Healthcare Spending and Life Expectancy

[Oddball]

In the HHS numbers. But those are also the same people who still throw around the debunked "40+ million uninsured" canard, aren't they?

Statistics....You can prove anything you want with them.

 

[Care4all]

In the HHS numbers. But those are also the same people who still throw around the debunked "40+ million uninsured" canard, aren't they?

Statistics....You can prove anything you want with them.

Well Dude, THAT IS what statistics are for...analyzing the Data!

Much better than just GUESSING and PRESUMING based on a PERSONAL or PARTISAN opinion, no?

Care

 

[Oddball]

I'd take educated guesses that are identified as such beforehand, over cherry picked statistics used to try to prove a cause/effect relationship which is a big stretch, at best.

 

[Polk]

Nope.

Just supplying information.

What you're supplying is a stale non sequitur used by partisan hacks.

Americans spend lots of money on medical procedures that have nothing whatsoever to do with life expectancy. Moreover, lifestyle choices (i.e. chronic overeating) have far more to do with life expectancy, than what the society as a whole spends on medical services.

You're way smarter than this, dude.

Because, of course, this is the only country in the world where people chronically overeat.

 

[Oddball]

That was merely one example of the myriad of lifestyle differences between America and Europe, not the only one.

Reading for comprehension is a wonderful thing.

 

[Polk]

That was merely one example of the myriad of lifestyle differences between America and Europe, not the only one.

Reading for comprehension is a wonderful thing.

I was illustrating just one of the reasons why your claim that the lifestyles of Americans are so much more unhealthy is laughable. If you want to look at something that has a huge health impact, check out smoking rates. Much higher in Europe than in the United States. Is that to say smoking causes these numbers? No. There are system factors at play.

 

[Care4all]

I'd take educated guesses that are identified as such beforehand, over cherry picked statistics used to try to prove a cause/effect relationship which is a big stretch, at best.

I just looked over the 40 pages plus... of statistics on this and I did not see ANY cherry picking at all Dude?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd take educated guesses that are identified as such beforehand, over cherry picked statistics used to try to prove a cause/effect relationship which is a big stretch, at best.

But one has to be at least a little bit educated to take an educated guess. Nothing that you have posted indicates that you are meet the qualifications.

 

[Christopher]

That was merely one example of the myriad of lifestyle differences between America and Europe, not the only one.

Reading for comprehension is a wonderful thing.

I was illustrating just one of the reasons why your claim that the lifestyles of Americans are so much more unhealthy is laughable. If you want to look at something that has a huge health impact, check out smoking rates. Much higher in Europe than in the United States. Is that to say smoking causes these numbers? No. There are system factors at play.

Wrong. See here: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

The health care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health care practices were unusually deleterious. This is not a remote possibility in the United States, which had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking in early life has left an imprint on mortality patterns that remains visible as cohorts age (Preston and Wang 2006;Haldorsen and Grimsrud 1999). One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009). Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

It is a fact that we are much more unhealthy and that this affects our life expectancy. This is something a health care system does not address.

 

[Toronado3800]

So modern smoking trends have yet to show their benefit since so many folks over 50 smoked at some time in their lives?

Lets also not forget for years the U.S. has been a leader in medical research. If a new procedure costs more here then obviously we spend more. Question is if its better to ration out expensive procedures since only xx% of the GDP can be spent on healthcare.

Also if I recall caloric intake even for those who are not obese lowers life expectancy for some reason. Something like its better to maintain your 180 lbs by eating 2500 calories a day than by eating 3000 calories a day and burning off them extra 500 in exercise.

Still though how far can our fat buts move the bubble over? 1/2 the way? 2/3?

Really I believe we have had socialized medicine my whole life so I'm not that excited by the upcoming changes as others.

 

[Old Rocks]

We seem to have the worst of the socialized medicine, and the worst of the capitalist medicine. The part of our system that is socialized is for those who are absolutely the worst risks, the elderly and infirm. The part that is capitalized, is for those that are young and pay high bucks for insurance that most of them will not use, and is often denied when they dare try to use it.

And, in both systems, designed to relieve all of anything that they may have accumulated should they have the terminity to get sick.

No medical bankruptcies in the socialized systems in the other industrialized nations. Longer life spans, and better infant mortality numbers.

 

[Oddball]

I'd take educated guesses that are identified as such beforehand, over cherry picked statistics used to try to prove a cause/effect relationship which is a big stretch, at best.

But one has to be at least a little bit educated to take an educated guess. Nothing that you have posted indicates that you are meet the qualifications.

Blow me, dickweed.

 

[Oddball]

That was merely one example of the myriad of lifestyle differences between America and Europe, not the only one.

Reading for comprehension is a wonderful thing.

I was illustrating just one of the reasons why your claim that the lifestyles of Americans are so much more unhealthy is laughable. If you want to look at something that has a huge health impact, check out smoking rates. Much higher in Europe than in the United States. Is that to say smoking causes these numbers? No. There are system factors at play.

How about murder rates?.....MVA rates?...Obesity?...Drug use/abuse?...General stress?...And those are just off the top of my head.

Yet, you're going to argue that the overall general determining factor is money spent?!?!?!?!???

Schmuck.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope.

Just supplying information.

Now could you supply us with the point?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope.

Just supplying information.

What you're supplying is a stale non sequitur used by partisan hacks.

Americans spend lots of money on medical procedures that have nothing whatsoever to do with life expectancy. Moreover, lifestyle choices (i.e. chronic overeating) have far more to do with life expectancy, than what the society as a whole spends on medical services.

You're way smarter than this, dude.

My, my, aren't we defensive. Somebody might say that that response is partisan. Not me, of course...

That regression line is a pretty close fit. That's a helluva lot of tummy tucks and meals at IHOP to produce such a significant outlier as that.

I think you and I both know there's more to it than that.

Yup. There's also the fact that you're comparing us to countries who don't have the mixed population we do. Genetics plays a huge factor in life expectancy among racial and ethnic groups, and it's disingenuous to compare the entire US population, with its racial and ethnic diversity, to countries with largely homogenous populations.

Bottom line: correlation does not equal causation. Prove to us, definitively, that healthcare systems can be credited with the differences in life expectancy between first-tier countries, rather than just assuming that to be the case and expecting us all to just blindly follow you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope.

Just supplying information.

What you're supplying is a stale non sequitur used by partisan hacks.

Americans spend lots of money on medical procedures that have nothing whatsoever to do with life expectancy. Moreover, lifestyle choices (i.e. chronic overeating) have far more to do with life expectancy, than what the society as a whole spends on medical services.

That's absurd.

The vast majority of medical procedures affect life expectancy to some extent.

Prove it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What you're supplying is a stale non sequitur used by partisan hacks.

Americans spend lots of money on medical procedures that have nothing whatsoever to do with life expectancy. Moreover, lifestyle choices (i.e. chronic overeating) have far more to do with life expectancy, than what the society as a whole spends on medical services.

That's absurd.

The vast majority of medical procedures affect life expectancy to some extent.

Right....Lasik, boob jobs, liposuction, hair transplants add sooooooo much to life expectancy.

Dingbat.

Not to mention the small fortune you can spend just on diagnostic procedures that don't affect your health at all before you even START on treating something. And consider the number of procedures old people need for quality of life concerns, such as orthopedic surgeries, cataract removals, hormone therapies for menopausal women . . . The mind boggles.

Hell, sit in an ER some night and count the number of people who come in with something potentially life-threatening, versus people who come in with broken bones, sprains, cuts that need stitches, etc. - in other words, things that need immediate care, but almost certainly won't affect your life expectancy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Defensive nothing.

I said you were using an non sequitur used by hacks, not necessarily that you were acting as one yourself.

Elective surgeries are only one aspect of the amount of money spent on medical services, and the fact that there are numerous other unrelated factors that play into life expectancy still stands.

Simply put, the life expectancy angle is a total red herring.

Saying that healthcare spending and life span is a total red herring is pretty silly. Drop healthcare spending to zero and I'm willing to bet that life expectancy ain't going to remain constant.

Yes, but even THAT is a red herring. We're not talking about comparisons between the US and some third-world hellhole where the people drink the same water their livestock bathe in and the nearest medical clinic is a hundred miles away. We're talking about comparisons between the US and other first-tier nations, aren't we?

Of course, getting more facelifts and eating lots of Ho-Hos does have some effect on this graph. But do the math. The Danes live as long as Americans yet spend about $4000 per capita less than Americans on healthcare annually. With 310 million Americans, that is a difference of $1.24 trillion for the same outcome. Now, I'm sure eating lots herring and breathing in sea salt is healthy, but that's a lot of coin to explain away as lifestyle and elective surgery.

Maybe it's just that the Danish population is almost 100% white. Compare their life expectancy to that of white Americans, and you'll see that they're actually coming off worse. Hmm. Genetics is a *****, ain't it?

If you could quantify your argument, it would be appreciated.

If you could prove yours, instead of just assuming, THAT would be appreciated. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Said1]

If you remove the US, there would be a strong correlation. It's only a few years anyway. I think Mexico and Turkey should be removed given that there are so many other non-medical heath detriments that affect life expectancy, and are very poor in those countries.

I hate scatter plots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Denmark - Obesity rate 9.5%
United Sates - Obesity rate 30.6%

Do ya think that might matter?

Of course it matters. But does it matter to the tune of a trillion dollars?

I don't think so.

You don't THINK so, but do you KNOW?

Consider for a moment the number of health problems caused or exacerbated by obesity.

Type 2 Diabetes
Coronary Heart Disease
Stroke
Cancer
Sleep Apnea
Osteoarthritis
Gall Bladder Disease
Fatty Liver Disease
Pregnancy Complications
(This partial list provided by the NIH)

Consider for a second just how much treatment of each of these conditions costs in just one person.

Now consider the real population numbers of the US versus Denmark, and just how many actual people are involved in 30.6% of our population versus 9.5% of theirs.

Now tell me that obesity isn't a huge factor in the spending differences between the two countries.