old europe wrote:okie wrote:Back to this. I don't suggest adjusting the rates, but if you are going to use the figures to compare life expectancy for the purpose of attempting to evaluate relative quality of health care from country to country or group to group, then yes it makes total sense to also attempt to correct or adjust the figures with what we know about some of the other major factors on life expectancy. Those other major factors include at least rates of obesity, smoking, accidents, and homicide/crime rate. Another one would be drug use, and another infant mortality rate. There are many, but these are some of the major ones. All of this merely points out one important fact, and that is the fact that the quality of health care is only one of many important factors that influence life expectancy. If you are going to use the life expectancy figures, then you should at least try to use an equation that is more balanced.
Do we "also attempt to correct" the figures for those other countries? For example, the percentage of smokers is higher in most other countries than in the United States. Should we assume that their life expectancy (which is, statistically, already higher than in the US) is even higher than that - because it should be
corrected?
First of all to be clear about one thing. I am not suggesting adjusting figures as published in some official statistic, to be republished as an adjusted number. I think we are all clear about that, but based on a comment by someone, I wasn't sure, probably not you, but a life expectancy is what it is, regardless of the factors. What I am merely pointing out, which is so reasonable, is that if anyone purports to use life expectancy as a direct indicator of the quality of health care by country, they should also attempt to take into account other major factors that affect life expectancy by country. So yes, if smoking is considerably higher in some countries as compared to the U.S., if you wish to compare the quality of health care between those two countries, you would need to adjust for other factors like smoking, obesity, accident rates, etc., and smoking. At least look at the big factors where they might differ widely, and from the data, we know they do widely differ from culture to culture, lifestyle to lifestyle. If you throw up your hands and say that is impractical, then if anything it is only demonstrating the impracticality of trying to compare health care quality by looking at life expectancy. Actually, I don't think it is totally impractical, but it is difficult.
Now, I admit every lifestyle factor cannot be accounted for, but if you are going to try to use life expectancy as one indicator of health care, then I am pointing out that the other major ones should also be compared as part of the equation, thats all.
Quote:And if you adjust the US figures for traffic accidents, do we "also attempt to correct" the figures for France for lack of ACs? For example, the heat spell in Europe back in 2003 killed an extraordinarily large number of people in France. That was, in large parts, attributed to the fact that private houses in France rarely ever have air conditioning - simply because there rarely used to be several very hot days in a row in France. Different in the US, where almost every house or apartment has AC.
Do we correct life expectancy in France for those "cultural factors" as well? Would we get "an equation that is more balanced" that way?
If you have data to prove no air conditioners shorten life span, then it is fair game. You are not disproving my argument at all, but rather you are adding evidence that life spans are due to many factors, area to area. But I would argue that you should first look at the major factors that affect life span, not the smaller ones, such as air conditioners. And as pointed out already, I think obesity, smoking, and accident rates are fairly major. These factors can be demonstrated to affect overall statistics of lifespans by months to many years.
So when a statistic that blares to all the world that the U.S. is 41st in life expectancy, or some such number, and using it as evidence that our health care system is failing us, but at the same time the country near the very top, as Japan, has a life span of only around 4 years more than ours but has an obesity rate of less than 5% compared to 20 or 30% in the U.S., then I think it is highly appropriate to point out the other factors besides health care. This is just basic common sense, and I find it revealing that so many people criticize common sense here.
) tongue-lashing !
