Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In general the US uninsured do worse than any where else.
To be fair, talking about rates of death per 100,000, without giving any context, is less useful than survival rates.
For instance, the cancer type in which Americans have the highest rate per 100,000 people, is lung cancer. But why is that? Is that because of a lack of health insurance? Absolutely not. It is because we have a lot of smokers, and possibly because we have terrible air quality. Who knows? But it certainly isn't because we don't have universal healthcare. Since our lung cancer survival rate is much higher than the rest of the world.
Another cancer type listed, is cervical cancer. But if you know anything about cervical cancer, something like 90% of cases is a result of the HPV virus. It is not because of a lack of healthcare. And we have the highest survival rate of cervical cancer as well.
I don't know if the uninsured do worse than "anywhere else", I mean, you're talking about nearly 200 other countries. I assume you are talking about maybe ~20 or so of the most-developed countries.
But you are still leaving out context. Why are the poor dying faster than the rich? Is it really because they aren't getting healthcare? The biggest gap between the rich and poor, is not the result of healthcare, it is the result of lifestyles.
Poor people are more likely to smoke, eat unhealthily, to be overweight, to drive older/smaller/unsafe vehicles, to be the victim of violent crime, among many other factors.
Also, black people, as a result of genetics/biology, tend to have higher risks of heart disease. And being someone who is part Native-American, I know that the natives have a greater risk of diabetes.
They can now do genetic testing to find out what types of diseases(especially cancer) you will likely get.
In fact, a long life can largely be predicted by looking at your genes.
To be fair, talking about rates of death per 100,000, without giving any context, is less useful than survival rates.
For instance, the cancer type in which Americans have the highest rate per 100,000 people, is lung cancer. But why is that? Is that because of a lack of health insurance? Absolutely not. It is because we have a lot of smokers, and possibly because we have terrible air quality. Who knows? But it certainly isn't because we don't have universal healthcare. Since our lung cancer survival rate is much higher than the rest of the world.
Another cancer type listed, is cervical cancer. But if you know anything about cervical cancer, something like 90% of cases is a result of the HPV virus. It is not because of a lack of healthcare. And we have the highest survival rate of cervical cancer as well.
I don't know if the uninsured do worse than "anywhere else", I mean, you're talking about nearly 200 other countries. I assume you are talking about maybe ~20 or so of the most-developed countries.
But you are still leaving out context. Why are the poor dying faster than the rich? Is it really because they aren't getting healthcare? The biggest gap between the rich and poor, is not the result of healthcare, it is the result of lifestyles.
Poor people are more likely to smoke, eat unhealthily, to be overweight, to drive older/smaller/unsafe vehicles, to be the victim of violent crime, among many other factors.
Also, black people, as a result of genetics/biology, tend to have higher risks of heart disease. And being someone who is part Native-American, I know that the natives have a greater risk of diabetes.
They can now do genetic testing to find out what types of diseases(especially cancer) you will likely get.
In fact, a long life can largely be predicted by looking at your genes.
AS the cited paper pointed out a number of nations have higher smoking rates than the US so that does not fly.
There are a number of reasons why survival rate is not a good indicator. One is that simply doing early screening can result in better survival while actually doing nothing to treat the disease. There are papers on the subject. And note that the survival rates are driven almost completely by two cancers where very active early detection campaigns went on in the states during the time of interest. Why would the US do worse on lung cancer than breast cancer and prostate cancer. I am very familiar with prostate cancer for which I had surgery...which has clearly since been shown to have been an overkill. I certainly got rid of the cancer but I would also have survived to now without the surgery. So my treatment, though likely the wrong thing to have done, would have scored as a five year score.
Let's focus on those stats that seem to suggest that (white) people in Conservative states seem to live considerably less than (white) people in Liberal states.
First, "considerably less" is an overstatement. In most cases, you're talking about a fraction of a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by candalf
Clearly, murder and car accidents do not explain the discrepancy between "red and "blue" states (or the US and other developed countries if we want to go there).
What you're leaving out is the age at which people die. It is certainly true that far more people die of heart disease and cancer than people who die from murder and car-accidents, but most of the people who die of heart disease and cancer are also much older. Usually above the average life-expectancy rate.
On the other hand, the vast-majority of murder victims, are young males. And in the case of car-accidents, it is often families with young children. Young men and women pay higher rates for car-insurance for a reason.
Life-expectancy rate is based on the average age which someone dies. Thus, if one person dies at 79, and another dies at the age of 1; The average life-expectancy is 40.
It doesn't take many teenagers getting shot, or minivans full of kids, and your life-expectancy will drop like a rock.
With all that said, as a general rule, white people live longer in states which are predominantly white. Especially rural predominantly white states, where the primary industry is agriculture.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-19-2016 at 04:29 PM..
AS the cited paper pointed out a number of nations have higher smoking rates than the US so that does not fly.
There are a number of reasons why survival rate is not a good indicator. One is that simply doing early screening can result in better survival while actually doing nothing to treat the disease. There are papers on the subject. And note that the survival rates are driven almost completely by two cancers where very active early detection campaigns went on in the states during the time of interest. Why would the US do worse on lung cancer than breast cancer and prostate cancer. I am very familiar with prostate cancer for which I had surgery...which has clearly since been shown to have been an overkill. I certainly got rid of the cancer but I would also have survived to now without the surgery. So my treatment, though likely the wrong thing to have done, would have scored as a five year score.
The data says that, Americans in-general are more likely to die of lung-cancer, but that they are also more likely to survive lung cancer(at least, per the statistics).
Your claim is that Americans are more-likely to be screened for cancer? But isn't that exactly the opposite argument that liberals have been making for years? They claim that tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they don't have health-insurance, and are thus unable to be screened for cancer. And thus, they tend to not realize they have cancer until it is in the later-stages of cancer, where survival rates are much lower.
Either someone is completely fudging up the numbers. Or there must be a reason that Americans are so much more-likely to get lung cancer. And if not smoking, then what is it? Air-quality? Genetics?
In any case, the article you posted, even if you read it without any context, still shows that America is generally better, or middling when it comes to death rates from cancer(and we can assume some "selection bias" when it comes to what cancers they chose for the article). And nothing in its argument, or even your argument, makes a case for universal healthcare.
The data says that, Americans in-general are more likely to die of lung-cancer, but that they are also more likely to survive lung cancer(at least, per the statistics).
Your claim is that Americans are more-likely to be screened for cancer? But isn't that exactly the opposite argument that liberals have been making for years? They claim that tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they don't have health-insurance, and are thus unable to be screened for cancer. And thus, they tend to not realize they have cancer until it is in the later-stages of cancer, where survival rates are much lower.
Either someone is completely fudging up the numbers. Or there must be a reason that Americans are so much more-likely to get lung cancer. And if not smoking, then what is it? Air-quality? Genetics?
In any case, the article you posted, even if you read it without any context, still shows that America is generally better, or middling when it comes to death rates from cancer(and we can assume some "selection bias" when it comes to what cancers they chose for the article). And nothing in its argument, or even your argument, makes a case for universal healthcare.
Why don't we let the author summarize his findings?
********************************
Plus, this is where we are supposed to shine. Preventing death is traditionally where we should feel safe in our skill. Unfortunately, we do well in some subsets, while middling or terrible in others. Overall, we’re in the bottom half when it comes to this category.
That’s nothing to brag about.
************************************************** ********
Why don't we let the author summarize his findings?
I hate to break it to you, but the author isn't exactly unbiased.
All he is really saying is, Americans are below-average when it comes to preventing death. But below-average as compared to what? A handful of mostly-white industrialized nations, and then low-obesity, East-Asian Japan.
I mean, if you scroll down to the part that says "Here’s the third scorecard". It shows the UK being in dead last in every health-care related category. Canada is no better or worse than America. And according to his silly methodology, Japan has the best healthcare system in the entire world.
I hate to break it to you, but the author isn't exactly unbiased.
All he is really saying is, Americans are below-average when it comes to preventing death. But below-average as compared to what? A handful of mostly-white industrialized nations, and then low-obesity, East-Asian Japan.
I mean, if you scroll down to the part that says "Here’s the third scorecard". It shows the UK being in dead last in every health-care related category. Canada is no better or worse than America. And according to his silly methodology, Japan has the best healthcare system in the entire world.
Who honestly believes that rubbish?
I believe that rubbish. For the set of things covered in the paper. And the Japanese have been outliving the rest of us for a while. Of course it is partially genetic and partially environment. But still true.
And note we spend far more than anyone else for a result that is, at best, mediocre.
It may "appear" as if California is prospering if you look only at the size of its economy, but it has the highest poverty rate in the country. And one of the highest unfunded public employee pension obligation liabilities.
Absolutely.
They have no idea.
Silicon Valley mumbo jumbo is in GDP figures as well.
Bernie Sanders is talking about having college education paid for by taxpayers! Why the hell should I pay for the education of YOUR kids? They aren't learning anything now! For cryin' out loud, many don't even know who we fought in WWII, or who we fought in the Revolutionary War! They don't know what the Civil war was about either!
Socialism is great. Yeah. They decide what your kids are to be taught, and you'd better not buck the system or someone like Loretta Lynch will have you arrested!
What do you think it was our founders fought for?
They pay a high price for that too, and nearly everyone is "on holiday" at the same time of year. They don't get a choice of when to take their vacation (this I know too, having experience in international sales, with Reps all over the globe. Everybody shut down at once for "holiday.")
So you are actually against public schools? Incredible. This type of mentality is mostly popular among the plutocrats in third world countries. Low taxes, a tiny rich elite who controls the political process, massive corruption, extreme poverty, and a large class of people that slave around for extremely low wages. Why do you want America to turn into Mexico? It always amazes me that the people who are most against immigration are also the ones who are trying to push hard for America to turn into a third world banana republic ran by a tiny number of ultra rich families.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
