Life expectancy in the United States
Lookout
"Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care
spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life
expectancies among developed nations - lower than Italy, Spain and
Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia,
according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do.
Japan tops the list at 83 years."
We need UNIVERSAL heath care so everyone has the same chance at a long
life.
edi...@netpath.net
> "Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care
> spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life
> expectancies among developed nations - lower than Italy, Spain and
> Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia,
> according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do.
Those other countries DON'T have a "Mexico" - a Third World neighbor
sharing a joke border and dumping millions of very-unhealthy young
adults who've never seen a doctor in the homeland into them. Italy,
Spain, China, Japan, and Cuba strictly control immigration - from
anywhere; Cuba is an island - and so is Japan.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Peter Franks
Ya, nice propaganda to push Communism. Get that crap out of our country.
Take a look at those life expectancy numbers when you adjust for violent
crime and automobile accidents.
"Much is made of the fact that U.S. life expectancy is a bit shorter
than that of other countries. But if you adjust for violent crime and
automobile accidents Americans have the longest life expectancy."
Klaus Schadenfreude
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090819/sc_livescience/thetruthaboutrecordsettinguslifeexpectancy
>>
>> "Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care
>> spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life
>> expectancies among developed nations - lower than Italy, Spain and
>> Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia,
>> according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do.
>> Japan tops the list at 83 years."
>>
>> We need UNIVERSAL heath care so everyone has the same chance at a long
>> life.
>
>Ya, nice propaganda to push Communism. Get that crap out of our country.
>
>Take a look at those life expectancy numbers when you adjust for violent
>crime and automobile accidents.
And most violent crimes are committed with guns. Therefore we should
get rid of the guns. I'm glad we agree on that.
>"Much is made of the fact that U.S. life expectancy is a bit shorter
>than that of other countries. But if you adjust for violent crime and
>automobile accidents Americans have the longest life expectancy."
>
>http://www.tribstar.com/opinion/local_story_230224057.html
Great story! It still doesn't change the fact that with preventative
medicine that would be available with Universal Health Care that the
overall costs to EVERYONE would be significantly reduced.
I'm glad we see eye to eye on the basics here.
Peter Franks
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:25:00 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090819/sc_livescience/thetruthaboutrecordsettinguslifeexpectancy
>>>
>>> "Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care
>>> spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life
>>> expectancies among developed nations - lower than Italy, Spain and
>>> Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia,
>>> according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do.
>>> Japan tops the list at 83 years."
>>>
>>> We need UNIVERSAL heath care so everyone has the same chance at a long
>>> life.
>> Ya, nice propaganda to push Communism. Get that crap out of our country.
>>
>> Take a look at those life expectancy numbers when you adjust for violent
>> crime and automobile accidents.
>
> And most violent crimes are committed with guns. Therefore we should
> get rid of the guns. I'm glad we agree on that.
ALL violent crimes are committed by violent people. We SHOULD get rid
of them.
>> "Much is made of the fact that U.S. life expectancy is a bit shorter
>> than that of other countries. But if you adjust for violent crime and
>> automobile accidents Americans have the longest life expectancy."
>>
>> http://www.tribstar.com/opinion/local_story_230224057.html
>
> Great story! It still doesn't change the fact that with preventative
> medicine that would be available with Universal Health Care that the
> overall costs to EVERYONE would be significantly reduced.
>
> I'm glad we see eye to eye on the basics here.
That isn't the point.
Nick Miller
> > wrote:
>
> >> Lookout wrote:
> >>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090819/sc_livescience/thetrutha...
>
> >>> "Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care
> >>> spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life
> >>> expectancies among developed nations - lower than Italy, Spain and
> >>> Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia,
> >>> according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do.
> >>> Japan tops the list at 83 years."
>
> >>> We need UNIVERSAL heath care so everyone has the same chance at a long
> >>> life.
> >> Ya, nice propaganda to push Communism. Get that crap out of our country.
>
> >> Take a look at those life expectancy numbers when you adjust for violent
> >> crime and automobile accidents.
>
> > And most violent crimes are committed with guns. Therefore we should
> > get rid of the guns. I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> ALL violent crimes are committed by violent people. We SHOULD get rid
> of them.
>
> >> "Much is made of the fact that U.S. life expectancy is a bit shorter
> >> than that of other countries. But if you adjust for violent crime and
> >> automobile accidents Americans have the longest life expectancy."
>
> >>http://www.tribstar.com/opinion/local_story_230224057.html
>
> > Great story! It still doesn't change the fact that with preventative
> > medicine that would be available with Universal Health Care that the
> > overall costs to EVERYONE would be significantly reduced.
>
> > I'm glad we see eye to eye on the basics here.
>
> That isn't the point.
Hi Peter,
I am trying to substantiate the claim about life expectancy minus
violent crimes and car accidents. Have you seen any articles which
have cited their source? I see the reference made, but it would be
helpful to find out how they come to the numbers.
Peter Franks
Here's the best that I've found to date:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf
Table 1.5 is most relevant, uses OECD numbers.
Lookout
wrote:
>Nick Miller wrote:
What exactly do you get from those numbers? Be specific as to how it
affects the previous data.
Peter Franks
It shows that the US has the highest mean life expectancy, which
directly contradicts the basis for the thread.
In fact, if you take the premise of the thread, using more appropriate
data, you arrive at the conclusion that better off in a country WITHOUT
universal health care.
Lookout
Peter Franks
So, you are going to base your entire socialist agenda on which
minuscule range of data?
Lookout
wrote:
I have no socialist agenda. You're lying again.
I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
Peter Franks
Hardly.
Your statement: "We need UNIVERSAL heath care so everyone has the same
chance at a long life." That is a socialist agenda.
> I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
2001 is current and relevant. Do you have data that is more
recent/current according to your reckoning?
No Bammer
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:25:00 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Lookout wrote:
>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090819/sc_livescience/thetruthaboutrecordsettinguslifeexpectancy
>>>
>>>"Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care
>>>spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life
>>>expectancies among developed nations - lower than Italy, Spain and
>>>Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia,
>>>according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do.
>>>Japan tops the list at 83 years."
>>>
>>>We need UNIVERSAL heath care so everyone has the same chance at a long
>>>life.
>>
>>Ya, nice propaganda to push Communism. Get that crap out of our country.
>>
>>Take a look at those life expectancy numbers when you adjust for violent
>>crime and automobile accidents.
>
And most violent crimes are committed by NIGGERS with guns.
Lookout
wrote:
YOU are defining that as a socialist agenda. You're wrong.
>
>> I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
>
>2001 is current and relevant. Do you have data that is more
>recent/current according to your reckoning?
I posted it when I started this thread.
Lookout
wrote:
Can you prove that? Nah..you're a lying little twerp who doesn't know
shit.
Peter Franks
No, that is the definition of socialism -- benevolence through compulsion.
>>> I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
>> 2001 is current and relevant. Do you have data that is more
>> recent/current according to your reckoning?
>
> I posted it when I started this thread.
Right. And I pointed out that you need to exclude violent crime and
accidents if you are to make any sort of comparison or conclusion
regarding life expectancy, health care, and other countries.
From your article:
>>>
Between 2006 and 2007, declines in mortality rates were found for eight
of the 15 top causes of death: influenza and pneumonia (down 8.4
percent), *homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent)*, heart disease
(4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent),
hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent). (emphasis added)
<<<
Now go and find relevant data. Until then, my 'old' 2001 data stands as
more correct and relevant than what you have posted.
Good luck.
Lookout
wrote:
Nope. You certainly didn't learn that in any classroom.
>
>>>> I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
>>> 2001 is current and relevant. Do you have data that is more
>>> recent/current according to your reckoning?
>>
>> I posted it when I started this thread.
>
>Right. And I pointed out that you need to exclude violent crime and
>accidents if you are to make any sort of comparison or conclusion
>regarding life expectancy, health care, and other countries.
>
> From your article:
>
> >>>
>Between 2006 and 2007, declines in mortality rates were found for eight
>of the 15 top causes of death: influenza and pneumonia (down 8.4
>percent), *homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent)*, heart disease
>(4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent),
>hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent). (emphasis added)
><<<
>
>Now go and find relevant data.
Nope. YOU prove that the numbers have changed.
>more correct and relevant than what you have posted.
>
>Good luck.
Nope. Not even close. 2001 is old and useless.
Like most of you in here.
Peter Franks
>>>>> I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
>>>> 2001 is current and relevant. Do you have data that is more
>>>> recent/current according to your reckoning?
>>> I posted it when I started this thread.
>> Right. And I pointed out that you need to exclude violent crime and
>> accidents if you are to make any sort of comparison or conclusion
>> regarding life expectancy, health care, and other countries.
>>
>> From your article:
>>
>> Between 2006 and 2007, declines in mortality rates were found for eight
>> of the 15 top causes of death: influenza and pneumonia (down 8.4
>> percent), *homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent)*, heart disease
>> (4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent),
>> hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent). (emphasis added)
>> <<<
>>
>> Now go and find relevant data.
>
> Nope. YOU prove that the numbers have changed.
I didn't say they had or had not changed. Your numbers are flat out
wrong for a comparison.
So, either you find relevant numbers, or the entire premise of your
thread falls apart.
You know, the fact of the matter is that your premise has been totally
blown out of the water. Don't even waste the time looking for 'current
values', no one cares any more because your argument is senseless.
Have a nice day.
-pf
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> I go by CURRENT data. What's wrong with that?
>>>>> 2001 is current and relevant. Do you have data that is more
>>>>> recent/current according to your reckoning?
>>>> I posted it when I started this thread.
>>> Right. And I pointed out that you need to exclude violent crime and
>>> accidents if you are to make any sort of comparison or conclusion
>>> regarding life expectancy, health care, and other countries.
>>>
>>> From your article:
>>>
>>> Between 2006 and 2007, declines in mortality rates were found for eight
>>> of the 15 top causes of death: influenza and pneumonia (down 8.4
>>> percent), *homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent)*, heart disease
>>> (4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent),
>>> hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent). (emphasis added)
>>> <<<
>>>
>>> Now go and find relevant data.
>>
>> Nope. YOU prove that the numbers have changed.
>
>I didn't say they had or had not changed. Your numbers are flat out
>wrong for a comparison.
I disagree
>So, either you find relevant numbers, or the entire premise of your
>thread falls apart.
Nope.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>I disagree
>Nope.
This is about all Lookout can muster for an argument nowadays.
[chuckle]