NationStates Jolt Archive

This should explain why we as Americans pay much mroe for health care. Well besides the fact that Doctors and pharmacies charge like 10 times more.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_he_me/sick_america

CHICAGO - Middle-aged, white Americans are much sicker than their counterparts in England, startling new research shows, despite U.S. health care spending per person that's more than double what England spends.

A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes and heart disease than the English. Americans also self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer.

The gap between the countries holds true for educated and uneducated, rich and poor.

"At every point in the social hierarchy there is more illness in the United States than in England and the differences are really dramatic," said study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.

The study, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, adds context to the already-known fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet trails in rankings of life expectancy.

The United States spends about $5,200 per person on health care while England spends about half that in adjusted dollars.

"Everybody should be discussing it: Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?" Marmot said.

...

Wealth is a double-edged sword - overindulgence kills just as surely as shortage.

I noticed that Britain and America are good allies (better than the rest of Europe woot for ass kissing:P) and as a result we have one of the worst health rates in Europe

Must be a cultural thing

Wealth is a double-edged sword - overindulgence kills just as surely as shortage.

so why are nations like Japan and Australia not suffering the same problems?

so why are nations like Japan and Australia not suffering the same problems?

Cuz Japenese only eat rice and are genetically small, and Australians have to spend all day out in that hot Australian sun, which makes them sweat their fat out.

this may dsound pedantic but it is THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND. please dont refer to all of us as english...

this may dsound pedantic but it is THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND. please dont refer to all of us as english...


I was using the terminology that the article used. Take it up with them.

Well when you can't run to the doctor every time you get a splinter for free, tends to affect your health.

Lots of folks won't go to a doctor until they absolutely have to due to the expense.

Cuz Japenese only eat rice and are genetically small, and Australians have to spend all day out in that hot Australian sun, which makes them sweat their fat out.

so if I only eat rice and sit in the Sun I will be fine?

what about Arizona and how would you explain Norway's thin waistline? Do you think its time we submit to are thin Norwegian overlords?

If this were a case for national provision of healthcare I'm not sure that the British example is the best one to take right now. The NHS is, and has for a while now, been ailing itself.

Overindulgence (especially the fast food) certainly does contribute I am sure. I was wondering if perhaps it was an issue of genetically modified foods as well as all the ground, water and air pollution that we put out here in the states.

so if I only eat rice and sit in the Sun I will be fine?

what about Arizona and how would you explain Norway's thin waistline? Do you think its time we submit to are thin Norwegian overlords?

Those Norwegians watch Neighbours like hawks.

I'm kinda thinking 'duh' here. The UK has a nationalised health system, a government that seems to be more proactive in promoting healthy eating, and a smaller waorking week resulting in lower stress. The USA has... popsicle sticks... hell I don't know, go ask someone else.

ALso, I know stress can cause illness fairly easily. US Citizens are known to work more hours than even teh Japanese, so that could contribute. Our financial burdens are pretty heavy, and our "President" sure doesn't help things either.

Those Norwegians watch Neighbours like hawks.Hawks aren't generally renowned for watching Neighbours.

Hawks aren't generally renowned for watching Neighbours.

Have you ever met a Norwegian hawk?

ALso, I know stress can cause illness fairly easily. US Citizens are known to work more hours than even teh Japanese, so that could contribute. Our financial burdens are pretty heavy, and our "President" sure doesn't help things either.


Compared to Euros who can commonly have 50 days of vacation a year, I get 5. So yeah, that could be a factor.

Honestly, 50 days a year, if you only work 5 days a week that means you're only working 260 days of the year, knock 50 off of that and it's only 210. 365-210=155 days off! That's five months!

If this were a case for national provision of healthcare I'm not sure that the British example is the best one to take right now. The NHS is, and has for a while now, been ailing itself.

According to the article, the authors of the study felt that the Brit healthcare system had nothing to do with the results.

Because the healthcare system has nothing to do with the health of the people. Jebus that's a dumb statement.

Compared to Euros who can commonly have 50 days of vacation a year, I get 5. So yeah, that could be a factor.

Honestly, 50 days a year, if you only work 5 days a week that means you're only working 260 days of the year, knock 50 off of that and it's only 210. 365-210=155 days off! That's five months!
Em, how is it 155 days off in a year if it's 50 days off in a year?:confused:

Weekends.

Not counting holidays of course.

Uhm, to begin with, there's a different genetic makeup in UK and US. E.g. we have a lot more black people here and they are just genetically much more susceptible to some diseases, e.g. stroke and sickle cell anemia. But this statistics is also in part due to fact that Americans get a lot BETTER health care than the Brits. Higher survival rates from serious diseases causes much higher prevalence of those diseases in the population - it's that simple. Here's how it works (and note, that I am oversimplifying for better clarity). Say, Brits who get cancer die quickly - it means at any given time there's a very little percentage of the population living with cancer. But Americans with cancer get effective treatment (and yes, it costs a lot), survive much longer and thus make up a much greater percentage of the population.

Uhm, to begin with, there's a different genetic makeup in UK and US. E.g. we have a lot more black people here and they are just genetically much more susceptible to some diseases, e.g. stroke and sickle cell anemia. But this statistics is also in part due to fact that Americans get a lot BETTER health care than the Brits. Higher survival rates from serious diseases causes much higher prevalence of those diseases in the population - it's that simple. Here's how it works (and note, that I am oversimplifying for better clarity). Say, Brits who get cancer die quickly - it means at any given time there's a very little percentage of the population living with cancer. But Americans with cancer get effective treatment (and yes, it costs a lot), survive much longer and thus make up a much greater percentage of the population.
I guarantee that while some Americans might get better healthcare than the Brits, not all will. The fact that the healthgcare is free will mean that large chunks of the population will have better access to healthcare than they could afford in the US and this will contribute.

Uhm, to begin with, there's a different genetic makeup in UK and US. E.g. we have a lot more black people here and they are just genetically much more susceptible to some diseases, e.g. stroke and sickle cell anemia. But this statistics is also in part due to fact that Americans get a lot BETTER health care than the Brits. Higher survival rates from serious diseases causes much higher prevalence of those diseases in the population - it's that simple. Here's how it works (and note, that I am oversimplifying for better clarity). Say, Brits who get cancer die quickly - it means at any given time there's a very little percentage of the population living with cancer. But Americans with cancer get effective treatment (and yes, it costs a lot), survive much longer and thus make up a much greater percentage of the population.

we get free treatment for cancer

and sickle cell anaemia is a genetic diseas, you cant catch it, and if you are a carrier of the dissease you dont get malaria so it is useful if you live in a malaria filled place (like most of africa)

I was using the terminology that the article used. Take it up with them.

i was complaining about the article, not you, but youve learnt the lesson anyway so its win win

Compared to Euros who can commonly have 50 days of vacation a year, I get 5. So yeah, that could be a factor.

Honestly, 50 days a year, if you only work 5 days a week that means you're only working 260 days of the year, knock 50 off of that and it's only 210. 365-210=155 days off! That's five months!
Me thinks you are pulling the 50 days out of your ass. Here in Holland there are no people with 50 days off and foreign friends don't have either.

I guarantee that while some Americans might get better healthcare than the Brits, not all will. The fact that the healthgcare is free will mean that large chunks of the population will have better access to healthcare than they could afford in the US and this will contribute.
*Cue right wing American coming in to say it's the fault of the poor for being too lazy not to work hard enough to afford healthcare*

Point being it's more prevalent in those of African and Mediterranian decent.

It's not much of a point though since I don't figure those that would be affected would be a signifigant part of the overall total. Only 15% of our population (roughly) is of African decent, and those with a rare inherited genetic trait would be a much smaller number.

Though there is something to be said for the number of immigrants we have overall affecting the averages.

Me thinks you are pulling the 50 days out of your ass. Here in Holland there are no people with 50 days off and foreign friends don't have either.


Actually I was mistaken, he's from New Zealand, always get him mixed up with the eurotrash.

http://www.thelostlounge.com/read.php?board=1&id=205182

Don't go trolling that forum!

i was complaining about the article, not you, but youve learnt the lesson anyway so its win win
It's just as well the article refered solely to the English anyway - the bloody Scots and their unhealthy ways would have dragged our statistics down. Although I imagine the Welsh are probably healthier than the English? Don't know about that.

Actually I was mistaken, he's from New Zealand, always get him mixed up with the eurotrash.

http://www.thelostlounge.com/read.php?board=1&id=205182

Don't go trolling that forum!
Lol? :confused:

Me thinks you are pulling the 50 days out of your ass. Here in Holland there are no people with 50 days off and foreign friends don't have either.
I imagine school teachers would probably be the only people who would come close, at least in Britain, don't know about Holland.

Lol? :confused:
http://www.thelostlounge.com/read.php?board=1&id=205177

A finn claiming 49 days.

Have you ever met a Norwegian hawk?Yes. He prefered Home and Away though.

It's just as well the article refered solely to the English anyway - the bloody Scots and their unhealthy ways would have dragged our statistics down. Although I imagine the Welsh are probably healthier than the English? Don't know about that.

hmm, not much wrong with the scots, they just need to aviod asking these health questions to drunk glaswegians who will try and kiss you! (a glasgow kiss not the regular kind)

yep we welsh a reall y healthy, all those sheep frolicking...

all one big joke so ignore that unless we all want to go off on a tangent...

Uhm, to begin with, there's a different genetic makeup in UK and US. E.g. we have a lot more black people here and they are just genetically much more susceptible to some diseases, e.g. stroke and sickle cell anemia. But this statistics is also in part due to fact that Americans get a lot BETTER health care than the Brits. Higher survival rates from serious diseases causes much higher prevalence of those diseases in the population - it's that simple. Here's how it works (and note, that I am oversimplifying for better clarity). Say, Brits who get cancer die quickly - it means at any given time there's a very little percentage of the population living with cancer. But Americans with cancer get effective treatment (and yes, it costs a lot), survive much longer and thus make up a much greater percentage of the population.

What bollocks is this? Americans get a lot better health care then the Brits? Eh? where did you pull that rubbish from? Britain is not some third world country. Now, some Americans will get better provision than most Brits, probably the richest, but most I suspect will get equal treatment, and if they are of the less well off classes, they would probably get better care in Britain than in the States.

From what I have seen 5 year cancer survival rates are pretty much the same.

I suspect it is the welfare state (as a whole, not just the NHS) has a role to play in this better health for English people.

I wouldnt be suprised if it is only referring to English statistics, as, and I am a Scot here, Scotland has about the worst health record in Europe for many things. Though it could just be standard American use of "England" when meaing the UK.

But this statistics is also in part due to fact that Americans get a lot BETTER health care than the Brits. Higher survival rates from serious diseases causes much higher prevalence of those diseases in the population - it's that simple. Here's how it works (and note, that I am oversimplifying for better clarity). Say, Brits who get cancer die quickly - it means at any given time there's a very little percentage of the population living with cancer. But Americans with cancer get effective treatment (and yes, it costs a lot), survive much longer and thus make up a much greater percentage of the population.That case is very true. the US has higher survival rates for cancer. But when you look that stat a little closer I found that the UK actually has lower rates of cancer detection 300 per 100,000 as opposed to the US's 400 per 100,000. This could be why the UK has a lower survival rate, as it thinks money would be better spent on other areas... either that or the NHS is still chronically underfunded (it's budget is a third of medical expenses in the USA).

Other stats that are interesting to look at are that UK has a lower infant mortality rate (about 1.5 per 1000 lower) and a slightly higher Life Expectancy.

Because the healthcare system has nothing to do with the health of the people. Jebus that's a dumb statement.

Try reading the article. They state their reasons.

That case is very true. the US has higher survival rates for cancer.

Ah... yes, now I have looked again, this is true. But there isnt a large enough of a difference to account for the health difference though. Cant just be explained by more British people dying of cancer... which seems a nonsensical thing anyway, having better health statistics by hvaing more people die.


But when you look that stat a little closer I found that the UK actually has lower rates of cancer detection 300 per 100,000 as opposed to the US's 400 per 100,000. This could be why the UK has a lower survival rate, as it thinks money would be better spent on other areas...

[quote]
either that or the NHS is still chronically underfunded (it's budget is a third of medical expenses in the USA).

Well, most european countries have lower health spending than the US, but most of them also have better health records. True, Britain is probably not one of the better examples though, and is one of the lowest funded (as a percentage of GDP) in Europe, but it is improving (though PFI rubbish isnt helping with preventing money wasting). The US system seems to be a very inefficient way of paying for health care (I think most European nations spend about 9% of their GDP on health care, the US about 13%, yet seems to have a worse health record. Of course health care is only part of explaining that difference, but it will be one of them).

*Cue right wing American coming in to say it's the fault of the poor for being too lazy not to work hard enough to afford healthcare*

Right-wing American coming in here to say that it's

too much stress.

Anyone who works in America has too much stress. And our government does all they can to add to it.

It has been about 14 years since my last vacation trip, and that one was to get married.

Time to :sniper:

Well, most european countries have lower health spending than the US, but most of them also have better health records. True, Britain is probably not one of the better examples though, and is one of the lowest funded (as a percentage of GDP) in Europe, but it is improving (though PFI rubbish isnt helping with preventing money wasting). The US system seems to be a very inefficient way of paying for health care (I think most European nations spend about 9% of their GDP on health care, the US about 13%, yet seems to have a worse health record. Of course health care is only part of explaining that difference, but it will be one of them).Heh, yeah. The NHS budget was about £50 billion in 2000 and £70 billion in 2004. With GDP at about $2.2 trillion thatn makes the NHS budget as a percentage of GDP 4% and 6% respectively. Yes, I'd say chronically underfunded, but doing a damn admirable job despite the lack of money.

we have a lot more black people here and they are just genetically much more susceptible to some diseases, e.g. stroke and sickle cell anemia.

Which is why they removed them from the study.

Only non-Hispanic whites were included in the study to eliminate the influence of racial disparities.

This article is no surprise. And to the person who asked if we should submit to our thin Norwegian overlords... yeah, I think we should.

Personally, I think the level of healthiness in the US compared to Europe has more to do with Lifestyle than Healthcare.

This should explain why we as Americans pay much mroe for health care. Well besides the fact that Doctors and pharmacies charge like 10 times more.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_he_me/sick_america

It's possible, but it shows that the government in Britain has caused gross malinvestment in healthcare at the expense of all other areas of the economy. The same level of healthcare would certainly be far cheaper under a free market. I'm certainly not saying that the U.S. healthcare system is a free market system, it could even be less efficient than the British one.

Sorry, I responded before reading the first post.

The health of Americans have little to do with how much money they spend on healthcare. Healthcare is generally used to solve health problems, not prevent them. Americans live far less healthily than Europeans. I attribute this to the realatively cheap prices of land and gasoline in the U.S. that cause us to have to drive everywhere we go. Europeans also seem to eat more healthily, although just as much, as Americans. This causes more health problems and naturally more healthcare spending.

Sorry, I responded before reading the first post.

The health of Americans have little to do with how much money they spend on healthcare. Healthcare is generally used to solve health problems, not prevent them. Americans live far less healthily than Europeans. I attribute this to the realatively cheap prices of land and gasoline in the U.S. that cause us to have to drive everywhere we go. Europeans also seem to eat more healthily, although just as much, as Americans. This causes more health problems and naturally more healthcare spending.

I'm not sure but it seems that you didn't read the article.

But you are right that USian health has nothing to do with the amount of money spent on the healthcare system. I meant to say that because of the unhealthy lifestyle of USians (stress, fast food, genetically modified foods being more prevalant, all types of pollution and having less exercise than the English) is the reason that we spend so much more on healthcare.

I'm not sure but it seems that you didn't read the article.

But you are right that USian health has nothing to do with the amount of money spent on the healthcare system. I meant to say that because of the unhealthy lifestyle of USians (stress, fast food, genetically modified foods being more prevalant, all types of pollution and having less exercise than the English) is the reason that we spend so much more on healthcare.

One word: Pharmaceuticals.

I probably butchered that one word, too, but anyway - unhealthiness is not necessarily being overweight, it has a lot to do with what chemicals and products we put in our system.

I don't know about the English, but in the US we have about four or five (if even that) pharm. companies that run the whole show and tell us the cure to every little itch and tickle we have, with side effects ranging anywhere from a slight cough to instantaneous death. All these products are positively marketed, and advertised to be nothing but good while brushing the side-effects under the rug via muttering and speaking quickly while mentioning them (if at all).

I guarantee that while some Americans might get better healthcare than the Brits, not all will. The fact that the healthgcare is free will mean that large chunks of the population will have better access to healthcare than they could afford in the US and this will contribute.

"Free" health care all over the world means that people have WORSE access to health care, because that access is rationed (and often delayed or even denied) by government bureaucrats. Just remember: "free" always, ALWAYS means "rationed". And the proof of pooding is in the eating. Just look at individual diseases and check survival rates. In category after category you will find the US in first or second place.

One word: Pharmaceuticals.

I probably butchered that one word, too, but anyway - unhealthiness is not necessarily being overweight, it has a lot to do with what chemicals and products we put in our system.

I don't know about the English, but in the US we have about four or five (if even that) pharm. companies that run the whole show and tell us the cure to every little itch and tickle we have, with side effects ranging anywhere from a slight cough to instantaneous death. All these products are positively marketed, and advertised to be nothing but good while brushing the side-effects under the rug via muttering and speaking quickly while mentioning them (if at all).

true, that is yet another factor contributing to poor health in USians

...Just look at individual diseases and check survival rates. In category after category you will find the US in first or second place.

Yeah leading in the sense that the cases of heart disease and diabetes are about twice the rate in US citizens.


A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes and heart disease than the English. Americans also self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer.

The gap between the countries holds true for educated and uneducated, rich and poor.

"At every point in the social hierarchy there is more illness in the United States than in England and the differences are really dramatic," said study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.

Sorry, I responded before reading the first post.

The health of Americans have little to do with how much money they spend on healthcare. Healthcare is generally used to solve health problems, not prevent them. Americans live far less healthily than Europeans. I attribute this to the realatively cheap prices of land and gasoline in the U.S. that cause us to have to drive everywhere we go. Europeans also seem to eat more healthily, although just as much, as Americans. This causes more health problems and naturally more healthcare spending.
You can sort of see the difference in this article.
http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/10may04/10health.html
The universal healthcare in Britain, along with various societal differences means you are less likely to pick up 'avoidable events' (ie. prevention) whereas the US healthcare system with its massive funding serves you better if you actually do pick up something nasty like cancer or need a transplant.

Uhm, to begin with, there's a different genetic makeup in UK and US. E.g. we have a lot more black people here and they are just genetically much more susceptible to some diseases, e.g. stroke and sickle cell anemia. But this statistics is also in part due to fact that Americans get a lot BETTER health care than the Brits. Higher survival rates from serious diseases causes much higher prevalence of those diseases in the population - it's that simple. Here's how it works (and note, that I am oversimplifying for better clarity). Say, Brits who get cancer die quickly - it means at any given time there's a very little percentage of the population living with cancer. But Americans with cancer get effective treatment (and yes, it costs a lot), survive much longer and thus make up a much greater percentage of the population.

Please read this article, it is about the same story but is from the Nature web site (scientific journal) and so is likely to have less spin and more information.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060501/full/060501-3.html

The researchers only looked at White people to remove any reasons like the one you suggested above. Also if I read the article correctly it was about the proportion of the people who were diagnosed with the diseases and not the % of people with the disease. Therefore survival rates did not play a part. The researchers also took into account obesity (people in the US have a higher rate of this) and this still did not explain the difference.

The researches did say it could be that people from the US suffered more from stress so more likely to get the disease or that they underestimated the effect of obesity.

The scarest find was that the healthest poeple in the US (as a group who have good health insurance and well educated) had similar rates to disease as the worst group (least access to health care and poor education) from the UK.

You can sort of see the difference in this article.
http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/10may04/10health.html
The universal healthcare in Britain, along with various societal differences means you are less likely to pick up 'avoidable events' (ie. prevention) whereas the US healthcare system with its massive funding serves you better if you actually do pick up something nasty like cancer or need a transplant.

Yes but this study shows that it doesnt matter what class you belong to... rich or poor, the differece between the English and US citizens health is still dramatic, so it has nothign to do with access or quality of healthcare.

the american system is corrupt. health care should be available to anyone anytime they need it.

so should food, shelter, entertainment.

the american system is corrupt. health care should be available to anyone anytime they need it.

so should food, shelter, entertainment.

That would cause an increase in taxes though. I'm sure that wouldn't be very popular.

You can't win either way.

That would cause an increase in taxes though. I'm sure that wouldn't be very popular.

You can't win either way.

how can you put a price on human life?

or even hapiness of the population?

how can you put a price on human life?

or even hapiness of the population?

i like this. Cows arguging with a Slaughter house:D

the american system is corrupt. health care should be available to anyone anytime they need it.

so should food, shelter, entertainment.


This article has nothign to do with the availability of healthcare to Americans except to say that even the rich who have the best healthcare still have a higher percentage of health problems than their counterparts across the pond. So even if we did pay higher taxes and give universal healthcare, it woulnd solve our health problems.

how can you put a price on human life?

or even hapiness of the population?

I'm just saying that even if the US did make their health service free, some people would complain about rising taxes.

i like this. Cows arguging with a Slaughter house:D

It's ironic, ain't it! =p

i like this. Cows arguging with a Slaughter house:D

lol

"Free" health care all over the world means that people have WORSE access to health care, because that access is rationed (and often delayed or even denied) by government bureaucrats. Just remember: "free" always, ALWAYS means "rationed". And the proof of pooding is in the eating. Just look at individual diseases and check survival rates. In category after category you will find the US in first or second place.
But if you've got the money in Britain you're going to go private anyway, or go abroad or anything. Your access isn't limited if you have the money to pay for it, and pay for it you do in the US. I'd have been mightily surprised that you didn't enjoy some benefits from paying twice as much as we do.
Yes but this study shows that it doesnt matter what class you belong to... rich or poor, the differece between the English and US citizens health is still dramatic, so it has nothign to do with access or quality of healthcare.
Yeah I can see that. I wasn't really trying to contradict the OP but illustrate the difference between prevention and cure that someone else pointed out. It is interesting though that most, if not all, of the benefits attributed to the British health service by the Johns Hopkins study are possibly a result of a generally healthier society?

I'm not sure but it seems that you didn't read the article.

But you are right that USian health has nothing to do with the amount of money spent on the healthcare system. I meant to say that because of the unhealthy lifestyle of USians (stress, fast food, genetically modified foods being more prevalant, all types of pollution and having less exercise than the English) is the reason that we spend so much more on healthcare.

How restrictive are regulations in the US on GM foods and additives added to food as the EU has very strict guidelines.

How restrictive are regulations in the US on GM foods and additives added to food as the EU has very strict guidelines.


Not very restrictive at all as far as I can tell. In fact GM crops have been known to contaminate neighboring farms crops. I don't think that they have to even label that it's GM when sold in stores. Monsanto has even been fighting to have companies that label their stuff as non-GM to stop doing it.

I really respect that about the EU regarding GM foods.