US Ranks Poorly IN Life Expectancy And Infant Mortality

[Gatekeeper]

Here's the Washington Post story on Life Expectancy from 2007.
Interesting to say the least.

"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.

US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings - washingtonpost.com

Something wrong, what could it be? Greed, corporate incompetence and waste, so many other factors.

Here is the standing from 2009 on Infant Mortality. According to these stats. You won't believe who is the lowest per 1000 live births.
And the US isn't that bad.

Infant Mortality Worldwide
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 

[WillowTree]

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<excerpt>
Currently, the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][11] The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[12][13][14]

The USA's life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world after the European Union (40th).[15][16] The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[17][18] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[19]

According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[20][21] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [20] while a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[22][23] More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.[24]

On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law, providing for major changes in health-insurance procedures.[25]

Iz this the truth?

 

[JakeStarkey]

frazzledgear's conclusion is flawed. No one questions the quality of care in the US, only that it is not fairly accessible and affordable to all, as it is in most industrialized countries who have very good qualities of living and standards of life.

That is what frazzledgear cannot contradict. End of story.

 

[California Girl]

The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

Conclusion: Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you.

It's an old joke but it's still funny.

 

[chanel]

Drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. (No I don't have a link)

I don't know about other states, but here in NJ, no one is denied prenatal care. The OP is pure propaganda.

 

[Oddball]

US Ranks Poorly IN Life Expectancy And Infant Mortality

On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law, providing for major changes in health-insurance procedures.

Stupid leftist kook non sequitur jabbering point, that is no more relevant to anything the 1,000,001st time it's re-re-re-re-repeated than the 1,000,000th time.

Dude as normal cannot contradict either the importance or the truth of the matter. As such, he continues irrelevant in all such matters.

There is neither importance nor relevance to the statistic, nitwit. Therefore, refuting it is pointless.

But that's the point to throwing pointless and irrelevant statistics out there...They intend to baffle with bullshit.

 

[boedicca]

Propaganda.

In the U.S, severely premature babies that show even the most minimal signs of life are counted as live births. In most other countries, they are counted as still born, and do not affect the infant mortality stats.

Sadly, such heroic methods to preserve the lives of premature babies will most likely be eliminated as "too expensive" once ObamaCare is in full force.

Link this. When you do, we will find that it is a lie.

You are wrong again.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]

Another well-documented example also illustrates this problem. Historically, until the 1990s Russia and the Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least seven days.[11] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[12] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[13]


Infant mortality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cecilie1200]

Stupid leftist kook non sequitur jabbering point, that is no more relevant to anything the 1,000,001st time it's re-re-re-re-repeated than the 1,000,000th time.

Dude as normal cannot contradict either the importance or the truth of the matter. As such, he continues irrelevant in all such matters.

There is neither importance nor relevance to the statistic, nitwit. Therefore, refuting it is pointless.

But that's the point to throwing pointless and irrelevant statistics out there...They intend to baffle with bullshit.

I'm with Dude. We have already argued this piece of shit to a faretheewell multiple times, and the leftists think if they just wait a while and bring it up yet again, as though it is brand-new, they'll make some sort of headway. I have been there, debunked that, and I abso-frigging-lutely REFUSE to play along and argue this again.

You leftists lost last time. You lost the time before. It's over. Move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Propaganda.

In the U.S, severely premature babies that show even the most minimal signs of life are counted as live births. In most other countries, they are counted as still born, and do not affect the infant mortality stats.

Sadly, such heroic methods to preserve the lives of premature babies will most likely be eliminated as "too expensive" once ObamaCare is in full force.

Link this. When you do, we will find that it is a lie.

You are wrong again.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]

Another well-documented example also illustrates this problem. Historically, until the 1990s Russia and the Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least seven days.[11] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[12] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[13]


Infant mortality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia for a source on this important point? Give us a real link of importance.

 

[theHawk]

OK, frazzledgear, please demonstrate by comaprison by table per country per categories, whether we are good, average, or poor in comparison to other countries.

The rest of your argument means nothing until you do. It certainly can't be used to refute our statistics.

Link this. When you do, we will find that it is a lie.

You are wrong again.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]

Another well-documented example also illustrates this problem. Historically, until the 1990s Russia and the Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least seven days.[11] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[12] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[13]


Infant mortality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia for a source on this important point? Give us a real link of importance.

Funny, the OP used wiki as the source. Seemed good enough for you before, now suddenly its not?

 

[xsited1]

US Ranks Poorly IN Life Expectancy And Infant Mortality

It's those damn colored people, isn't it???!!!!!!!

 

[Samson]

Link this. When you do, we will find that it is a lie.

You are wrong again.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States&#8217; relatively low international ranking.[10]

Another well-documented example also illustrates this problem. Historically, until the 1990s Russia and the Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least seven days.[11] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[12] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[13]


Infant mortality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia for a source on this important point? Give us a real link of importance.

I agree that Wikipedia can be manipulated.

How about US NEWS and WORLD REPORT:

Behind the Baby Count
By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted 9/24/06

it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries.

"Shakey,".......maybe...but the NCHS factors in that shakiness

Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe
Number 23, November 2009

Summary
In 2005, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel. There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States&#8217; relatively low international ranking. In 2005, 22 countries had infant mortality rates of 5.0 or below. One would have to assume that these countries did not report more than one-third of their infant deaths for their infant mortality rates to equal or exceed the U.S. rate. This level of underreporting appears unlikely for most developed countries.

The United States compares favorably with Europe in the survival of infants born preterm. Infant mortality rates for preterm infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries. However, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are generally higher in the United States than in European countries.

The primary reason for the United States&#8217; higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the United States&#8217; much higher percentage of preterm births. In 2004, 1 in 8 infants born in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 in Ireland and Finland. Preterm infants have much higher rates of death or disability than infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more (2-4, 6), so the United States&#8217; higher percentage of preterm births has a large effect on infant mortality rates. If the United States had the same gestational age distribution of births as Sweden, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 33% decline. These data suggest that preterm birth prevention is crucial to lowering the U.S. infant mortality rate.

So, who, or what causes the USA to have more "preterm births?"

Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R (2008). "Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth".

Common reasons for indicated preterm births include pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, and intrauterine growth restriction. Births that follow spontaneous preterm labour and PPROM-together called spontaneous preterm births-are regarded as a syndrome resulting from multiple causes, including infection or inflammation, vascular disease, and uterine overdistension. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm births include a previous preterm birth, black race, periodontal disease, and low maternal body-mass index. .

In short, the Main Reasons the US has a higher infant mortality rate than, say, Japan or Ireland, is

1. There aren't any Blacks in Japan or Ireland
2. Few Japanese or Irish mothers have "low maternal body mass index;" (Japan has the lowest number of teen pregnancies, while the USA has the highest)

 

[Oddball]

Common reasons for indicated preterm births include pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, and intrauterine growth restriction. Births that follow spontaneous preterm labour and PPROM-together called spontaneous preterm births-are regarded as a syndrome resulting from multiple causes, including infection or inflammation, vascular disease, and uterine overdistension. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm births include a previous preterm birth, black race, periodontal disease, and low maternal body-mass index. .

In short, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than, say, Japan or Ireland, is

1. There aren't any Blacks in Japan or Ireland
2. Few Japanese or Irish mothers have "low maternal body mass index;" (Japan has the lowest number of teen pregnancies, while the USA has the highest)

The hell you say?!?!?!?

You mean that there could be numerous reasons, other than the fact that America doesn't (yet) have socialized medical services, for the fact that America's infant mortality rates and lifespans are different from those of other nations?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!

 

[Samson]

US Ranks Poorly IN Life Expectancy And Infant Mortality

It's those damn colored people, isn't it???!!!!!!!

It is teen pregnacies. And yes, many of those are black girls.

The black community needs to do much more to discourage black girls AND males from fucking around, and having kids.

 

[Samson]

Common reasons for indicated preterm births include pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, and intrauterine growth restriction. Births that follow spontaneous preterm labour and PPROM-together called spontaneous preterm births-are regarded as a syndrome resulting from multiple causes, including infection or inflammation, vascular disease, and uterine overdistension. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm births include a previous preterm birth, black race, periodontal disease, and low maternal body-mass index. .

In short, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than, say, Japan or Ireland, is

1. There aren't any Blacks in Japan or Ireland
2. Few Japanese or Irish mothers have "low maternal body mass index;" (Japan has the lowest number of teen pregnancies, while the USA has the highest)

The hell you say?!?!?!?

You mean that there could be numerous reasons, other than the fact that America doesn't (yet) have socialized medical services, for the fact that America's infant mortality rates and lifespans are different from those of other nations?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!

Yeah, clearly we need to send pregnant black girls to Japan, to even the score.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Common reasons for indicated preterm births include pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, and intrauterine growth restriction. Births that follow spontaneous preterm labour and PPROM-together called spontaneous preterm births-are regarded as a syndrome resulting from multiple causes, including infection or inflammation, vascular disease, and uterine overdistension. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm births include a previous preterm birth, black race, periodontal disease, and low maternal body-mass index. .

In short, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than, say, Japan or Ireland, is

1. There aren't any Blacks in Japan or Ireland
2. Few Japanese or Irish mothers have "low maternal body mass index;" (Japan has the lowest number of teen pregnancies, while the USA has the highest)

The hell you say?!?!?!?

You mean that there could be numerous reasons, other than the fact that America doesn't (yet) have socialized medical services, for the fact that America's infant mortality rates and lifespans are different from those of other nations?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!

Well, yes, indeed, you are, dude. None of the "reasons" are sustainable in view of all the evidence. You are going to have health care reform, and, the only 'repeal and replace' will be in the those legislators who get in the way. They all will be replaced. Look at the polls in Texas.

 

[frazzledgear]

Here's the Washington Post story on Life Expectancy from 2007.
Interesting to say the least.

"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.

US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings - washingtonpost.com

Something wrong, what could it be? Greed, corporate incompetence and waste, so many other factors.

Here is the standing from 2009 on Infant Mortality. According to these stats. You won't believe who is the lowest per 1000 live births.
And the US isn't that bad.

Infant Mortality Worldwide
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Gee what could possibly be wrong when the US is compared to countries where their government owns and controls their health care systems AND are the ones feeding their "stats" to the rest of the world? No possible conflict of interest there, huh? LOL Unlike most of these other ones, those who control the health care system in this country are NOT the ones gathering and analyzing the data. The incredibly naive belief that these other governments are not only inherently trustworthy but are actually interested in publicizing the very data that proves their system is corrupt and broken -would be refreshing except history has repeatedly and REPEATEDLY proven it is dangerous to human life to trust government.

Why on earth would I EVER accept at face value any data collected by the same entity that sold their own citizens this bill of goods in the first place? Is there a reason we don't let the attorney prosecuting a person for a crime to also serve as his defense attorney? Is there a reason the referee in a football game is not one of the players, owners or coaches? Is there a reason for getting an independent appraisal on the value of the property someone wants to sell to you? Oh but SURE, if a government has control of the health care system, then their "stats" on whether they actually do it well or not is fully trustworthy! ROFL No possible conflict of interest there if the people who will still foot the bill for this system end up finding out the truth about the true extent of the piece of crap they got in return. Oh PULLEEZE. If it can't be independently verified -its worthless and we can only judge by what we know to be undeniably true.

In spite of the doctored data, we do know for a FACT that the average wait for a routine doctor's appointment in countries with government run health care systems dramatically INCREASED. That is because one of THE very first unwanted consequences to appear in such systems is OVER UTILIZATION of the system by citizens. There is a sharp increase in the percent who see it as "free" and a massive increase in the percentage who end up deciding they will access the system whenever they WANT instead of when they NEED to. People make less judicious use of any goods or service they view as "free" -which means for those who actually NEED it, it will not be available in a timely or cost-effective manner. When the system becomes clogged with the people who WANT to access it, the people who suffer the most and pay the worst price possible -are those who NEED the access to it.

We know for a fact the wait for elective surgery dramatically INCREASED with a government takeover of the health care system. And all too often those waits go on for YEARS. But the medical reality is that waiting means the condition goes longer undiagnosed at all, goes longer under-treated or not treated at all and mild conditions become moderately significant and the moderately ill become critically ill and emergencies. The reason I don't believe the lying ass statistics collected by the same governments that run their own systems -is that the DELAYS are real. They can't hide the delays -those delays are legendary now because people know how long they had to wait and TELL OTHER PEOPLE. When the delays are real -and we know for a fact they are -then having better outcomes is NOT POSSIBLE because that is counter-intuitive to what we know for a FACT to be true about medical care. The earlier a medical condition is identified before it reaches a more serious stage - the higher the odds of a better outcome. Government run systems are putting out "stats" that suggest the exact opposite is true -that delays in being seen, diagnosed and treated either has no impact at all on outcome -or is actually a beneficial impact on outcomes! Oh sure -must explain why doctors are trained to drag their feet all the time.

As for the claim that Americans do not have "equal" access to our health care system that argument holds the least water of any argument. Our poor have free medical care and the elderly, THE group with the single most expensive and chronic health care NEEDS also have insurance -insurance that is actually exceptionally responsive to their NEEDS. The ACCESS is not denied, the MONEY to pay for it is running out. (I would argue our poor suffer far more from a lack of education and even common sense since their biggest health problem by far and away is OBESITY - which carries high risk of all sorts of complications. Obesity isn't caused by a lack of ACCESS to health care! -its caused by a lack of self-reliance and self-discipline.) But those GOVERNMENT provided insurance plans are BOTH broke and at risk of total collapse.

So you have to wonder about the lack of intelligence when liberals keep right on insisting that expanding it to cover EVERYONE will somehow come up with a different result seen in other countries where a government takeover only produced a whole new set of problems, many of which are worse than the ones it was intended to fix and are ALL still in financial distress and increasingly forced to face the fact it is not a sustainable system. Trading in one set of problems for an entirely new set which WILL include many new problems that are also far more serious -is stupid and self destructive. Burying the information that shows a trade-off is always involved that many, many people would realize is not a good trade-off after all -all in order to pretend a government takeover only results in some fantasy utopia for all is a major deceit.

This liberal idiocy that there just is no other way to address and fix the individual problems that exist in our system and it requires a massive government takeover of the entire thing -is how the liberal mind works. Whatever the problem is, they are capable of offering up just one solution. BIGGER AND MORE POWERFUL GOVERNMENT. And not so oddly enough they are the same people who insist that history has nothing to teach us -which is also why they have no problem re-writing it so often.

Every country with government run health care systems finds itself up against the same wall -deciding whether their system exists for the benefit of those who don't NEED it but WANT to misuse it -or for those who NEED it. But it is because those who don't NEED it over-utilize the system that is the real cause of so many of the problems in government run systems in the first place! Again and again the UK is deciding it does not exist for those who need it and is there for those who don't. Which is why the guy who insists the British system is superior to our own will NOT tell you about the fact that in the UK mortality rates for all sorts of conditions and diseases are going UP. Stroke, heart disease, nearly every kind of cancer including breast and prostate and even SKIN cancers, complications of diabetes, high blood pressure -all conditions that have been dropping for decades in this country and are still dropping -are on the rise in the UK. Medicare was created for the purpose of making the last years of a person's life, after he spent a lifetime contributing to society -as healthy as possible for him in order that his remaining years are as high quality as possible. But that is not a consideration in the UK today and it isn't a consideration of the left in this country today either. THAT is the group they now want to have LESS access and more treatments DENIED -which is why they had no problem with stripping Medicare of half a trillion dollars. In order to do that, it means the elderly MUST be denied treatment and medications they can receive today. The incidence of these conditions increase as we age -so you read the tea leaves on why mortality rates on them all are going up in the UK and have the opposite trend here. QUALITY of outcome eventually becomes a secondary issue or even worse in government run systems and will NEVER outweigh the government's obsession with reducing costs. How to reduce costs becomes the government's obsession instead. Eventually those in government realize the obvious -that most effective, cost cutting reductions possible is by denying medical care and treatment to those who actually NEED it. And turn it into a system that exists primarily for the benefit of those who DON'T. Not so oddly enough, this is EXACTLY what Obama said he wanted to see our system turn into. Away from one that existed to treat the ill and restore them to health or their highest possible quality of health -to one that existed for the purpose of keeping healthy people from getting ill. To do that means denying access to the system for those who need it while encouraging those who don't need it to over-utilize it by pretending doctors can prevent the onset of illness in people if they see them while they are healthy! Which is a LIE -as well as a hideous travesty to create a system where doctors primarily sit on their asses reassuring the youth obsessed they are still young and healthy with no need of a doctor's education, training and skills!

No one can deny governments in these other countries are increasingly feeling the pressure to deny medical care to those who NEED in order to keep that system intact for those who don't. But the horror stories will only increase as they all come up against reality that their systems just are NOT sustainable and they will increasingly only see one out. With the realization that denying medical care to those who need it the most and forcing them to die prematurely instead would sure save a real bundle. And now the groundwork for denying the next targeted group is already underway in the UK. Wonder what that will do to their stats -and how they will bury those too.


'NHS should not treat those with unhealthy lifestyles' say Tories| News | This is London

My View: Grim statistics behind 'universal health care' | - MLive.com

Stafford Hospital caused &lsquo;unimaginable suffering&rsquo; - Times Online Stafford Hospital caused unimaginable suffering.

British Flee Socialized Health Care To Get Good Care Elsewhere | The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch

Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

The British health care system Denied British Cancer Patients With Chemotherapy Drugs Because They Cost Too Much! They Were Covered Before but were just ruled Non Cost-effective. Still Think Free Government Run Healthcare Is A Good Idea?

 

[Dr Gregg]

I blame the American Diet, mostly.


Japan has one of the highest life Expectancy's because of their Diet and Health. Kinda makes me wanna move there.. I would eat Sushi every day.

Yup, huge part of it.