IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Perhaps it is good that we don't have a good healthcare system, and that our lifespan is lower. We are rapidly becoming over-populated, with species of animals disappearing, water shortages, degradation of our environment, etc. We are increasingly hated across the world, often for good reason (e.g., entering into war to grab oil).

What are your views?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

U.S. life span shorter
August 11, 2007 05:08:02 PM PST

Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.

For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.

Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

I saw the same article, imposter, but you need to look past the headlines and also learn that a third of Americans are overweight, and so forth and so on. Just maybe our affluence is causing us to be couch potatoes, which does not make us healthy.

0 Replies

The news that Americans are over-weight is not new news - FYI. Most Americans are already aware of that simple fact - even most children.

What that article says is that we are no 41 of developed countries on logivity. That means "health care" is lacking. Are you really that dumb?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The news that Americans are over-weight is not new news - FYI. Most Americans are already aware of that simple fact - even most children.

What that article says is that we are no 41 of developed countries on logivity. That means "health care" is lacking. Are you really that dumb?

Attention out there, imposter will call you "dumb" if you dare to suggest that your country can have a 30% obesity rate and still have more "logivity" than a country that has only a 3.2% rate, as in Japan, simply by virtue of a better health care system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Keep it up imposter, keep digging. You are at least good for a few laughs.

0 Replies

Common sense would suggest that a good universal health care system and a low obesity rate are somewhat related, don't you think?

0 Replies

Explain how they are linked. Please educate me on that one.

0 Replies

okie, Do you know what "health care" means?

0 Replies

Okay imposter, explain that will you. While you are at it, also explain "logivity."

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Explain how they are linked. Please educate me on that one.

Well, in the United States the rate of smokers dropped rapidly and drastically after the government banned smoking in many places, financed public awareness campaigns to educate its citizens about the negative effects of smoking, raised taxes on tobacco products and banned advertising.

Seems that you can really influence these factors when you institute national programmes. And it would seem to make sense that a country that has a universal health care system would want to lower the costs on the system by improving the health of its citizens.

You know, all of this is really basic. Nothing but common sense.

0 Replies

They did the smoking program without your so-called national health care. So educating the public about obesity could be done without a national health care program. No link is required. In fact as long as the country is a free country, people make personal choices about all of that, unless you would now like to make diets and lifestyle compulsory. Is that what you are advocating?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

They did the smoking program without your so-called national health care. So educating the public about obesity could be done without a national health care program. No link is required.

I didn't say that a link is required. I didn't say that a universal health care system is required to lower the obesity rate.

I just said that common sense would suggest that a good universal health care system and a low obesity rate are somewhat related. Try to pay attention.

okie wrote:

In fact as long as the country is a free country, people make personal choices about all of that, unless you would now like to make diets and lifestyle compulsory. Is that what you are advocating?

Of course not. You have the right to die as young as you want.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

They did the smoking program without your so-called national health care. So educating the public about obesity could be done without a national health care program. No link is required. In fact as long as the country is a free country, people make personal choices about all of that, unless you would now like to make diets and lifestyle compulsory. Is that what you are advocating?

I wonder Okie.....during these anti-smoking campaigns, smoking being banned in puplic places, and the like......what position were you on?

0 Replies

old europe, lifestyle and cultural habits are caused by many factors that are generally unrelated to whether a country has a universal health care system or not. My point in bringing up the subject of obesity was to point out that just maybe we have the best health care system in the world if you consider the population that the health care system is dealing with. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that longevity is not directly proportional to how good the health care system is. A very large component of longevity includes cultural factors, including lifestyle choices in the way of diet, exercise, smoking, work habits, etc.

When you consider Japan with a 3.2% obesity rate compared to the U.S. at 30%, I think it is somewhat surprising that our lifespans are only the 3 or 4 years shorter.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

okie wrote:
They did the smoking program without your so-called national health care. So educating the public about obesity could be done without a national health care program. No link is required. In fact as long as the country is a free country, people make personal choices about all of that, unless you would now like to make diets and lifestyle compulsory. Is that what you are advocating?

I wonder Okie.....during these anti-smoking campaigns, smoking being banned in puplic places, and the like......what position were you on?

I am anti-smoking, but being in favor of personal choice, I have to try to have a balance on this. I was in favor of bans where smoking encroached on my ability to breathe clean air, so airplanes and other public places, I liked the smoking bans and was in favor of them. For restaurants, I can choose not to go to those that allowed smoking, but yes, I appreciate the bans there as well.

To back up a bit, in light of the EPA setting limits on all kinds of supposedly dangerous substances in food and in the air, lead in paint, asbestos, etc., I think if we are actually serious about eliminating public health risks, we would just ban smoking entirely as the first logical thing to do. But you have to balance it all with public opinion, after all, the people should have some say in this.

If people have to pay for the privilege of smoking to kill themselves, I think that is the best way to deal with the problem. Paying for your own health insurance, wherein penalties and higher rates are placed on smokers, is one way to do it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If people have to pay for the privilege of smoking to kill themselves, I think that is the best way to deal with the problem. Paying for your own health insurance, wherein penalties and higher rates are placed on smokers, is one way to do it.

This 'adjusted' approach to healthcare intrigues me. Should women be forced to pay more for healthcare because having babies are expensive? Same question for every malady?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe, lifestyle and cultural habits are caused by many factors that are generally unrelated to whether a country has a universal health care system or not. My point in bringing up the subject of obesity was to point out that just maybe we have the best health care system in the world if you consider the population that the health care system is dealing with.

Funny.

So you're saying that people in the rest of the world are just so freaking healthy that they can afford to have worse health care systems than the United States, but it still won't bring down their life expectancy?

And that America, with "the best health care system in the world" is so good because it manages to increase life expectancy up to number 42 in the world? So where would life expectancy be without the best system in the world? Number 187?

<smiles>

Those cultural habits must be a real bugger, eh?

0 Replies

Similar to any other kind of insurance, the choices people make should be free game for insurance companies. For example, if you live in a floodplain, you will pay alot more for flood insurance. If you live a long distance from a fire station, your insurance rates are higher. If you drive a safer car, you may receive lower rates. Such as a model with airbags, etc. I think that is fair for insurance companies to do that.

In regard to health care, people that knowingly choose to increase their risks, I think insurance companies should be able to charge more. After all, why should I have to pay my insurance company more to cover the people that don't care about their health.

In contrast, I do not believe an insurance company should be able to penalize people for health risks, over which the people have no choice, or pre-existing conditions over which they have no control or had no control. In regard to having babies, a man should also be part of the equation, so no, men and women should share in the cost of having babies, and the insurance that goes with it. At least that is my first gut thought on the subject.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
old europe, lifestyle and cultural habits are caused by many factors that are generally unrelated to whether a country has a universal health care system or not. My point in bringing up the subject of obesity was to point out that just maybe we have the best health care system in the world if you consider the population that the health care system is dealing with.

Funny.

So you're saying that people in the rest of the world are just so freaking healthy that they can afford to have worse health care systems than the United States, but it still won't bring down their life expectancy?

And that America, with "the best health care system in the world" is so good because it manages to increase life expectancy up to number 42 in the world? So where would life expectancy be without the best system in the world? Number 187?

<smiles>

Those cultural habits must be a real bugger, eh?

You are using extreme examples, and also there is not that great a difference between number 42 and number 1, so yes, I believe lifestyle is at least as important as health care. By saying we have a very good health care system, I don't know if it is the best in the world, but I think it is very good based on my observation, I am not saying that other country's have no health care. Just as the case with most industries, medical technology is worldwide, and nobody has a monopoly on good health care. I do believe that if the obesity rate went down to 3.2% in the U.S., and our smoking rates declined further, our lifespans would be significantly higher, perhaps as high as Japan, or higher.

I am simply saying that you offend people's intelligence by suggesting that life span is directly proportional to the quality of the health care system, and therefore the health care in the U.S. is inferior. I do not believe it in a New York minute. Such reasoning is obviously flawed and I have cited solid evidence in only one factor that points out one flaw of possibly many. How about smoking rates by country? How about exercise, amount of walking by country?

Also, there are differences by area in the U.S. that can be used to point out the variations of factors that are influencial, besides health care.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

there is not that great a difference between number 42 and number 1

5,6 years. Not a lot? Okay.

okie wrote:

By saying we have a very good health care system, I don't know if it is the best in the world, but I think it is very good based on my observation, I am not saying that other country's have no health care.

Hm yeah. Sounds just a wee bit different than what you said before. And you know, a lot of these things are actually very comparable across countries - unless you are alleging that Americans have different genes than, say, Europeans or Australians.

okie wrote:

Just as the case with most industries, medical technology is worldwide, and nobody has a monopoly on good health care. I do believe that if the obesity rate went down to 3.2% in the U.S., and our smoking rates declined further, our lifespans would be significantly higher, perhaps as high as Japan, or higher.

Good. Start working on it.

okie wrote:

I am simply saying that you offend people's intelligence by suggesting that health care is directly proportional to lifespan and therefore the health care in the U.S. is inferior. I do not believe it in a New York minute.

I never said that "health care is directly proportional to lifespan." You know, okie, it would be nice if you could refrain from misrepresenting my position in such an outrageous way. If you need to put up that straw man, your position appears to be pretty weak.

However, not "directly proportional" does obviously not mean that there is no correlation. All these factors (life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survival rates, etc. etc.) usually give a pretty good picture about how a specific health care system is doing.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
there is not that great a difference between number 42 and number 1

5,6 years. Not a lot? Okay.

So you use Andorra, a country of 180 square miles, as a good example, with a life expectancy of 83.5 years, more than 1.3 years better than the closest rival? And I wonder how accurate that is, as the following site gives a life expectancy of 76 for males and 81 for females there. How come the wide divergence here in the data? What is accurate?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3164.htm

I think a comparison to Japan is the best measure, which is at 81.25, so the U.S. trails by 3.4 years with a life expectancy of 77.85. As I must repeat again, not bad for a country that is 30% obese as compared to Japan's 3.2%.

Quote:

okie wrote:
By saying we have a very good health care system, I don't know if it is the best in the world, but I think it is very good based on my observation, I am not saying that other country's have no health care.

Hm yeah. Sounds just a wee bit different than what you said before. And you know, a lot of these things are actually very comparable across countries - unless you are alleging that Americans have different genes than, say, Europeans or Australians.

Not much different. I suggested that just maybe we have the best health care system in the world considering how out of shape we are. In regard to genes, I don't know what you are alluding to, but races do show a wide divergence of life spans. I don't know if its genes or life style, possibly a combination of both, but I suspect mostly lifestyle.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Just as the case with most industries, medical technology is worldwide, and nobody has a monopoly on good health care. I do believe that if the obesity rate went down to 3.2% in the U.S., and our smoking rates declined further, our lifespans would be significantly higher, perhaps as high as Japan, or higher.

Good. Start working on it.

Start working on what? I am not obese and I don't smoke, so are you suggesting that it is my responsibility to change the other 300 million people here?

Quote:

okie wrote:
I am simply saying that you offend people's intelligence by suggesting that health care is directly proportional to lifespan and therefore the health care in the U.S. is inferior. I do not believe it in a New York minute.

I never said that "health care is directly proportional to lifespan." You know, okie, it would be nice if you could refrain from misrepresenting my position in such an outrageous way. If you need to put up that straw man, your position appears to be pretty weak.

Who is mis-representing here? People have been carrying on this mission to bring universal health care to the U.S., and suggesting our health care is inferior, and one of the common reasons cited is life span. So now that I offer evidence to the contrary, I am accused of putting up straw men. I am simply pointing out that there are many factors involved in life expectancies.

Quote:

However, not "directly proportional" does obviously not mean that there is no correlation. All these factors (life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survival rates, etc. etc.) usually give a pretty good picture about how a specific health care system is doing.

Maybe there is a slight correlation, but maybe it correlates in a different way than you might assume from some casual analysis? Maybe the fact that the society here is so out of shape coupled with the fact that we still live to be almost 78 indicates our health care system is pretty decent? I simply invite people to examine the issue with a little more logic.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know