Slashdot Mirror
Americans Are Seriously Sick
jd writes "A study by US and British researchers on frequency of illnesses shows that even when you compare like groups in the US and the UK, people in the US are considerably sicker than their counterparts in the UK. This is after factors such as age, race, income, education and gender were taken into consideration. The most startling conclusion was that although the richest Americans were better off than the poorest Americans, they did no better (health-wise) than the poorest of the English. Previous studies of the entire population had shown similar results, with America placing around 25th amongst industrialized countries on chronic disease prevention, but it had been assumed that minorities and economics were skewing the results. This study suggests that maybe that isn't the case."
Um, obesity may be on the increase in the UK, but it's no way near at the levels in the UK. Having lived in both countries I can attest to the fact the bloater ratio is way higher in the US.
Michael Moore is going to expose the rotten health care system in the USA in his new movie called Sicko:h p?id=193
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.p
The health insurance industry is a parasite the purpose of which is to interfere with your patient-doctor relationship and to deny your treatment.
Living in the Chicagoland area where air quality is more a mocking term than something to brag about, I seem to remember during my stints in europe several years ago that everybody seemed to be a lot more concerned with things like air quality, environmental impact. I remember there being a law severely restricting output of several chemicals in germany as early as ten years ago whereas some of those are still being thrown in the air happily every day around here. that's just one of several items where laws and regulations are a lot tougher in europe when it comes to the environment and keeping it healthy.
The official nationality of people from the UK is British, not English. By referring to Brits as "English", you're pissing off a sizable number of people who are proud to be Scottish, Irish, Welsh, etc. Us English did some pretty nasty things to them in the past, so calling them "English" isn't exactly going to ingratiate yourself with them.
By referring to people from the UK as British, you're still going to piss off some Irish, but at least you're correct in your terminology. Yes, British is the correct term to use for somebody from the UK, even if they aren't from Great Britain. References:
Having read the article, I have no clue exactly which region of the world it is talking about, because it seems to use different regions as synonyms. It could be the UK, which is a country and member nation of the UN. It could be Great Britain, which is a geographical region within the UK comprised mainly of England, Wales and Scotland. Or it could be England, which is a region, home nation and constituent country of the UK, but which doesn't have its own government.
If I had to guess, I'd say that they were talking about the UK, even though they don't use the word "UK" at all, instead opting for "British" and "England". I base this guess on years of experience with peopel from the USA getting it wrong and the sentence "Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens." Hint: England spends nothing whatsoever on its citizens. The NHS in England is run by the UK government. It's the NHS in other parts of the UK that belong to their respective constituent countries - England actually has very little to call its own these days.
England, Great Britain and the UK are three completely different things. Mix them up, and you piss people off. It's a bit like mixing up California with the USA with North America. You'd think somebody was pretty ignorant to do that, right?
Because they still think there is a White MAJORITY of people?
m
In the USA, that is the case:
"Nearly 217 million people, or 77.1 percent of the total population, reported as white," http://www.govspot.com/news/reports/population.ht
Because we decided as a nation that it should be a right that want to grant to our fellows - and I'm very proud of this fact.
Until you learn how they actually make that (warning: you may never eat foie gras again).
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
I will hae to contradict you on this im afraid. I have yet to work in a job in the UK where discretionary or compassionate leave is not given. Similarly, people with kids often take extra days off for care.
Also, most official bodies and larger companies allow flexible working hours so you can be where you need to be when you need to be there.
Finally, my last 3 jobs have all allowed me to "buy and sell" holidays days.
sorry
bah!*@%!
No, you are wrong.
UK law gives you four weeks holiday, which is 20 days a year if you work 5 days a week, but the law does not give anyone time off on bank holidays. Some employers will give you a paid day off, but some will make you use your annual leave allowance if you don't want to work on a bank holiday.
There is lots of information here and here.
From adviceguide.org.uk:
A latent existence
Humans are omniverous, with teeth and gut suited for consumption of both meat and vegetation.r esnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=humans+are+omnivorous&spe ll=1
e =utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define%3A+herbivore
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&
Humans are not herbivorous.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&i
Humans may choose to be vegetarian, and it can be a very healthy diet.
Never met an obese vegetarian? I have. Obesity is related to exercise as well as diet. It's the old 'energy taken in versus energy used up' equation.
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
The incompetence of our NHS, the apathy of their "professionals" and utterly abysmal levels of customer service lead me to believe it is just a scheme designed to ensure that healthcare professionals have the right to a paypacket without actually having to compete with others in their field.
I have been given the wrong treatment twice, diagnosed incorrectly three times, almost killed by an allergic reaction to an antibiotic when I was twelve years old, and was given 10x the adult dose by a doctor who could barely speak any English, I have been refused treatment for 2 debilitating physical injuries suffered in my teenage years which now in my late 20s restrict my ability to enjoy sports and sometimes to even walk normally.
I have no dentist and cannot get one, and apparently eyecare I must arrange and pay for myself... I can safely say that if we had no NHS and only private sector medical care I would have a much higher quality of life.
My contract is pretty typical (for information).
I get paid:
20 days annual vacation - some of which have to be taken during plant shutdown
10 days public holidays
12 days flexed off (2 hours per week back as one day per month, approx) - 6 have to be taken on specified shutdown days.
37 hour working week, overtime is in theory payable, in practice I just flex more time off as it suits.
1.5 days per month accumulative sick leave to 120 days max (weird logic applies after that)
5 days per year accumulated long service leave - accessible after 10 years.
Compared with the UK, I'm behind on annual leave, ahead on flex time off, and the long service leave more or less makes up for the AL deficit. Sick leave is about line ball in practice - except that in Oz it is culturally acceptable to take sick days off at ones discretion.
go have a look in a panda's mouth. Lots of sharp canines, but you won't see many of them eating meat.
Just like us, Pandas are omnivorous (even if 99% of their diet is bamboo).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
What about survival rates?
x _Study_Compares_U_S__and_European_Survival_Rates.a sp
w ww.ntrac.org.uk/About/QA.aspx&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk& cd=11 (claiming that UK survival is on the average less than America or European)
A quick google turned up a study on cancer survival rates in America and Europe: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1
Here's an article on cancer survival in the UK: (google cache): http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:VZmy8v8wLdMJ:
BBC article on survival rates http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/546846.stm
For those that don't want to read--much higher survival rates in the US for most cancers (gastric cancer being a difference). No, it's not US and UK, so not directly comparable, but an interesting study nonetheless, especially for the countless posters coming out of the woodworks declaring the infinite superiority of socialized healthcare (though I still fail to see how socialized healthcare systems in and of themselves prevent cancer and diabetes..)
My point in posting this ISN'T to cast doubt on the article's study, or to deny that Americans are pretty damn unhealthy (we too often are). It's merely to respond to the people who seem to to place a great deal of their mental energy on the existence of government institutions, and when these institutions are absent blame all ills on their absence.
What's your point?
Haggis _will_ kill you? Or haggis is good for you?
Guinness we already know is good for you.
Bank holidays are not what you think. They are legal holidays. While it is true that you may have to work at a bank holiday, the employer is legally required to offer you a day off in lieu, so the point about the higher amount of days off stands.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
The fact that we democratically decided that it should be.
The fact that it's basic human decency to help those less fortunate than yourself, particularly those in potentially dire need.
The fact that when a single life is needlessly cut short, the whole society is affected in some way.
Failing all that, simple enlightened self interest. Even if you can afford to pay for your healthcare or insurance now, can you be sure of that in the future? Heaven help you if you fall on hard times, or require treatment that your insurance won't cover.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=vegan+diet+b12
The problem is Vitamin B12. It's not naturally occurring in plants, but exclusively synthesised by bacteria. The only natural bioavailable sources of B12 are meat products. That's why vegans are advised to eat foods enriched with B12 (and calcium). Chronic B12 deficiency leads to anaemia, nerve damage and eventually death.
Slamming back the odd Red Bull will take care of it though.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Truly privatized would be your work place paying you money to obtain your own health care. Whether you bank it and pay straight cash after that(frequently gets a 50% discount), or buy a health care insurance program, or some combination of the two is up to you.
Have you every tried paying cash in the US Health Care system? I had a dentist that I loved dearly, compared to some of the other dentists I've seen - this guy is the best in the field I've come across. My insurance used to pay him $650 for a root canal and crown. But he charged a cash customer $1500 for the same thing.
I have to pick up a couple medicines every month at the pharmacy. (Now I suppose Walmart & Costco are a few bucks cheaper, but not on my pharmacy plan) I pay a trivial deductable ($1 each on generics) for my medicines and a straight percentage for non-generics. They pay $65 for one of my scripts, but the cash price for it is $128 at Walgreens. They don't even hide that they are paying half what I would, I have hard caps on the policy and everything everyone is paid out is listed. Go try to find a pair of MRIs with & without contrast for $530 paying cash. I know why my GP isn't always happy to see me either, I know what he is paid for it.
Cash wont get you far in the American Health Care system, they rape cash customers blind. $50 for a hot towel, $75 for an ice pack... (*This is from my physical therapy bill before insurance, and these are the cash billing prices.)
I know there are some doctors you can negotiate with, and there is always the Doc-In-The-Box for routine things, but if you need anything more than the very routine, its a very expensive proposition. Some of the health care system is pure price gouging, but its targeted at the cash customer the worst.
I'm currently working as a contractor, and using COBRA for my old insurance policy. When its up, I'm going to buy this policy outright, its far from cheap, but I've done the math both ways. I can't win paying cash, and can't afford the risk of needing some specialized bit of care if I have any complications.
I'll tell you what I really think causes the difference between here and the UK. Although I haven't lived in the UK, I spent a year working in Germany. Its the food, its the stress, and its the climate of work. Half of the additives to the food you wont find in theirs - it makes a difference. The work environment was a lot better, shorter hours, less pressures for overtime (I was reminded of this several times when I suggested time tables that would be perfectly acceptable here - just work people 55 hours a week to do it.), very little stress coming out (there was virtually no crime where I was at). Even though I had the stress of dealing with a language I hadn't mastered, navigating a city I barely knew, and a bit of culture shock - I still came home with less need to unwind. Where I was at less traffic as well, of course it was expensive to drive. It was very typical on any job site I was at for them to offer us good coffee, and a few minutes to talk to everyone before starting. (That almost never happens here, just get led to the problem and dive in and avoid talking to anyone unless you have to, or they will think you are slacking off.)
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
Not each year. More like once every four years. Also that's how it's generally done, not a requirement.
The hormone that causes a mammal to give milk is well known and available. If you wanted to lactate, you could take it.
And I'm assuming you're probably a guy.
Is this off-topic yet? I can never tell.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Diseases that occur in a statistically reliable fashion can be insured, but you have to have a huge population to do it. A large problem with american health coverage is that it isn't insurance. Dental care, new contact lenses, fashionable glasses, none of these things are insurable, but we want our 'insurance' to cover them.
3 21114-3043046?v=glance&n=283155
As far as free markets go, the reason a free market doesn't exist is not because some things aren't profitable to treat(a free market wouldn't treat them), but because the decisions regarding spending are not made locally. So yeah, it probably isn't real desireable to have health care be a free market, that market would let people die all the time.
Tim Hartford makes some interesting guesses about the difference in effectiveness between british and american health care in The Undercover Economist:
http://www.timharford.com/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195189779/103-5
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
We lag in the lifespan department, there, chum. You are evidently not reading something correctly. We just caught up with India on lifespan not too long ago. Try again.
My book, podcast
you can use it for cases where a member of the family is sick. In the UK you cannot.
Umm, if you can't you should discuss your rights with your employer - in the UK there is a legal _right_ to unpaid leave to care for dependents.
is so overburdened and inefficient that it takes months, MONTHS to get to a dentist for a painful tooth problem.
BULLSHIT. Absolute bullshit. I had an impacted wisdom tooth, had an appointment to see an oral surgeon after the infection went away and had the tooth out the same day as the scheduled appointment, only 3 days after I finished my antibiotics. Check my journal, I have an entry there written the day I had my tooth out.
Trolling is a art,
"The truth is, there are only two markets in the US that consistently see greater than inflation price increases: medicine and education. Please note both markets are broken by government action."
If medicine is "broken by government action" it is so because the pharmaceuticals want it that way. They are lobbying for ever increasing patent rights among a bunch of other things. And these things are all market distorting, intentionally so. As far as education is concerned...are you talking about public elementary and secondary education or higher levels? I think if you compared the two it would be easy to see that your assertion is ridiculous.
"Every other market you care to point to either
a) Has seen declining prices and increasing quality.
b) Involves trade in a finite commodity (think land, even gas goes up and down with the commodity price, which goes up and down with supply and demand)."
What about health insurance? Increasing prices with decreasing quality. Or car insurance? Or housing or rent for that matter. I could go on.
"I'm sorry, Adam Smith's invisible hand works almost everywhere, and frequently when it doesn't, it's failure is because of government, not big business. "
Have you ever read Adam Smith? I mean really read and understood him. Because if you did I can't imagine that you would be spewing that crap. Adam Smith didn't believe that free markets would work at all in the real world. His thesis was purely academic in nature and said something like if you had a perfect free market, then competition would force prices down to a minimum. But he acknowledged, as should be perfectly clear to anyone, that free markets don't exist and they never will. If they did, our entire system would destroy itself. And if are still too indoctrinated to see this then try out this exercise: 1) Define clearly what a free market is and 2) Find an example of such a free market in existence. Good luck.
Have you every tried paying cash in the US Health Care system? I had a dentist that I loved dearly, compared to some of the other dentists I've seen - this guy is the best in the field I've come across. My insurance used to pay him $650 for a root canal and crown. But he charged a cash customer $1500 for the same thing.
It's not the doctors fault, he's not out to rape cash customers, he's trying to make ends meet. The reason that uninsured medical costs are so high is partially the fault of private insurance companies. Your doc could charge $800 for a root and crown, cover his expenses (lets say $650), and have some money left over to take home ($150). If he got $800 bucks every time, it would work. Unfortunately, the private insurance companies use their muscle to reduce the amount that they will pay, so the doc is forced to accept this lower payment ($650). Well that covers his expenses, but it certainly won't leave him with a paycheck, so he has to charge the uninsured a bit more to make up for it.
However, MedicAid and MediCare are the real reason why healthcare is out of control in this country. Docs are required by law to accept both, and neither of them pay anywhere near enough to cover expenses. While the insurance companies will haggle down the price to $650 with your dentist, MedicAid and MediCare give him $200, take it or leave it. The fact that the doc has to accept these programs leaves him screwed. He loses money on every procedure, and has to hike rates to make up for it.
This too, will end.
You're right, but for different reasons -- the twisted economics of private health care in the U.S. are such that insurance companies run like hell away from anyone who is sick.
When you see health plans marketed here in the States, it's done by showing healthy, happy people, not showing sick people receiving good health care. That's because insurers want to recruit customers who are in good health and leave those with diabetes or other chronic conditions for some other company. It's like a game of hot potato: who gets stuck with all of the diabetics and their lifelong health problems?
As for health care being a societal issue, that's right on. Some people can take action to be healthy and remain that way, and others may take action but still wind up getting heart disease or diabetes because of family history, etc. The people who live healthy lives and stay healthy, as well as the people who live less healthy lifestyles but still wind up not getting diseases -- these are the people who "pay" for the people unfortunate enough to get sick. The healthy peoples' low costs subsidize the costs of those who wind up getting sick. In a nationalized health care system, those costs are spread out over the entire society, and it's a wash overall.
In a private system, it's in the interests of insurers to seek out only the people who don't get sick -- also known as people without pre-existing conditions (those who haven't already been sick). Those with pre-existing conditions (diabetics) or those at risk for health problems (smokers, older people, etc.) are passed up, or charged far higher premiums, essentially locking them out of health care coverage if they aren't covered through their employer.
Here's an interesting factor that would be very, very difficult to isolate, but that may be having an effect on health in the U.S. vs. the U.K. -- how many Americans are staying in stressful, underpaid, overworked jobs because they don't want to lose their health coverage? Seriously, that's one of the top priorities for basically anyone here, whether they can keep their health coverage or not. If big employers like General Motors or Ford or Boeing start to phase out health coverage because of the cost it adds to their products, it's going to start to get even worse for us.
Not that it isn't already bad -- this is National Cover the Uninsured Week here, which is a good time to remind everyone of the following:
* There are 46 million people in the U.S. without insurance (about 20 percent of the population).
* The country spends more than 20 percent of its GDP on health expenditures.
* We spend more per person on health care than most industrialized nations, and despite our "top of the line" care and technology, we have significantly lower indicators or health than most of those nations.
* Hospitals (emergency rooms in particular) that provide charity care are becoming the first point of contact for many people who are uninsured, which is making it hard for some hospitals to stay financially solvent.
It's not at all an exaggeration to say our health care system is in a crisis right now.
You should look up the study itself.
The whole point that they checked biomarkers to make sure that it wasn't a bias in the self reporting, and it wasn't.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
I've never understood the (frequently European) mindset that when there is a possibility of making money, people instantly turn completely evil and ruthless. Do imagine hospital CEO's sitting around thinking how they can make people sick to get more money out of them?
It's not about evil, it's about the bottom line. CEO's have to turn a profit that is as good or better than the market performance. So, obviously, they will look at the most profitable ways of doing that. Treating a disease instead of curing it is generally more profitable, so more effort goes into the r&d of drugs that treat instead of cure.
If a CEO does not turn a profit because he "is a good guy", he is guaranteed to be fired by the board/shareholders. Shareholders are only interested in ROI. When was the last time you heard someone say "you know, I've got shares in Xyzzy, and they're turning a loss, but they do so many charitable works, so I'm buying some more stock!"? It just doesn't work that way.
Breakfast served all day!
There's a lot of comments on this story, and my comments will probably get buried under the load of other comments... but I feel I have to comment as a British citizen living in the US for the last 11 years.
My unscientific view is that there may be something in upbringing, or there may be something genetic that's not being taken into account in this study. Despite the fact that the study made a point of the fact that it excluded certain races the simple fact that the US is a literal melting pot of cultures throws a variable into the mix that I don't think has been considered. We don't know historically how healthy the Native American people were. Today's native Americans aren't "pure", but neither are the "White" Americans. Almost everyone I know (this is living in the midwest) can trace some native American heritage in their genetic makeup, whereas I'd hazard to guess that most British people wouldn't. This does throw in a genetic possibility in the occurrences of cancer for example. We don't know how prevalent cancer was in old native populations... we just don't have that data.
I know my example is not very scientific, but I have lived in America for 11 years now. That means that I've had enough time now to "go native" and live a lifestyle that isn't very different from that of my peers (though does sometimes seem a little different in subtle ways because of ingrained ideals that I can trace to my childhood). I don't think I eat significantly differently from my peers, though I do often eat less. I don't drink any more or less than most of my peers, and I live in the same areas, drive the same roads... hell I even eat the same Mississippi river catfish that we catch on a Saturday afternoon on occasion.
What do I observe? Despite living a very similar lifestyle, I am a lot healthier than my peers. Most people my age are overweight. While I'm not thin either, I have only once in my life gotten to the point I considered myself obese (but my doctor said I was just overweight)... and I put myself on a strict diet. A cultural thing? Perhaps. Most of my peers also are losing their hair (I'm 33 and still have a full head of hair) or going grey. Is this a symptom of a diet/exercise problem... or something different in their genetic makeup? I noted when I returned to England last year for a vacation, my friends I met up with were mostly in much the same condition as me. Compared to my American friends we would all have been considered significantly healthier.
Now, please note that I don't make any special efforts to stay fit. Oh, I go out to the gym once or twice a week but sometimes it will be weeks between visits because of my work or home life. I eat at the same places as my peers and colleagues, and don't necessarily order anything different. I probably do cook at home on the weekends more than most of my peers, but that's just because I enjoy making good dinners completely from scratch (something few people do; they usually buy pre-packaged goods at the store and call that "home cooking").
To extend my unscientific viewpoint further I have two children. My eldest is my step-daughter... her parents are both American. I also have a son who's mine. The health differences between my two children couldn't be greater. While they both eat the same, and my daughter is not fat (actually she's very slim), she has bad teeth and frequent health problems she's had her entire life. Maybe she was just unlucky, but my son couldn't be more different. He's healthy as a horse... strong and active. The only time I can remember ever having to take him to the emergency room was when he decided that since he had managed to lock himself in his room and couldn't open the door, a second floor window would make an appropriate exit. Now again, there's no difference in diet between both kids... and they do share at least 50% of the genes (my wife), but something in there is very different which results in both of them having significantly different health.
I know none of this is very scientific, but I feel th
It's funny, I don't go to doctors because they never find anything wrong with me. The only trouble I've ever had are colds and flu, which they can do nothing about, and a stress fracture in my leg, for which the advice was "well, take it easy until it stops hurting."
OK, I have had strep throat twice. I went in and said "I have strep throat. Give me a prescription for some antibiotics." Had to pay $150 for the tests and whatnot so they'd give it to me.
It doesn't take long before "Yeah, you're sick. You'll get better on your own, there's nothing we can do to make it faster. Gimme 150 bucks." gets old.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but high-fructose corn syrup could be a major cause of this health discrepancy. According to Wikipedia, HFCS has "been linked to health problems such as obesity and diabetes."
Most interestingly (and I assume this is talking about Britain as well): "Currently HFCS remains an almost uniquely American phenomenon as, although it is not actually banned in Europe (and other markets), the relative greater availibilty of cane sugar against maize in these markets (coupled with generally negative consumer attitudes towards it [particularly in Europe]) has made it uneconomical to produce it there." Wikipedia.
HFCS is mostly consumed through soda, but that "healthy" fruit juice parents give their kids can contain even more.