From the Aug 11th Associated Press release
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.
2007-08-12
06:12:54
·
12 answers
·
asked by
kayakdudeus
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Dear conservatives who say it's not in the Constitution -
Did I say how the Congress should act? Did I say what I want them to do? Maybe universal coverage. Maybe stop funding medical procedures. There are lots of options.
Why do you read everthing with a bias that says "oh a liberal must have written this even if it doesn't indicate anything like that"
2007-08-12
09:34:36 ·
update #1
If you've been living in the US for a while, you should know how Congress and the administration will handle this. They'll ignore it and say that we have 'the best healthcare system in the world'.
If that doesn't work, then they'll come up with a plan designed to further enrich existing healthcare insurance and pharmaceutical companies. EVERY healthcare reform proposed by either party in the last 15 years has been like this, and AFAIK every plan being proposed by those 'liberal' Democratic leaders is the same.
This is one of those problems we're not going to solve until we do something about the importance of money in politics.
Meanwhile . . . well, stay healthy! 8^)
2007-08-12 06:19:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because infant mortality in included in that number and every country has a different way of deciding what is or what is not a "live birth". In the US, any child, no matter the size, that is breathing when it is born is considered a "live" birth whereas in many nations (such as Canada and France) children have to be a certain size and be breathing for a length of time in order to be considered. Mark Twain wasn't kidding when he said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" . But hey, if you really think Chad has better health care than the US, I invite you to move there.
2016-05-20 22:09:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
When will you liberals stop whining about things that the government is supposed to give you? American is a free country. Get off your sorry butt and do something that will earn you enough money to afford good health. We don't need the socialized crap that is given in Canada and England etc. Just so you know, when someone is really sick in another country and needs expert health care, they come to the USA. Besides, most of the health care proposals being talked about here will give free coverage to the kids of illegal aliens which will make more of them come. And, we can not afford more illegals in this country.
2007-08-12 06:24:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I too saw this article.
Sadly, the science of measurement behind the article would not pass muster in my Master's degree program, much less in the best medical journals.
life expectancies are hugely impacted by how you measure them as well as the intervening causes of death.
Another and better (from a statistical viewpoint) study I saw adjusted life expectancy figures for deaths caused by violence and drunkenness. In these revised figures, America was ahead of all other nations, which suggests that murder and drunk driving are more significant causes of death in America than in other nations. [If you've visited there and read their newspapers, you know this.]
Among the other bits in this same AP press release was the old whipping that even Cuba has lower infant mortality than the US. This bit has been debunked multiple times, beginning with the observation that a child is not recorded as having been born alive in Cuba until it is 30 days old. Thus, every child in Cuba who dies within the first 30 days is officially recorded as stillborn and the infant mortality statitics are unreliable.
When I saw this old load of [deleted] in the release, I knew the science behind it was {omitted} poor and sure enough, it was.
I suggest that the Associated Press can no longer be relied on to provide honest and upright reporting and you'd do better to read our dispatches from the BBC.
g'day
2007-08-12 06:28:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Spock (rhp) 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The Federal Government has no responsibility to give me health care. Heck, if the Federal Government offered me healthcare I wouldn't take it. Obciously I am not alone in this case, just look at Massachusetts. They passed a Unversal Healthcare law, and the people don't want it.
2007-08-12 06:22:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jon M 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
If the stats really bother you, I have a solution that will cost the country less. We need to quit trying to save premature births with all those complications. The backward countries don't have to average in the deaths of all of these infants that our sophisticated technology is often able to save, but hurt our averages when they can't be saved.
Has anyone ever told you "There are lies, damn lies, and stats"?
2007-08-12 06:20:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
There's nothing Congress can do to make people eat healthier, excercise and make better lifestyle choices
People can make their own health decisions, that's why we live in a free country.
2007-08-12 06:20:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
All the health care in the world is not going to keep the fat asses out of McDonald's, Burger King, Whataburger, Dominoes, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.
2007-08-12 06:16:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
yeah... I saw that too...
Republicans love to say we have the "No. 1" health care system in the world... it just seems that the facts don't support that...
maybe if they added "for those that can afford it"... it would be correct?
there are also numbers like child mortality rates that say almost the exact same thing...
2007-08-12 06:19:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I don't remember where it says in the Constitution that the federal government has to do anything about health care. When will people be responsible for their own lives and decisions?
Really. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HEALTH CARE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! YOU CAN'T!
2007-08-12 06:17:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by FRANKFUSS 6
·
3⤊
3⤋