whole lot of difference in lifespan between the US and countries with socialized medicine or for that matter any of the top rated countries...say Great Britain and the United States. As Mike said the difference can be accounted for due to cultural differences. It seems to me that those countries have sold their liberty for not a whole lot in return. Just saying... Lisa

Can anybody find a chart listing world wide childhood mortality? A country's life expectancy rate is influenced more by its infant & childhood mortality rate. A child's death has a larger impact on this number than an adult who's life has contributed, lets say, 78 years to the total (the numerator).

This thread could us a link to a chart showing life expectancy going forward from a specific age. Restated to how long does one live after they attain the age of, for example, 65? That should show where age/lifestyle and medical specialties, like pediatric vs geriatric, excel.

Edit: Found it - List of countries by infant mortality rates
Interestingly, the US is #34 per the UN (7.07/1,000) and #46 (6.26/1,000)by our CIA

lowfog01 wrote:It seems to me that those countries have sold their liberty for not a whole lot in return.

The freedom to die for lack of health care is not a liberty most people want to pursue.

Perhaps the saddest part for me is that Cuba eeks in just above us, though we are at virtually a dead heat tie. All my life I've been taught and/or assumed that living conditions there (including health care) are totally abysmal.

rberq wrote:

lowfog01 wrote:It seems to me that those countries have sold their liberty for not a whole lot in return.

The freedom to die for lack of health care is not a liberty most people want to pursue.

Says you - that is purely your opinion. No one lacked access to health care before this law was passed; everyone had access to medical care of some kind through Medicaid or emergency room services. My opinion is that giving up my liberties - my ability to say what I do with my life or my money - over my expected life span of 81 years just to gain one or two years of additional time on earth is not worth the cost. In the words of Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." That's true today as in his time. Lisa

rberq wrote:

lowfog01 wrote:It seems to me that those countries have sold their liberty for not a whole lot in return.

The freedom to die for lack of health care is not a liberty most people want to pursue.

Oh yeah, I don't know how people survived in the barren wasteland before the Kennedy/Nixon 1973 HMO Act.

Whats so evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Mai ... ct_of_1973?

The US life expectancy is lower because of unnatural deaths, we're crazy like that. I'm not joking either, look it up.

The infant mortality rate is BS too, there are a few things that contribute to poor rankings of the US:

• Many countries like France who I believe is top of the list have a cutoff for weight where the baby even if born alive and then dies is not recorded as death after birth. Every live birth in the US is considered live.
• Superior health care in the US that allows severely premature infants to be born alive that would never be born alive in another countries. These births are more likely to result in death.
• The black population which is considerably higher in the US has an abnormal amount of deaths in infants and this stat transcends all levels of income.

While on the topic the WHO's overall ranking for health is BS as well. As one example they based 25% of the score on how much was spent regardless of outcome, in other words a poor country like Cuba that spent nothing and outscores the US simply because they spent less... makes a lot of sense right?


-----edit----

I'll add one more reason to infant mortality list, the parade of low lifes unwilling to take the help available to them who's first visit to the doctor is when they are about to give birth. No neonatal care, poor lifestyle to begin with resulting in sick kids who end up dieing because of poor care in the home even if they are born alive and fairly healthy.

I think abortions are counted in the infant mortality rate so that skews our numbers compared to other countries as well.

jpete wrote:I think abortions are counted in the infant mortality rate so that skews our numbers compared to other countries as well.

The infant mortality rate is based on live births, the child has to be born alive before it becomes a factor. Stillborns, abortions or any other situation where the baby was not born alive are not counted for this statistic. It extends to 1 or 2 years old.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... _mortality

Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.

Interesting point. Most countries wouldn't or DON'T have the capability to even attempt to deliver babies as early as we do.