Slashdot Mirror


China Overtakes US For Healthy Lifespan, WHO Data Finds (reuters.com)

According to World Health Organization data, China has overtaken the United States in healthy life expectancy at birth for the first time. The data from 2016 finds Chinese newborns can look forward to 68.7 years of healthy life ahead of them, compared with 68.5 years for American babies. "American newborns can still expect to live longer overall -- 78.5 years compared to China's 76.4 -- but the last 10 years of American lives are not expected to be healthy," reports Reuters. From the report: The United States was one of only five countries, along with Somalia, Afghanistan, Georgia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, where healthy life expectancy at birth fell in 2016, according to a Reuters analysis of the WHO data, which was published without year-on-year comparisons in mid-May. The best outlook was for Singaporean babies, who can count on 76.2 years of health on average, followed by those in Japan, Spain and Switzerland. The United States came 40th in the global rankings, while China was 37th. In terms of overall life expectancy China is also catching up with the United States, which Reuters calculations suggest it is on course to overtake around 2027. Meanwhile U.S. life expectancy is falling, having peaked at 79 years in 2014, the first such reversal for many years.

286 comments

  1. Trump's fault obviously by Jarwulf · · Score: 0, Troll

    He's such a terrible president he caused life expectancy to tumble a full two years before he was even elected.

    1. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he is a terrible "president", worst ever. this is a well-known fact. and in the top 20 worst, perhaps, globally, in the entire history of this planet.

      it is his party who is to blame, and as the president is considered the 'leader' of his or her party (steers policy and platform, is expected to be the standard-bearer, etc), it is by extension, the twit's fault as well. so congratulations. you were correct, simply amazing for a trumpette moron such as yourself.

    2. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So awful that you didn't provide a single example of what he's done wrong, other than hurt your feelings!
       
      The economy is doing great, job numbers are better than ever for many, TPP is dead, borders are going to be properly enforced, politically correct fascist leftwing bullshit has been shit canned, and best of all, he has drawn the MSM out exposing them for the propaganda machines they are. So much positive has been done that the media does not cover.
       
      Hands down Trump is the best president in modern times by a long shot. It's no exaggeration that America was probably saved from an awful globalist future, and we were this fucking close to losing it all.

    3. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is a terrible "president", worst ever. this is a well-known fact. and in the top 20 worst, perhaps, globally, in the entire history of this planet.

      Hmm, so of the N presidents on these lists combined, which N-19 were better than Trump?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Venezuela
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Kenya
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Sudan
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_South_Sudan
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Rwanda
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Iran
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Uganda
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Chad
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_the_Central_African_Republic
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Haiti

    4. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The economy is doing great, job numbers are better than ever for many

      Mostly due to all the hard work put in by the previous administration (who had to start right after the banking disaster/collapse that GWBush failed to prevent).

      Or maybe you think Trump managed to turn it all around in a couple of weeks? LOL!

      Question: How's the swamp-draining coming along? That's the single most important thing that he could do to help safeguard the future economy of the USA - prevent more gaming of the system (and subsequent collapses).

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is like batman, he's the hero that we deserve, not the one we need.

    6. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't know anything about swamps. Swamp experts say you have to flush out the old swamp with the new swamp before trying to drain it. We will have the best swamps, let me tell you. Swamping, swamping, swamp USA!

    7. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them.

    8. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Awww Trumplthinskin is all triggered by the truth. Sad.

    9. Re: Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute. I'm surprised you stopped sucking your mom's tit long enough to post the nonsense.

      People like you are the drag on society and will be handled accordingly in the coming years.

    10. Re: Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you wonder why your opinions are not taken seriously in political discussions

    11. Re:Trump's fault obviously by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If you multiply their qualities by the relative impact of their country to get the impact of their presidency on the world? I'm pretty sure they'd have to try really hard to screw up as badly as Trump is in the position to.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Trump's fault obviously by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The economy is doing great, job numbers are better than ever for many

      Mostly due to all the hard work put in by the previous administration (who had to start right after the banking disaster/collapse that GWBush failed to prevent).

      Or maybe you think Trump managed to turn it all around in a couple of weeks? LOL!

      Oh dear.

      Must history repeat itself?

      Reagan "was" both an idiot and evil mastermind, somehow. And magically his successes were all due to Carter, er, somehow ...

      I've lived through this all before.

    13. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well no, it's not Trump's fault, it's the american people's fault for refusing to accept socialised health care that the rest of the modern world gets to enjoy.

      Americans are the type of people who really just don't care about anyone but themselves and it's been an abject failure. Crime is high, health is low, wealth inequality is extreme, social mobility no longer exists. America is starting to crumble and every federal and state administration is at least some way responsible for it.

    14. Re:Trump's fault obviously by cyberchondriac · · Score: 0

      You are out of touch with reality. The Dow shot up from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of *26 percent* the day of (or day after) Trump's inauguration. You think that's just coincidence? The Dow had very modest gains over 2016, up until November, and in fact had the worst start of any year. Why would the Dow rocket up the day Obama left office if this is all due to Obama's policies, which were about to be scuttled?
      It's about market confidence. The Dow now resides in record territory; it's had some losses since 2017 but still resides far higher than it was in 2016 and before. Unemployment is the lowest in years.
      Even CNN Money recognizes the cause of the uptick. http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/3...

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    15. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's backward in his case, he's not the one we deserve, (we deserve better) but he might be the one we need, to shake things up. At least he kept two-faced Hillary out of the White House.

    16. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Dan667 · · Score: 0

      doen't trump eat crap fast food and coke every day? He is doing damage to himself and to the deluded and confused who think he is a role model.

    17. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kettle, meet Pot. Snowflake is all nasty and vindictive, having autistic screeching breakdowns because Killary lost even after shafting the senile commie in the back with her corrupt DNC.
      I'm with >Her(pes)

    18. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a fucking idiot for confusing the size of the DJIA with the economy.

      Tell me, are more americans richer now than before?

      fucking idiot

    19. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bet borscht breath!

    20. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At least he kept two-faced Hillary out of the White House."

      Two-faced? I'm sure Trump can do better than that.

    21. Re:Trump's fault obviously by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are out of touch with reality. The Dow shot up from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of *26 percent* the day of (or day after) Trump's inauguration.

      No, it didn't. It took TWO YEARS for the Dow to go up from 19,827 to 25,075. It took from the day before Trump's inauguration day to the second anniversary of his inauguration day. As you say, it was a rise of 26 percent.

      Did you know that over the exact corresponding period of time, from the day before his inauguration to the second anniversary of his inauguration, Under Obama the Dow went up 33 PERCENT? In fact, if you check the Dow on March 9, 2009 at the very depth of the Great Recession, you will notice that by the second anniversary of Obama's term the Dow rose an astonishing 61 percent.

      The Dow now resides in record territory

      No, it does not. It's well over 1000 points off its high. Also, did you know that the Dow resided in "record territory" for the entire second term of Barack Obama's presidency?

      [Note: I am figuring out where the Trump supporters are getting this myth that the the Dow rose 26% in two days after Trump's inauguration. It is from a misreading of the big, wet baby's own tweet. The only problem is, in Trumpistan they get every single fact wrong, including the day the tweet was issued. see below]

      https://twitter.com/realDonald...

      And here, you can look at the Dow history yourself to check for yourself.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least he kept two-faced Hillary out of the White House.

      Sure, the cancer is bad, but at least I didn't get the flu!

    23. Re:Trump's fault obviously by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Trump's fault obviously by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Why? Are the Democrats going to promote healthy lifestyle choices? Get rid of the high-carb low-fat diet recommendations that are killing Americans? Break up the medical monopolies and drug cartels to drop the cost of health care by 80% or more?

    25. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake news. Do you want me to post the opening, lows, highs and closing values from that week?

    26. Re:Trump's fault obviously by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's multi-factorial, I expect. Diet, healthcare, exercise, and more. It's a trend seen in other Western nations too. In China you have older people who have had to be active all their lives, and so that will be currently having benefits, but the 20-somethings in China might not have the same experience. In 30 or 40 years I expect China and the USA will be pretty much level for health lifespan. Note that it's healthy lifespan, not overall lifespan.

    27. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are out of touch with reality. The Dow shot up from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of *26 percent* the day of (or day after) Trump's inauguration.

      It is you who is out of touch with reality. When reality set in after one year of the the Trump presidency, the Dow promptly fell by 9%. The 2017 runnup was the holdover from the golden years of Obama's 2nd term (which did not include any global financial crisis caused by Republicans dismantling regulations). Then the reality of the Trump presidency set in, did I mention that?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    28. Re:Trump's fault obviously by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      G.W. Bush failed to stop the banking-sector crash in large part because a Democrat Congress prevented repealing Democrat-passed Clinton-era banking laws. Among other things, those laws (and those who implemented them) forced banks to make bad loans.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Trump was largely expected to remove government minders from business activity in conjunction with a massive reduction in corporate tax rate. This principally caused the market to become significantly overheated. As any investor with even moderate experience can tell you, a rapid rise is surely followed by a rapid descent otherwise known as "going parabolic". We experienced a taste of the descent already with a reversal in prices down to November levels. Currently institutional investors are busy selling back shares to corporations in one of the largest buybacks ever seen due to the misguided corporate tax rate cuts (did you folks really think it'd trickle down?). When the buybacks dry up I strongly suspect we'll see a much deeper correction in share prices. Strangely a certain group of people will still be singing his praise all while calling for Hillary's impeachment.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    30. Re: Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush couldn't have foreseen that, and even if he had, only Congress could have done something about it. Almost nobody saw that coming. If more people had, nobody would have been investing in mortgage bonds, instead they would have been getting rid of them, and/or shorting them.

      Only idiots think the president creates an economic reality, but this is totally stupid. If anything, Congress plays a bigger role than the president, but neither have as much power over it as they'd like to believe. The real estate crash was a bubble that popped.

      So let's apply your fucked up logic to another bubble: You (and the Democratic party) believe in a myth that Bill Clinton created a budget surplus (meanwhile Newt Gingrich claimed it was Congress who did so since they control the purse strings and the budget,) and then Bush ruined it. None of this is true (except what Congress controls. The reason we had a

    31. Re: Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accidentally taped submit anonymously and slashdot has no confirmation on mobile. Anyway...

      The budget surplus was entirely the result of the tech bubble: Wages were artificially inflated by an industry that was overhyped. There was no substance to many of these suddenly appearing big companies with big budgets. Once this became obvious, the tech bubble began to crash in 1999. Just before Bush took office in 2001, the crash was already in full swing, meaning he couldn't possibly have been able to do anything to cause this. Then when he was only 9 months into his term, 9/11 happened. Then the obvious happened: A big recession followed. If that was any president's economy, it would be firmly in the Clinton camp. But, neither president had anything to do with it. What happened was a bunch of unfortunate circumstances: Investors of all stripes made some terrible investment choices to fund companies that had no business models, and then some Muslims had a contest to see who could be the worst pilot.

      So here's a question for you: Which president is responsible for the post-9/11 recovery that made the Democrats nominate a throw away candidate since they already knew they were going to lose?

    32. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh.. election first tuesday of november 2016
      inauguration january 20 2017
      first anniversary of inauguration january 20 2018
      today may 31 2018
      second anniversary of inauguration january 20 2019

      Are you from the future?

    33. Re:Trump's fault obviously by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're right. I was wrong. It wasn't two years, it was 18 months. so sue me.

      Please adjust my above comment to read "ONE YEAR" for both Trump and Obama, and "first anniversary" instead of second anniversary.

      Everything else is correct, and I sincerely apologize for calling Scott Adama a "feckless cunt", since it's unfair to all the feckless cunts out there.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re: Trump's fault obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me worried. It might feel like 2 years but I was pretty sure it wasn't.

      Also, considering the number of books Scott Adama has written, he's very far from feckless, in fact he's more full of feck than most people on the planet. He may still be a cunt, though.

    35. Re:Trump's fault obviously by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      The Dow is always going to have ups and downs, and the 9% pales to the other gains it's seen since November 2016, and those began shooting up the moment trump took office. How can you give Obama credit for that? They should have plummeted, right?
      Don't forget the Dow also fell by a record amount at the time in January of 2016, under Obama. It happens. It's faltering for now, but even CNN Money isn't worried.
      The economists say this is a normal correction after a stellar bull market. Read the "Now What" section of the article below.

      http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/2...

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    36. Re:Trump's fault obviously by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The Dow is always going to have ups and downs, and the 9% pales to the other gains it's seen since November 2016

      The Dow was still coasting on the golden years of Obama's second term, as I said. BTW, off 125 points this week, pure Trump effect (trade war). There is no way anyone except you calls a 9% loss in 5 months "pale".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  2. US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... younger middle-aged Americans, particularly in less affluent areas ...

    Middle-age means menial labouring causes poor health so the government and health insurers don't want to spend money on someone who is unable to resume work. Also, poor people are unable to afford medicine, the price of which has been sky-rocketing. US capitalism is designed to make plenty of poor people (and a number of people, poor) so it's not an issue when some die in wars, or on the job.

    1. Re:US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely it's related to the bad eating and drinking habits of Americans, which start at an early age.

      Perhaps the menial laboring helps to keep some people healthier!

    2. Re: US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Science suggests that menial labour causes a loss of life expectancy inverse to the gains that exercise gives.

    3. Re: US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah so what's the solution, comrade? EU style socialism where we give up our sovereignty to international interests? More taxation on our menial paychecks? Kowtowing to bronze age tyrranies?

    4. Re: US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If civilization is not to your linking, you can continue living in your favorite plutocracy and believe you are in the bestest country in the world, even if that's not true anymore by any metric. Bending the truth is now the norm for you guys.

    5. Re:US capitalism by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      If the US health system were capitalistic, with producers open to competition in the global market and consumers free to form buying associations of whatever kind they wanted and buy from wherever they wanted, we would be much better off. Instead, we have this interlocking cartel of medieval guilds whose goal is to maximize the number of doubloons extracted from the peasants.

      Meanwhile, in 2003 and in 2013 China made ground-up reforms to its medical regulatory system. Could we be seeing the first effects of this in healthcare delivery?

    6. Re:US capitalism by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know any actual poor people. You are just repeating other people's bullshit like little old ladies reposting chain letters from email.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:US capitalism by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It is capitalistic, just late stage capitalistic where monopolies, cartels and other middlemen arise to funnel money to themselves, often by buying rules from the government.
      Capitalism rewards efficiency and it is not efficient competing.

      What is really needed is a free market, something capitalists hate and work against as it is not profitable.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re: US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, it's not a true scottman.

    9. Re:US capitalism by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You can't impose a monopoly in an open-market economy unless you do something like buy up a region's sewer system (hence our special treatment of networked utilities). You have to do what medical providers do - convince lawmakers to pass laws forcing consumers to buy under the terms you dictate.

      This is the fundamental difference between the medical industry and the electronics industry.

    10. Re:US capitalism by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is more efficient to buy laws/regulations then to actually compete on a level playing field and the medical industry is well aware of this.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:US capitalism by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that the sample size was plainly taken from China's capitol.

    12. Re:US capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is really needed is a free market, something capitalists hate and work against as it is not profitable.

      There is no such thing as a "free market", especially when it comes to health care.

      If a doctor tells you you're going to need heart surgery, or your kid needs cancer treatment, you're not going to shop around for the best price. If lung is punctured in a car accident and you're bleeding internally, you're not going to shop for the least expensive alternative to an ambulance to take you to the hospital.

      There is no free market alternative for health care.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:US capitalism by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Free markets are not possible with health care. Free markets require:
      1) The ability for all participants to enter, leave, or participate in the market as they choose.
      2) Participants must have symmetrical knowledge of the goods and/or services being provided.
      3) Barriers to entry in the market must be sufficiently low that true competitors can arise if existing providers don't meet demand.
      4) All participants must be rational actors.
      5) The same product or service must be available from multiple sources.

      For the most part, the only choice a potential customer of health care has of they don't wish to participate in the market is to allow their health to deteriorate or to flat out die. They almost never have the same level of knowledge of their condition and its treatment as the provider. Barriers to entry are extremely costly, particularly when equipment and facilities are included in the equation. Patients and their families are rarely rational about their decision-making. And the level of care and treatment varies widely from location to location.

      Free Markets have their places, and I believe that wherever possible, they should be utilized. But health care is simply not amenable to their benefits. It's a fool's errand to try to make it work on those principles.

    14. Re:US capitalism by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      What you mean is that the health care system will always include a charity and governmental sector for indigents, people who have paid into pension systems, and those with catastrophic conditions.

      All of these groups, and the private insurance companies that serve the middle class, would be helped by:

      1. Being able to negotiate as a group for contracted rates on services, as private insurance does;
      2. Being able to buy drugs in bulk, and on the world market, just as we buy processors and RAM;
      3. Being able to allow their fully informed patients to try drugs that are in the FDA pipeline, but which are still in trials. We now have this right for terminal patients as of yesterday, which is a start.

    15. Re:US capitalism by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      You would if providers were required to publish up-front the prices for those services (regardless of means of payment).

    16. Re:US capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      All of these groups, and the private insurance companies that serve the middle class, would be helped by:

      If you include "private insurance companies" in the health care discussion, you've already gone well beyond anything like a "free market", because the consumer of health care is no longer the customer of the health care provider.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:US capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You would if providers were required to publish up-front the prices for those services (regardless of means of payment).

      No, you wouldn't. If your kid is hurt in a rollover accident, you're not going to have the ambulance wait while you google which trauma center has the best price on chest intubations.

      There is a reason that "free market", profit-based health care has never worked anywhere in the world.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most efficient capitalist model for healthcare is one where the patients spend all their money and get ~zero healthcare services in return. That way they will always need healthcare, and the corporations charging for it maximize their profits. You don't like that? What are you, some kind of a communist?

    19. Re:US capitalism by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Currently insurance companies have to act as our collective heathcare bargaining agencies, because we are forbidden from forming buyer clubs to do the negotiating ourselves. In an open market, we would be able to do so.

    20. Re:US capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Currently insurance companies have to act as our collective heathcare bargaining agencies, because we are forbidden from forming buyer clubs to do the negotiating ourselves.

      Observation of healthcare worldwide over a 50 year period teaches us that the best "buyer clubs" for health care are run at the national level.

      There has never been a successful profit-based "free market" health care system anywhere in the world.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you wouldn't. If your kid is hurt in a rollover accident, you're not going to have the ambulance wait while you google which trauma center has the best price on chest intubations.

      Of course not. What you would do is, being a sensible responsible adult with more foresight than a goldfish, researched ahead of time what options are available to you instead of waiting until something bad happens. You might even be smart enough to purchase the services of an insurance company or health care provider, whose job includes figuring out the best deal, so when there's an emergency you just call them up to help you.

      It's not that complicated. Take whatever you think government needs to do in your system. Now replace government with a private entity who, instead of got the job simply because they had the threat of guns regardless of what people actually want, got the job by actually competing at being the best at providing what people want.

      There is a reason that "free market", profit-based health care has never worked anywhere in the world.

      Except it has worked, for the thousands of years before the last few hundred when the idea of non-free market based healthcare came to be.

      If it didn't... well a lot of us wouldn't be here because our ancestors would have died off from all the things in mother nature that could kill us.

    22. Re:US capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Of course not. What you would do is, being a sensible responsible adult with more foresight than a goldfish, researched ahead of time what options are available to you instead of waiting until something bad happens.

      So, you're just going to ignore all the coupons and loyalty discounts and go with whoever had the best price on a chest intubation three years ago? And what if the hospital that has the best prices on chest intubation only has surgeons that charge twice as much to do repair of the abdominal wall? What's that? You didn't know that when you go to a hospital the doctor, pathologists, radiologists are all separate corporate entities? You didn't realize that the emergency room doctor will bill separately from the doctor on the surgical ward? That the anesthesiologist is also a separate corporate entity?

      So, when you have all that non-goldfish-like foresight, you better also be able to do very complex analysis. And before you tell me how you're going to have an app to figure all that stuff, remember that doctors move from hospital to hospital all the time. Oh, and the make of your app requires access to your medical records.

      Except it has worked, for the thousands of years before the last few hundred when the idea of non-free market based healthcare came to be.

      No, it has not. Give me an example of a healthcare system - anywhere, at any time - that has been profit-driven and "free market" and worked.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:US capitalism by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      There has never been a successful profit-based "free market" health care system anywhere in the world.

      Of course not; you've built a contradiction into your claim. As soon as you use the word "system", you've removed yourself from the free market.

      Health care circa 1840 was not a system, it was individuals dealing with doctors. In that time, that worked just fine.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:US capitalism by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Well hello there, Mr. Straw Man.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:US capitalism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Health care circa 1840 was not a system, it was individuals dealing with doctors.

      In 1840, almost every hospital was non-profit. And the vast majority of health care in the US was not provided by hospitals or doctors. Sick people relied mostly on home remedies, midwives, local folk healers, or in the case of African Americans, the obeah or conjurer.

      Here's an interesting little blurb about US health care in the 1800s that you might find interesting. Remember, this is an era that you're pointing to as a model ("individuals dealing with doctors")..

      The diploma mills were encouraged by a public that abhorred government regulation or any interference with the rights of the common man to do as he wished. There were no licensing requirements for medical personnel or professional oversight. In the face of declining respectability, physicians, anxious to reestablish their credentials, began to use more extreme depletion methods. Their model was Benjamin Rush, who as a leading physician at the turn of the century proposed using more extreme bleeding and purging. The poorly trained could point to the dramatic effects of their therapies as a form of success.

      But not all people accepted this “heroic” medicine. The result was a proliferation of competing health initiatives, a growth of medical sectarians such as homeopaths, hydropaths, new botanical theorists such as Thomsonianism as well as fitness gurus such as Sylvester Graham and John Harvey Kellogg. The sugar-coated pill advertised by a variety of entrepreneurs also competed freely. They had only to patent the shape of the bottles. There was no control over their ingredients. The medical scene in the nineteenth century was a chaotic free-for-all.

      As American doctors moved to prove themselves through their heroic therapies, European doctors were moving in the opposite direction by drawing on scientific methods. Laboratory studies had begun to extract the key ingredients of herbal remedies such as quinine from the cinchona bark that was one of the very few curative remedies available for malaria. In France doctors were using autopsies to evaluate particular therapies while investigating mortality rates for those same procedures. They concluded that the time-honored therapies did not work and could cause harm. The European studies were putting science to use to evaluate their traditions and found them wanting. Thus Europeans drastically moderated their actions in the face of disease.

      Americans rejected both the science and the idea of moderation. Even the most forward-looking physician in America, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (the father of the future Supreme Court justice), a proponent of clean hands, ridiculed the idea that science could have any practical value for the medical profession. In the absence of verifiable cures doctors who wanted to follow the European trends to let nature heal were accused of “therapeutic nihilism” that could destroy them as a profession. Americans, the orthodox argued, were superior and did not have to follow the practices of their weaker European forebears.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:US capitalism by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      GP: We need a Free Market in health care. Me: Free Markets can't exist in health care. Here's why.

      Where is the straw man?

    27. Re:US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're just going to ignore all the coupons and loyalty discounts and go with whoever had the best price on a chest intubation three years ago?

      Nope, not gonna ignore that, as that would mean we don't have a free market where the players are informed.

      And what if the hospital that has the best prices on chest intubation only has surgeons that charge twice as much to do repair of the abdominal wall?

      Then other people will see there's a demand for a hospital (or even some kind of health care service that doesn't tie doctors down to particular hospitals, let's not limit our imaginations) that offers good deals on both those things, and create a supply for it (if it's feasible... if it's not feasible well nothing would magically make it feasible, not even non-free markets)

      What's that? You didn't know that when you go to a hospital the doctor, pathologists, radiologists are all separate corporate entities?

      I did know though. That's one reason free market is better. Being separate entities means they individually have less power over the market. They can try to raise prices, but they're just one little part of the whole market, and as above competition would notice there's a demand and come in.

      If we didn't have a free market, there wouldn't be such competition to lower the prices. Doctor, pathologists, radiologists would all still charge you, except it'll be much harder to get them to lower prices or for new players to enter the field, because the entrenched folks have government on their side, not to mention there's an incentive for government to keep prices high as politicians love them bribes... sorry, campaign contributions.

      You didn't realize that the emergency room doctor will bill separately from the doctor on the surgical ward? That the anesthesiologist is also a separate corporate entity?

      I do realize all of that though. And as above, that's what makes free markets superior to having one central entity decide. If the government decided those expensive doctors are the ones people have to use, it's a lot harder to change, and it screws a lot more people

      No, it has not. Give me an example of a healthcare system - anywhere, at any time - that has been profit-driven and "free market" and worked.

      I already gave you examples: every society that has existed before the concept of non-free market driven health care was a thing. This includes the precursors of countries who now do not have free market based systems.

    28. Re: US capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a real dumb cunt.

  3. If you don't count the disappeared, sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America has problems and I'm happy to talk about them, but China has problems that nobody can talk about. These metrics are pure estimate bullshit based on old data, absolute best case. Ask any statistician, then kill yourself as they answer.

    1. Re:If you don't count the disappeared, sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The butt-hurt is strong with you.

      The truth hurts. Other countries are progressing, America is regressing.

    2. Re:If you don't count the disappeared, sure! by negRo_slim · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lol, I miss GNAA trolling compared to this low effort nonsense.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    3. Re:If you don't count the disappeared, sure! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The recent decline in this particular lie/statistic is due entirely to the spike in drug overdose deaths attributable to people being dumb enough to mix Fentanyl with their heroin.

      The old quote attributed to Disraeli and Clemens really is true.

      Any number in the absence of context is just nonsense to push a narrative. In this case it's just anti-American hatred plus some of the other usual suspects.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:If you don't count the disappeared, sure! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Lol, I miss GNAA trolling

      We all miss those glory days, brother.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:If you don't count the disappeared, sure! by Talderas · · Score: 1

      You're both wrong and right. Your wrong in the sense that the expectancy is based on the deaths from the previous year. Take every death from 2017 in the US and you'll find the average is 78.5. Where your right is that this is data based on a trial that took, on average, 78.5 years to complete (average starting in 1940). These are lives that, on average, pre-date the Clean Air Act, the decline of menial labor, the decline of smoking rates, the removal of lead from gasoline, the vast improvements in prenatal care that set people up for healthier lives, and the more recent pushes from governments and employers to the employees to make healthier decisions. That is how you're right. You won't know how wrong these estimates are for another eight decades.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  4. lies by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China is also very well known for lying about things and faking stats to appear better than everyone else. It goes all the way from the local level with fake recycling bins that go straight to trash pickup to faking national statistics.

    1. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 5, Funny

      China is also very well known for lying about things and faking stats to appear better than everyone else. It goes all the way from the local level with fake recycling bins that go straight to trash pickup to faking national statistics.

      "The United States was one of only five countries, along with Somalia, Afghanistan, Georgia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, where healthy life expectancy at birth fell in 2016" They must be really good at it to manipulate the US official figures....

    2. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real story here is that the US healthy life expectancy is falling.
       
      You can be a butt-hurt whiny little bitch and try to find excuses or you can get on with improving things.

    3. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean whats happening in the US of A right now because China is saying no to taking in YOUR garbage problem?

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-06/your-recycling-heads-to-the-dump-as-china-gets-picky-about-waste

    4. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you be busy working so you can afford health insurance that is useless the moment you become seriously ill?

    5. Re:lies by negRo_slim · · Score: 0

      What factors are they considering? Traffic deaths, suicides, willful obesity, etc, etc? We have vast roadways compared to others, for better or worse as well as a vast male suicide epidemic and of course our glorious overeaters. Those are by and large choices we make and contribute to our risks for early onset death. It's all so meaningless on it's face value.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    6. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is also very well known for lying....

      Unlike the U.S. of A., especially since 2017.......

    7. Re: lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention US police kill more people than criminals do in some countries, and more school kids have been killed this year than military...

    8. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are the answers to your questions: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/LT_method.pdf

    9. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are still people dying, does it have to turn into a weird moral matter? It's a very American way of thinking about things to add some weird moral aspect to it - it's fine, they deserve to die early, they bring it on themselves.

    10. Re:lies by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China is also very well known for lying about things and faking stats to appear better than everyone else. It goes all the way from the local level with fake recycling bins that go straight to trash pickup to faking national statistics.

      It's easier to focus on that reassurance rather than the decline in U.S. healthy life expectancy since 2014.

      https://www.scientificamerican...

      "These experiments show that when people's beliefs are threatened, they often take flight to a land where facts do not matter."

      Sadly, this may be a case of just having to accept some unpalatable news.

      What would be interesting is the "why?" which sadly the article is a little thin on. Perhaps there will be more analysis to follow.

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    11. Re:lies by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      China has way more traffic deaths than America. Although they drive less, they have about twice the per capita death rate.

      List of countries by traffic deaths

    12. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. He probably doesn't even realize HIS trash in the recycling bin is going into the garbage dump because China isn't taking it. Americans are the ones being lied to.

    13. Re:lies by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative
      They don't look into factors at all. This is just looking at death rates for each age cohort and then summing up the probability for each age cohort to die within the next year. This is purely statistics.

      And you can do the same thing with chronic illnesses. You just get the number of chronic illnesses in each age cohort and then calculate the probability to catch a chronic illness within the next year.

      If you sum up each age cohort from 0 to the maximum age, you get two probabilities: First, the probable life span of a newborn, and second the probable lifespan without chronic illnesses for a newborn.

      This statistic does not make any statements about the reasons why the life expectancy and the healthy life span expectancy is as high as it is. It just reports a number.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world. Surprise! Surprise!

    15. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      Those are by and large choices we make and contribute to our risks for early onset death. It's all so meaningless on it's face value.

      Life expectancy is a good measure of success, since if you can't stop people from dying you will likely fail at other things too. If your nation's life expectancy is going down while every other Western nation is going up you should be asking why.

    16. Re:lies by rfengr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They also put it in reverse and back over you. https://www.google.com/amp/amp...

    17. Re:lies by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My guess would be that the Chinese have a better diet. They have not transitioned to a "western" high fat diet yet. These numbers could change if children born in 2018 grow up to eat a western diet.

      There are a lot of McDonalds' in China...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:lies by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Correct. The OECD disagrees with this data from 2017. Although, it is true, that the United States is lagging behind 75% of other countries in terms of life expectancy. There is an issue.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    19. Re:lies by zifn4b · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do you remember what George Carlin said the United States' biggest export was? Pure 100% Grade A Bull____. And it's true. I'm disgusted by my country.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    20. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's coal peaked in 2014 and America's life expectancy peaked then too.

      The obvious solution is for China to burn more coal to keep Americans living longer.

    21. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you ever lived in China? Western "high fat" diet? I think you mean Western "high carb" diet. Chinese diets are filled with both, however: tons of rice and oil. Chinese likely eat significantly less animal fats than in the USA, but the food in China is full of fat (as food should be). Also, even with all the rice, a lack of eating processed foods likely means the Chinese still eat significantly fewer carbs as calories than in the USA.

    22. Re: lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto

    23. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess would be that the Chinese have a better diet. They have not transitioned to a "western" high fat diet yet.

      That's a terribly western-centric guess. China wasn't some free paradise of abundance and productivity like the west before it opened up and industrialized. The country was poor. So if anything they are used to eating more fat (if they could afford it), especially those living in parts with colder/harsher climates.

      In fact, in the less developed parts of China TODAY people are still poor, living on subsistence farming. It's one of the driving factors so many people are going to the cities and Foxconn factories to find work, and then sending money (and possibly other goods) back home.

      And this phenomenon isn't new. Before mainland Chinese was able to bring money/goods back to their rural home villages, it was their relatives outside of communist China (e.g Hong Kong) who brought in goods. Hong Kongese were using red-white-blue bags to carry stuff back to the mainland since the 1950s

    24. Re:lies by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?

      However, the GP post was not referring to the U.S. number being deflated. They were referring to the probability that China's number was significantly inflated.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    25. Re: lies by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Those are all negligent numbers for this statistic. Nice try at thinking to take pot shots, though.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:lies by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Much of our problem is a novel one historically -- too much cheap, calorie-rich food.

      Economists studying just such longevity would correlate it with lack of calories per person or high dollars per calorie vs. earning. Here we have the opposite.

      Don't worry, we lead the way but many nations are following.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    27. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You ought to know that your country is not unique in that regard. There's enough bullshit being made around the world for everyone. Just try reading news sources for those individual countries.

    28. Re:lies by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The "why" is the obesity epidemic. Basically, we reached the point where the country is so wealthy that even poor people are morbidly obese (and, in fact, more likely to be so) which leads to earlier death.

      As has been pointed out time and time again, the US also counts every single live birth toward its statistics of life expectancy. Other countries have different standards, and newborns who don't live for at least a few days might not be counted. Adding in what is essentially "0" to your average tends to pull it down. This also is the cause the the high infant mortality rate in the US:

      https://www.nationalreview.com...

    29. Re:lies by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I am not surprised the "hero" of that story is a BMW driver.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    30. Re:lies by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      He still has a point so your thinly veiled insult was just completely unnecessary. China is known to embellish figures (economic growth, industrial output, emissions and other environmental figures, etc.) and he's not disputing that U.S health figures are not going in a positive direction.

      Even when not factoring in embellished figures you should to remember that outside of extreme examples (like Spurlock's McDiet) unhealthy lifestyles take time to really catch up with you and Chinese people have only been exposed to western diets en masse for a relatively short time. The delayed onset of health issues stemming from eating bad western diets is pretty well demonstrated in Japan's figures and how it took quite a while from McDonalds & Co making landfall until their presence really started to show itself in heath statistics.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    31. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, of course. Clearly all the other countries have a huge demand for it and can't produce enough from within. Its not that they don't produce more than the US, its just that their demand for it is higher than their production.... so why would they export when local demand is so high?

    32. Re:lies by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The US figures are at least partially influenced by the opiate crisis.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:lies by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      I think you need to take a look at the amount of sugar. nothing else. Try looking at the labels on, for example, soup. it has SUGAR in it. Who does that ????

    34. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's purely a demographic issue.

    35. Re:lies by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, obesity rates and obesity related mortality rates rise in every country that establishes a trade agreement with the United States. The more open the country becomes to food imports from the United States, the higher the rates rise. Such cheap and delicious poison.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    36. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      . This is purely statistics.

      Sort of. There is an issue of definition as well as culture that could influence infant mortality rates. That is different than X number of people with Y disease.

      As an example, the US and Canada are two countries which register a much higher proportion of babies weighing less than 500g, with low odds of survival, resulting in higher reported infant mortality. Does it really mean that health care in the US is worse because we have more preterm babies and try save their life? The EU varies between 5-10% while the US has 1 in 10. Why the difference? What was the EU priority for pre-term babies before 2015 and what is causing their increased preterm births (the Born too Soon link)? That isn't a simple statistical analysis. Even if the WHO uses numbers from the country itself. This is kind of the problem whenever statistics are applied across countries. The different definitions and culture influence what those numbers mean and rarely is it ever an apples and apples comparison.

    37. Re:lies by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?

      Do you have any evidence to suggest causation? Because it seems more likely to be correlation.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    38. Re:lies by atrex · · Score: 1

      IIRC, according to reports, the blame for US life expectancy falling lands at the feet of increased deaths caused by the opioid crisis courtesy of big pharma.

      Even then, it's hard to imagine China surpassing US in life expectancy with the pollution problems they have.

    39. Re: lies by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Not to mention US police kill more people than criminals do in some countries, and more school kids have been killed this year than military...

      Unless there's a war going on, why should the military be that dangerous?

      The real problem with your "zinger" is that it demonstrates that Americans have gotten entirely accustomed to being in a state of constant war. Kids that die in uniform tend to be not much older than school age.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    40. Re:lies by Megol · · Score: 1

      A little bit of sugar can make flavors develop (try making tomato sauce or soup with and without a pinch of sugar and compare).
      Perhaps the manufacturers take that idea to the extremes and use cheap sugar in their products in order to reduce quantity/quality of other ingredients?*

      (* hint: yes, yes they do)

    41. Re:lies by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      In other words: Lay off the Twinkies.

      I saw Old El Paso being sold in Spain and it really blew my mind. I really though the Spanish were supposed to have better taste than that.

      Although they make the kind of cheeseburgers that sound like something Homer Simpson would come up with.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    42. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?

      Not at all, seeing as health insurance (what Obamacare tried to change) is not the same as health care (what actually treats and saves people and thus affecting life expectancy)

      Conflating the two is a sleazy rhetorical trick to sell Obamacare... which is ironic as you're obviously arguing against Obamacare.

    43. Re:lies by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      We know why. This is no mystery. It's just not being mentioned because it would interfere with the narrative.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:lies by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      It will shorten my life because even WITH health insurance I can't afford to have healthcare both for my family and also for myself. The premiums, copays, deductibles, and coinsurance have all at least doubled since Obamacare and some of them have gone up 10x. I instead chose to buy a bunch of life insurance and to accept that by not seeking regular preventative care I will likely die early of something preventable. Now, this is WITH decent health insurance. Many families are not nearly so lucky. They must choose between healthcare or food or rent or heating or a way to get to their jobs (if they have jobs). While the death toll for Obamacare may never be precisely known, I'm guessing it will eventually be proven to be among the top 10 worst democides in recorded history.

    45. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      Meh. The difference in life expectancy between the US and higher rated countries could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. Obesity isn't good for life expectancy and the US sure does come ahead on that one. A better measure is something like life expectancy after cancer diagnosis when medicine and healthcare have a direct correlation to how long you live.

    46. Re:lies by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      Sauce for the goose.

      The liberal narrative here usually goes something along the lines that high costs prevents people from getting timely care that could save their life or save money.

      If you make something even more expensive, then you make that underlying problem worse.

      Obamacare dramatically increased costs for consumers. In my own state it turned a very effective private market into one huge high risk pool. It's quite literally put me in a WORSE position than if I had had to use that old high risk pool.

      Alternately I get to pay the old high risk price for the rest of my household or deal with ACA policies that don't even cover my most basic drugs.

      As a chronic cancer patient who expects to blow his out of pocket limit every year, the jacked up premiums are quite a kick in the balls.

      The extra money I have to pay for premiums is less money I have to pay out of pocket costs.

      I could easily see the jacked up Obamacare premiums discouraging people from seeing a doctor. Obama made everyone more poor in an era of stagnating wages.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re:lies by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yet the opioids only killed 64,000 people in the States in 2016, which isn't that much. Shit here in BC with a population of about 5 million saw 1,400 deaths and out lifespan is still increasing.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    48. Re:lies by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Which is the same or worse in Canada. Wiki says 64,000 deaths in 2016. Here in BC with a population of about 5 million, it was about 1400 deaths and our lifespan didn't drop.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    49. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EPA has been abolished. The pollution problem is only starting.

    50. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those are by and large choices we make and contribute to our risks for early onset death. It's all so meaningless on it's face value.

      Life expectancy is a good measure of success, since if you can't stop people from dying you will likely fail at other things too. If your nation's life expectancy is going down while every other Western nation is going up you should be asking why.

      It is only A measure of success. Not necessarily a good one, either. If life expectancy is 50 years vs 80 years, then yes. That is a good measure. If it is 77 vs 75, then there are probably too many other factors for it to be considered a good measure. Putting more people on ventilators for 2 years would increase the stats, but not necessarily measure success, depending on your goal.

    51. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the big news is that US life expectancy is declining. Is that from a change in statistics or something more distressing?

    52. Re:lies by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      China is also very well known for lying about things and faking stats to appear better than everyone else.

      So is Trump. (just sayin')

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    53. Re:lies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The price of food is not that relevant, it is availability of alternatives and education that matters.
      And then again, growing up with "bad food" simply trains your taste so that your tongue and brain think the "bad food" tastes well.
      It is astonishing how much "lets try this" gets rejected as "tastes awful" when you are "trained wrong".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    54. Re:lies by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It depends on the demographics, too. If one 20-year-old ODs on heroin, that's statistically going to hurt a lot more than a 45-year-old. And Canada has us beat by 3+ years in any event - and has since at least the 50s.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    55. Re: lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about your handful of wars? Is that enough to compensate for police killings and school shootings?

    56. Re:lies by fafalone · · Score: 1

      It's our handling of the opiate crisis that is to blame. People were cut off or drastically reduced, abusers and legit pain patients alike, from their doctor-prescribed opiates with a known dose. The black market was there to meet that demand. Heroin ODs started going up, the demand was so strong fentanyl and its analogs appeared on the scene, causing a massive spike in ODs. The large majority of OD deaths could have been prevented by dealing with overprescribing in a way other than forcing people into the black market. It caused the OD spike, and on top of it countless people now suffer in pain or kill themselves when they were doing just fine before.

    57. Re:lies by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      From a physician's standpoint it was terrifying, too. The guidance went from "people shouldn't be in pain, go ahead and prescribe opiates" to "you'll lose your license or go to jail if you overprescribe", with no real firm definition of "overprescribe". Along with the dramatic increase in drug-seeking patients (versus patients seeking pain treatment), it chased my wife right out of the pain management field. It's been crazy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    58. Re:lies by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Lots of countries have high rates of obesity. The UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain ... all are pretty similar to US in terms of obesity rate. Yet the US is the only one where life expectancy decreased. There's more going on than can be explained just by lifestyle.

    59. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obamacare dramatically increased costs for consumers.

      Not really. Premiums were rising even before Obamacare. The rise during the Obamacare years were actually a little less than the years before it.

      https://www.kff.org/report-sec...

      This, btw, further reinforces that heath insurance is not the same as health care, and thus Obamacare has little relation to life expectancy. If health insurance cost really had a relation to life expectancy, we should have been hearing about lower life expectancy way before Obamacare entered the picture.

    60. Re:lies by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Worse, the CDC guidelines are a total joke. There's no medical justification at all. It's nearly identical to the wish-list of restrictions the DEA ODC agents authored in a draft proposal. And most doctors feel compelled to follow its "anything less than screaming and bedridden is pain relief enough, until you hit the cap, then as long as the pain won't give them a heart attack let them scream" advice.
      I still haven't seen any evidence that contradicts the 1% iatrogenic addiction rate either. Most addicts started with non-medical use and sought more, or were already abusing other drugs. There was no mass of drug naive people getting hooked, and whatever issue was there was addressed by not giving out 30-day scripts in the ER, and never should have effected long-term pain patients.
      Then, they're even putting out propaganda studies that have conclusions like "Opiates no better than Tylenol!" because the highest dose they used was 5mg of hydrocodone.

      It's horrible that thousands of people are left to suffer in extreme pain (or kill themselves, or risk killing themselves with street drugs) because they can't find a doctor that won't follow the DEA/CDC torture program, but I can't blame your wife at all.

    61. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: population density. China has almost five times the population density of the USA.

      What that means is, if you drive off the road onto a random sidewalk, you're five times likelier to hit someone in China than if you do the same thing in the US.

    62. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of conjecture, opinion, and downright lies. It isn't obamacare that's gonna end your life early. It's that mouth.

    63. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?

      Did it? Or maybe the ship was already turning and Obamacare was an attempt to reduce the impact? Without more data we can't know for sure, but what we do know is that all those 'socialist' countries with 'socialist' medicine are doing better than the USA.

    64. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      A better measure is something like life expectancy after cancer diagnosis when medicine and healthcare have a direct correlation to how long you live.

      Depends on your thoughts on Euthanasia doesn't it? Keeping someone alive and in pain is not a measure of success I would use.

    65. Re: lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their socialist medicine costs them half as much, too!

    66. Re:lies by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      All of those socialist countries which are "doing better than the USA" have smaller, relatively homogeneous populations. Additionally, before Obamacare (I have not seen the numbers recently), the five year prognosis for someone diagnosed with a life threatening illness was significantly better than in any of them.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    67. Re:lies by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Because in the game of geo-politics, what you can get other countries to believe creates favorable conditions for your own country.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    68. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of those socialist countries which are "doing better than the USA" have smaller, relatively homogeneous populations.

      That's evidence that it would work even better in the US. With a higher population, you get economies of scale.

      As for homogeneous population, well there's China from TFS. They have an even larger population than the US, have a homogeneous population, but even they are improving while being downright communist.

      Additionally, before Obamacare (I have not seen the numbers recently), the five year prognosis for someone diagnosed with a life threatening illness was significantly better than in any of them.

      That's evidence Obamacare has little to no relation to life expectancy, seeing as health insurance costs were rising even before Obamacare. If Obamacare making things more expense (not really, the rising costs actually slowed a little under Obamacare https://www.kff.org/report-sec...) led to lower life expectancy, then the rising costs before Obamacare ought to have done the same before.

      Can you imagine a world where Obamacare didn't exist at all? Would you be here cry about how Bush Jr's Medicare expansion killing people?

    69. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Not really. Two separate topics that have some overlap but Euthanasia has nothing to do with measures of quality of healthcare. You can have the same discussion of Euthanasia with a crappy healthcare system.

    70. Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not because of muh lifestyle.
      >t. Amerifat

    71. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      All of those socialist countries which are "doing better than the USA" have smaller, relatively homogeneous populations.

      Why does size matter? 1000 people is just 100 people times 10. If it was a size thing, why not just apply whatever technique works with smaller groups and multiply it? (which is how China manages it's size)
      Canada and Australia both have higher rates of immigrants including 'non-homogeneous' whatever that is supposed to mean) than the US so this argument is bunk.

      Additionally, before Obamacare (I have not seen the numbers recently), the five year prognosis for someone diagnosed with a life threatening illness was significantly better than in any of them.

      Yeah you'll need a citation for that. It's common knowledge that while the US does have high quality medicine, it's only available for the minority of wealthy people. The 47% of which Mitt Romney spoke simply cannot afford the treatment.

    72. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      You can have the same discussion of Euthanasia with a crappy healthcare system.

      I was talking about measures of success as a whole, not just medicine. You could shout about who much longer you keep people alive while torturing them. Sure you might have better medical procedures, but the net result is worse.

    73. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      If you can keep people alive and torture them longer then obviously you are good at torturing. I really don't care about the euthanasia conversation and that is a difference conversation than the efficacy of a healthcare system.

      You seem to want to say that a measure is bad because we don't have assisted suicide and doing what we can to keep people alive is torture. It doesn't make sense to me. You say life expectancy is a good measure for healthcare. I disagree and gave an example that is better in my mind and you go off topic with euthanasia. You seem to disagree with the fundamental principle of healthcare which is to try and keep people alive and healthy.

    74. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      You seem to want to say that a measure is bad because we don't have assisted suicide and doing what we can to keep people alive is torture. It doesn't make sense to me.

      My point was that overall life expectancy is a good measure of success of a society in general. Your response is that the only one specific measure of life expectancy after cancer diagnosis is a better measure, which to me seems awfully specific (and even then I question it since a *lot* of Americans don't have access to the healthcare services that they need).
      What is a good measure of success for any given state/territory/country? I still stick with life expectancy along with things like access to education, health services, social mobility/equality. All of these things the US is falling on.
      A statistic that came out yesterday is relevant here. In 1980 The top 1% of Americans and Europeans both owned about 10% of the wealth, but today it is 20% in America and 12% in Europe. America is getting worse, and the life expectancy figures are reflecting that.

      You say life expectancy is a good measure for healthcare.

      No I say it's a good measure of success for the overall society. No-one likes dying before their time, so it is a good indicator of problems that exist in that society.

      I disagree and gave an example that is better in my mind and you go off topic with euthanasia. You seem to disagree with the fundamental principle of healthcare which is to try and keep people alive and healthy.

      The euthanasia comment was a direct response to keeping people alive when it's clear that a lot of terminally ill people don't want to be. So this cant be a good measure of society if you are keeping people alive and in pain against their wishes.

    75. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You typed a lot without saying much at anything. Again, my first comment: " could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. ". We are talking a range of 4-5 years. Many choices in life can make that kind of impact regardless of the healthcare system you have in your country.

      Your flippant comment about euthanasia seems like you want to focus on certain statistics that validate your preconceived notions without actually trying to find something that is a quality measure.

    76. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      You typed a lot without saying much at anything. Again, my first comment: " could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. ".

      An entire nation of 325million people making the same poor choices is a sign of larger problems.

      We are talking a range of 4-5 years. Many choices in life can make that kind of impact regardless of the healthcare system you have in your country.

      You seem stuck on the healthcare thing for some reason. It's not just healthcare, it overall quality of life, of which healthcare is a part. If 325 million people are all losing on average 5 years of life, doesn't that make you question why? Especially since other western nations which all have similar lifestyles are actually increasing their life expectancy despite having access to the same choices?

      Your flippant comment about euthanasia seems like you want to focus

      It wasn't flippant it was a direct response to your extremely specific case that only post cancer treatment longevity should be used to measure the overall standard of living for a country.

      And you seem to keep bringing it up for some reason....

    77. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      1/3 the population is obese. Yes. millions of people make the same poor choices. Those other western nations do not have the same rates of obesity nor do they work the same average of hours/as productive. There are many differences in the cultures and populations that could account for 5 years of extra life on average.

      I never said "only". I said "a better measure" than life expectancy. You have failed to demonstrate why one is better or worse than the other. Seems like you have a conclusion that you look for evidence and narratives to support.

    78. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      nor do they work the same average of hours/as productive.

      Google says otherwise:
      http://time.com/4621185/worker...
      And I'm not sure why you think being obese is an excuse. This is part of being a high quality society, not allowing you people to eat themselves to death (as an example we restrict the amount of sugary low nutrition food in schools and it produces an net gain overall. I expect this could never happen in the US because of Freedom to be fat laws or something equally ridiculous...)

      You have failed to demonstrate why one is better or worse than the other. Seems like you have a conclusion that you look for evidence and narratives to support.

      I assume most people want to be healthy and alive as long as possible. Maybe I have that wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.
      I think you have to accept that the US despite being the richest nation on earth, is a falling behind many others in terms high quality metrics (health, education, social equality/mobility, corruption, violent crime etc etc). Why is this/how does this happen?

    79. Re:lies by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Your link says Americans, on average, work more hours per week and are some of the most productive people. Not sure what you were attempting to prove with essentially validating what I said.

      I'm happy to be corrected.

      It doesn't seem that way since you like to bring up off topic items and have still yet to give any supporting reason why "life expectancy" is a good measure beyond "people want to be health and alive as long as possible" which doesn't address any kind of measuring standard for a healthcare system. There is a range where there is a direct correlation but we are not talking about getting access to a hospital we are talking about the extremes of life and the "best" healthcare systems int he world. (The US may be behind other western or developed nations but that group still has the best in the world with which the US is part of.)

      To make my point very simple: Does the quality of healthcare directly correlate to longer life expectancy at the extreme end? I would argue, no, because personal choice (and genetics) become more impactful toward the extremes of long life. Does the quality of healthcare directly correlate to longer life expectancy after cancer diagnosis? Yes, because it requires the best medicine, treatment, practices, and technology to fight and live against cancer. IOW, if I had to choose a place to live based on healthcare I would not look at life expectancy as a good indicator whether or not I will get quality healthcare when I need it.

      If you can't argue the point don't argue at all.

    80. Re:lies by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      To make my point very simple:

      Yep you've missed the point yet again.
      Life expectancy as an indicator of QUALITY of LIFE, not A MEASURE of QUALITY of HEALTHCARE.
      Sorry but you've missed that point in three successive posts, so I give up.

  5. He's a terrible liar though, admit that much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't know how long he'll live, but I do know he'll die in Supermax Florence, Kansas in a relatively quiet wing of that storied American institution his mere idiotic presence will actually not sully.

    1. Re:He's a terrible liar though, admit that much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong Lynn, lies got ya down again?

  6. Re:Hey BeauHD! Need another RUSSIAN story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just leave this here. :)

    https://youtu.be/4zpYQJkBQp0

  7. USA #1 by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The United States came 40th in the global rankings"
    How does this sit with the USA #1 crowd? I like to read those OECD comparison charts and it seems the US has been continually falling over the last few decades across every type of political leadership. Can this be fixed?

    1. Re: USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easily fixed. We can simply replace the old standby with the new.

      USA USA USA!
      WE'RE NUMBER THIRTY SEVEN!
      WE'RE NUMBER THIRTY SEVEN!
      WE'RE NUMBER THIRTY SEVEN!

      And... Fixed!

      Hmm. Lamness filter allows that Priscilla crap but not that.
      Here is some random extra text to see if the lameness filter is itself lame.
      Here is some random extra text to see if the lameness filter is itself lame.
      Here is some random extra text to see if the lameness filter is itself lame.

    2. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Per 100,000 the USA is #1 in
      Military spending
      Health costs
      Prison population
      And giving to charities.

      Everything else its rarely in the top 10 and is often lower than 20th.

    3. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're first at giving up our 1st spot so that the lesser countries can have the chance of feeling the !!!FREEDOM!!! the 1st position brings. May we be blessed for our generosity.

    4. Re:USA #1 by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How does this sit with the USA #1 crowd?

      We are still #1 in watching TV! Eight hours a day for every average household! So it doesn't matter if we die earlier . . . we will still be #1 in total hours of TV watched in our lifetimes! China can't compete with our TV viewing . . . they are too busy doing healthy things, like riding their bikes to work, and doing Tai Chi outside in the park in the fresh air at the crack of dawn.

      Whoever has watched the most TV in their lifetime when they die . . . wins!

      USA! Watch TV! USA! Watch TV!

      I like to read those OECD comparison charts and it seems the US has been continually falling over the last few decades across every type of political leadership. Can this be fixed?

      The correct question is:

      Could this be fixed?

      The Clinton Political-Military-Industrial-Complex-Machine still has too much influence in the Democratic Party. The Democrats need to purge all those Clinton Loyalists still in party leadership positions. Hillary will try to get Chelsea a free ride into the Senate, with her own trick:

      Pick a heavily Democratic state where a Senator is about to die or retire. Chelsea moves there and professes that she was always a loyal resident of that state. When the Democrat Senator dies or retires, run Chelsea in the primary. Use the Clinton Political-Military-Industrial-Complex-Machine to Whack-A-Mole any other Democratic challengers.

      The Democrats can not let that happen . . . it will lead to further Clinton stagnation in the party. They desperately need fresh blood and new ideas.

      Oh, and get rid of those "Super Delegates" . . . even the name is offensive:

      "You are just a delegate. But I am a super delegate" The whole thing is elitist and undemocratic.

      For the Republican Party, the process is easier. Ask every Republican leader if they honestly like Ajit Pai. Get rid of every one who answers "Yes". This shows that they care more about the interests of Big Business, and not about the interests of Little People.

      The Republicans need to carefully cultivate some young potential presidential candidates who and appeal to younger voters, while still holding dear to values that the older Republican voters' ideals.

      So to get back to your original question:

      Can this be fixed?

      . . . the answer is, Yes, it could be fixed, but No, it probably won't be fixed.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA #1 crowd has internalized the past few decades of constant hatred from the world and decided world leadership isn't worth it any more. It just doesn't matter if we're #1 or not, what matters is building back up our shattered country and ruined working class. The world can look after itself. They demanded we stop messing with them, and we got the message loud and clear. Take care of America first.

    6. Re:USA #1 by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Call the OECD rankings fake news?

      The root of many issues in our society is inequality. The solution is wealth-sharing, aka socialism.

      The world needs new a socialist revolution. One problem may be that too many equate socialism with communism. younger people seem more likely to support wealth sharing since they have no wealth, but their voting weight is unbalancingly low right now due to the aging population. When those older people stop voting or die off, I suspect things will right themselves off. If it happens soon enough, it might fix things peacefully. If it takes too long, fascism may take root, dismantle democratic institutions and it will take a revolution and civil war. I’d rather we try to fix inequality earlier rather than get there.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    7. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom to be #1 in mortality rates. It can always be spun both ways!

      Why haven't US transitioned to a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet yet, if it is so progressive as touted?

      Captcha: problem

    8. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump look after the working class? What colour is the sky on the planet you live on?

    9. Re: USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you? It's hard to tell when you are at war in 8 countries at the same time.

    10. Re:USA #1 by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Get the money out. America is a republic, the citizens are supposed to elect representatives. We now have unlimited dark money from PACs on top of other loopholes to donate huge sums of money to politicans. Some politicans are funded less than 3% by small donations and it's the money that plays the largest role in getting elected in the majority of cases. However with a first past the post it devolved into two parties, whose ruling members stamp out any non-corporate leaning competition, it makes it very difficult for a canidate of the people to actually get elected in a large election. Change the system to tax based public financing only, no donations or lobbying, crack down hard on in kind favors and contributions. That alone would see massive improvements. Use rank choice voting, people get a better say in who they want, for example putting trump or Hillary or both at the bottom, and it undermines the two party duopoly. Something needs to be done because Americas rotting from the inside and it's smelling up the entire planet.

    11. Re:USA #1 by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "The United States came 40th in the global rankings"
      How does this sit with the USA #1 crowd? I like to read those OECD comparison charts and it seems the US has been continually falling over the last few decades across every type of political leadership. Can this be fixed?

      They don't pay attention to FAKE OECD rankings. Fox News doesn't report FAKE NEWS... so they'll never know. To them Europe is a socialist hell hole gripped by constant violence because people dont have guns and aren't shooting people. China is a place where people are poor and starving. South America is all drug lords, Australia rides Kangaroos (yep, every Thursday, come naked), Thais and Filipinos are all prostitutes, mexicans are taking jobs and the Middle east are all towel-headed terrorists.

      For the humour impaired, this is sarcasm. Most Brits and Aussies, we love Americans like brothers... Brothers that live very far away.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:USA #1 by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The Republicans ran a number of young candidates last time. It's the Democrats who look like a nursing home left the door unlocked.

    13. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican leader if they honestly like Ajit Pai. Get rid of every one who answers "Yes".

      +1 for that XD

    14. Re:USA #1 by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      I know the crowd you're talking about, but these days they're not anywhere near as hard in the paint about the U.S being such a fantastic place compared to the rest of the world after they got Trump and an outlet for their complaints about the bad aspects of the country.

      There's still a number of things like friendliness to entrepreneurship, food, culture and gun ownership that they're super proud of, but they're now pretty angry about the state of education and healthcare. They commonly think the sorry state of these things in the U.S today is because of established politicians destroying those things at the behest of their corporate paymasters and that Trump's swamp draining is going to get rid of these people and fix what they destroyed. However with education there's also the contingent that blames blacks for the poor OECD ratings and use race-specific figures that do show a significant improvement, but not for the reasons they think are behind it.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    15. Re: USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After America conquers all the countries and has armies in every territory, the world will be at peace and the threat of war will have been eliminated permanently. Think the game of Risk after one player wins. That's why there are so many wars, and you can thank America after the last one falls and we have an everlasting world peace guaranteed by the US (or successor global superstars) and the world's wealth is divided among the number of people alive.

    16. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make America Venezuela again!

      Seriously, socialism isn't "wealth sharing", it's not a Uber for money. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

    17. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China can't compete with our TV viewing . . . they are too busy doing healthy things, like riding their bikes to work, and doing Tai Chi outside in the park in the fresh air at the crack of dawn.

      I think you vastly overestimate the freshness of the air in China... Going out each morning to breathe the air and do Tai Chi in China may actually be worse for your health in some cities than staying in and watching TV.

    18. Re: USA #1 by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Is that a anti-war liberal coming out of hiding after 8 long years?

      The hard right is consistently anti-interventionist.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:USA #1 by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      Your narrative is bullshit.

      People still come to America to get educated and get cured.

      We have the best facilities on the planet and we lead the world in research including medical research.

      We do have pockets of 3rd world poverty. Those won't be solved by making everyone poor Stalin style (or even Merkel style).

      You seem to want the government to control everything but forget that people like Trump get into government. This is just as true across the pond. Brits will blame Tories for any admitted failings of the NHS.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re:USA #1 by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The Republicans ran a number of young candidates last time. It's the Democrats who look like a nursing home left the door unlocked.

      Although, inexperienced, entitled, youngsters with no sense or appreciation of history aren't necessarily better.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    21. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit, son. You just called out Clinton. I can't say I envy the verbal beatdown you're about to receive from her loyalists, ShareBlue shills, and dailybeast readers. Good luck.

    22. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame. I'm literally ashamed of my country on this issue. We spend the most per capita in the world by a wide margin and have some of the worst outcomes.

      Interestingly, health outcomes have become worse since Obamacare. Not saying post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it is something to note.

    23. Re: USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40 equals 37 now? Let me guess, you're not #1 in math either.

    24. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this sit with the USA #1 crowd?

      It doesn't. They reject any fact that is at odds with their worldview, no matter how much evidence is provided.

    25. Re: USA #1 by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Good one!

    26. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this sit with the USA #1 crowd?

      They don't care.

      I like to read those OECD comparison charts and it seems the US has been continually falling over the last few decades across every type of political leadership.

      I'm not surprised. Many other countries are becoming progressively more invasive and have no issues compelling their populous to meet bureaucratically-defined metrics.

      Can this be fixed?

      Only an authoritarian would see this as something that's 'broken'. The rest of us just want to live our lives without the likes of them demanding we modify our behaviors to maximize our 'healthy lifespan'.

    27. Re: USA #1 by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      The US, or any country, ruling the whole world is a bad idea. Multiple governments is one of the things that prevents universal tyranny,

      and the world's wealth is divided among the number of people alive.

      That situation is unjust and inherently unstable.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:USA #1 by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The difference between socialism and communism is that communism is open about its use of violence.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:USA #1 by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      People still come to America to get educated and get cured.

      We have the best facilities on the planet and we lead the world in research including medical research.

      Yep, for the few percent that can afford it. For those that survive a school shooting they are truly blessed. For the majority however, they are living in developing world conditions and it's getting worse.

      We do have pockets of 3rd world poverty. Those won't be solved by making everyone poor Stalin style. You seem to want the government to control everything...

      Interesting jump of logic. Does this normally work out well for you?

    30. Re:USA #1 by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Your narrative is bullshit. People still come to America to get educated and get cured.

      Sure, people come for high end or experimental treatments un-affordable to the wider public and higher education, which is also expensive so only about 1/3 of the adult population holds a batchelor's degree or higher. However the fact that things are fine for the rich minority doesn't really excuse the fact that things are not good when the same things are not good for the not-so-rich majority. Hell, even foreign enrollment at U.S universities has been declining, student visa applications by as much as 40% between 2015 and 2017 while countries like Canada and the U.K have been seeing a growth in the same figures.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  8. Re:Hmm. by xxxLCxxx · · Score: 1

    Yes, because those are not the unhealthy ones. ;-P

  9. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aww baby wanna have a little cry? lol

  10. How could that possibly be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there some 1,000 year old monk skewing that shit upward? Because most of China is a straight up third world country.

    1. Re:How could that possibly be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that say about the US of A?

  11. Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Geekpoet doesn't like facts any more than Trump's legal team, but Donald Jumpsuit Drumpf and family is going to pound-them-all-in-the-ass PRISON for LIFE.

  12. US has never been good for that stat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way too diverse, and accountable. Birth AND death records. Except in Alabama, as you already know. What you want is a homogenous population, like Japan, but not hillybillys in Kentucky, because, as everyone know - Roger Corman does - your brother is often also your father, and your mother is also your half-sister. No, I don't know how they keep that straight. They don't need to. It's Trump country.

  13. 20% more Chinese boys born than girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's especially amazing since males have naturally shorter lifespans than females.

  14. my list of evil countries by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    China
    US
    Israel
    Russia
    Myanmar
    France

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:my list of evil countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your list seems pretty arbitrary to me.

      It includes 4 out of 5 permanent UNSC members. So basically most of the world powers. I guess you forgot to mention the UK (the 5th member) since it generally follows the US policy lead.

      Plus two other countries which are often criticized (for good reason). But not North Korea, theocracies like Iran and Saudi, or numerous other horribly-behaving countries worldwide.

    2. Re:my list of evil countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you missed a big one - USA

    3. Re:my list of evil countries by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      you missed a big one - USA

      China
      US
      Israel
      Russia
      Myanmar
      France

      So did you apparently...

  15. Nice click bait title. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Others have mentioned good points of China giving BS figures, non-diverse vs. diverse people, and dietary habits.

    Has anyone thought about the pollution problems the China has, and will have for decades? Their longer life has come about through improved medicine, but that won't help much vs pollution.

  16. Just wait until they can afford to eat by mveloso · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just wait until the mass of Chinese can afford to eat 3 meals a day. Then we'll see what the stats say.

    1. Re:Just wait until they can afford to eat by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the mass of Chinese can afford to eat 3 meals a day. Then we'll see what the stats say.

      I know you're joking, but...

      Chinese people usually eat more than 3 meals a day, they tend to eat smaller meals less often than Gwailo.

      Food isn't a big issue in china, they've been feeding their people quite well now for a while (hence Chinese are getting taller). The problem is luxuries, it's a communist country with a rising middle class, so the middle class are wanting more luxuries, cars, clothing, electronics and brands.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Just wait until they can afford to eat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will the USA be able to afford 3 meals a day? Most of us are eating more processed trash than meals. If we don't call processed trash meals, I'd guess the average Chinese person eats more meals a year than the average middle class and below American.

    3. Re:Just wait until they can afford to eat by houghi · · Score: 1

      It probably will still say that the life expectancy in the US is down.

      I expect that to go down for a while. People who are now not treated and not yet died have not been added to those statistics. They have diseases that would have been treatable in an early stage and are not in a later stage.

      No idea how long it will take to halt or reverse these numbers. I do not think we have seen the lowest numbers yet for the USofA.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Well, if you're rich and white it's #1 by mveloso · · Score: 0

    Basically, if you're rich and white the USA is still #1. If you add all those other groups in the ranking drops.

    1. Re:Well, if you're rich and white it's #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whiteness have nothing to do with that. Stop being racist. Stop characterizing people by their skin color when it is unrelated.

      If you are educated (not even rich), your life expectancy is higher. Some "race" (there is no such thing, a color does not make a race) start higher (most probably because better food habit or culture, that is part of education even if this is not college), educate people then you will have higher life expectancy. Remark as in nearly every single plot that come about "race", asian are never in : ideology at its best. Because if you put asian in, they have better life expectancy than everybody, they are highly educated and they have good food habit.

      White male are not even in good position, you know those bastards who are the cause of every single problem

      If you educate people (at least about food), whatever their color, you won't see a lot of differences about life expectancy.

    2. Re:Well, if you're rich and white it's #1 by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "race" (there is no such thing,...)

      That's right, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "lalalala I can't hear you!"

      Certain physical attributes continue from generation to generation based on genes, just as they do among breeds of dogs.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  18. The hard truth by burtosis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe, just maybe, for profit capitalistic health care isn't working. Americans pay double for worse outcomes than socialized systems. Many can't afford it, and the insurance middle men take in 800 billion a year with 100 billion in unnecessary salaries, expenses, and profits. The system rewards treatments for conditions and not cures or prevention. This is the biggest reason why the US is so far behind Slovenia, and why it will never be #1.

    1. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it's not just fat? The US seems to lead the world in blubber - it's a leading cause of numerous health problems, and as countries like the UK are finding out, it's cheaper to eat less/better than it is to fix the issues afterwards. In our case though, the cost of the fixups is borne by the state, which also pays for education. In the US those two are disconnected, and so there's less economic reason to fix up education to resolve health issues. The 'invisible hand' can't work that one out.

    2. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, government is a shitty solution to most problems, even more so when the government is as corrupt as ours. (I mean that, honestly, at all levels. Not every county is corrupt, for example, but, what percentage would you guess are corrupt across the USA? My point exactly.) Government must be more limited the more people it governs because, inevitably, even with only good intentions, laws end up perverting their intentions. In the USA, intentional perversion of the letter of the law from its intent how we do it at the federal level. We call this lobbying, and there is no legal limit on how much an individual or corporate entity can do it, practically speaking.

      That said, we govern first based on our own, collaborative, reasoning. We have substantial evidence that medicine as a privatized service works best. Other countries are paying substantial less for substantially better outcomes. There's simply no denying it at this point. Let's make one thing clear: this is not a right, it's a public service. The rights outlined in the Consitution exist even if there isn't a dime of commerce. This cannot be true for public services. Public services are a benefit of a prosperous country that we should never take for granted. Public healthcare would be best handled at the state level, although states would probably be wise to voluntarily work together, if possible. Some states, like California or Texas might be able to fly solo, but it seems that banding states together to be closer to the population and GDP of Canada might make sense, because that's an example we have of a public system working. This might be impossible at the start, but this could be an efficiency added later after the CNN/Fox/MSNBC pandemonium dies down and neighboring states realize they only hate each other during football season.

    3. Re:The hard truth by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      In terms of the care (or lack thereof) the average person receives you are right, but in terms of top-end care the U.S is pretty much #1 and where rich people go for expensive and semi-experimental. Don't get me wrong, the current system is bad for just about everyone, but it is the expected end result for a plutocracy like the U.S.

      On the other hand I most certainly wouldn't lay anything even close to full responsibility on the U.S healthcare system considering all the other things that are wrong in U.S society relating to heath. First and foremost there's the food as most of the big peddlers of unhealthy food are U.S companies best established in their home market. After this there's the typical attitude to healthcare and sickness, rather than simply getting time off when you're sick you have "sick days" you get to spend, but are implicitly encouraged not to spend, meaning that you probably won't go see a doctor until something gets really bad. Furthermore there's also the work culture that encourages working long hours with little time left over for non-essential things, including exercise. Continuing on there's also the fetishism of the car and the need to use it whenever possible that increases time sitting down and exercise that happens as a result of everyday activity.

      Thus I really wouldn't be too surprised if the U.S health figures wouldn't improve by all that much after the current system is replaced by system like most of Europe has...

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    4. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it's not just fat? The US seems to lead the world in blubber

      hoe you feel is what matters, facts are irrelevant

    5. Re: The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those profits pay for medical advances the rest of the world benefits from enormously. They don't have to do anything, the Americans just invent and distribute marvelous cures. And who pays for it all? The deplorables! We're supposed to be upset they're dying early? That's a positive outcome! It's a win win situation and you're criticizing it.

    6. Re:The hard truth by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      for profit capitalistic health care isn't working

      The best healthcare in the world doesn't help people who dedicate their lives to ensuring they will be wholly dependent on it through eating nothing but shit and only ever moving in order to get the next meal.

      I like heaping on USA's healthcare system as much as the next gobsmacked international observer, but the reality is American life expectancy is despite of the healthcare, not because of it.

    7. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have substantial evidence that medicine as a privatized service works best.

      Other countries are paying substantial less for substantially better outcomes.

      Public healthcare would be best handled at the state level, although states would probably be wise to voluntarily work together, if possible.

      Did you even bother to read your own post for self-contradictions?

    8. Re:The hard truth by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      US Federal Government annual spending on healthcare would make it the 14th largest country by GDP alone (over $1.2 trillion). This does not include spending by the States, counties, and cities. The US Federal Government's number one expenditure is healthcare, followed closely by retirement benefits. We spend a massive amount, Federally, on healthcare for just 20% of our citizens. The other 80% are covered by the ~$1.2 trillion in private insurance/spending. If anything, the Federal Government is the perfect example of waste, fraud, and inefficiency - it spends more to cover just 25% of the people as the private sector (Federal spending is approximately 5X that, per person covered, as the UK).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Suggesting healthcare will reverse Americans' tendency to be overweight, sedentary, and eat processed crap.

      You're an idiot. Lack of healthcare isn't the problem, it's the unhealthy lifestyle.

    10. Re:The hard truth by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Guess again - the US is #19 in obesity rate. None of the nations above us have decreasing life expectancy.

    11. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best healthcare in the world

      Is useless if you can't afford it.

    12. Re:The hard truth by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      A lot of the decrease in life expectancy in the U.S is due to the opioid epidemic. Americans are getting too much health care it seems.

      Secondly, the Chinese do not have socialized health care, they just have REALLY cheap, reasonably effective, health care that is a public/private hybrid just like ours. We already spend double on health care vs every other country so increasing the amount we spend is not going to improve things.

    13. Re:The hard truth by burtosis · · Score: 1

      We pay double the normal price, plus pay insurance middle men on top, that's why it's unaffordable. Maybe try not waging 8 simultaneous wars spending 1 1/2 times what Iraq 1 cost all to make a few oil companies, mining companies, and millitary contractors rich. America has spent 6.5 trillion on the failed war on terror. Cut the millitary to a third, price cap and socialize the medical and pharmaceutical costs, it can be done. In fact there are 20 some countries doing it right now. There would be money left over for free college and infrastructure free college would but the millitary because no more GI bill recruits. The real reason we can't do it, besides the short term losses in gutting all insurance and limiting medical industry profits, is republicans and libertarians would explode, covering North America 6 feet deep in salty free market tears.

    14. Re:The hard truth by burtosis · · Score: 1

      For profit capitalist health care pushes drugs in a way that would make any street dealer proud. It treats conditions because a cure or prevention, doubly so an easy one, has no profit by comparison. The entire opioid epidemic was manufactured and this is all according to plan, including not being held accountable and then profiting further on the treatment for addiction.

    15. Re:The hard truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, just maybe, for profit capitalistic health care isn't working. Americans pay double for worse outcomes than socialized systems. Many can't afford it, and the insurance middle men take in 800 billion a year with 100 billion in unnecessary salaries, expenses, and profits. The system rewards treatments for conditions and not cures or prevention. This is the biggest reason why the US is so far behind Slovenia, and why it will never be #1.

      Actually, as a function of GDP, the USA spends 17%. Most other developed nations spend 10-11%. It's still a huge difference, but not double. You almost always have to normalize numbers when comparing countries, and GDP - though imperfect - is a reasonable way to do that for most purposes.

      It's not really a question of "socialized" versus for profit either. Socialism means the workers own the means of production - and that's not the case in any developed country on any large scale. To be consistent with the definition of socialism, by "socialized" we would be referring to a system where the health care workers owned the health care system, with no capitalist (investor) involvement at any level.

      Rather, it's a question of single payer versus other systems, and the amount of public regulation of the system.

      Several European nations have successful systems that are not single-payer, such as Switzerland. Relative to the cost of living in Switzerland the health care doesn't particularly stand out as being particularly expensive - it's more expensive than the system in France, but then Switzerland in general is more expensive (and has a higher GDP per capita). Government support is available for people in the Swiss system with low incomes as well. As I understand matters, the Swiss system is heavily regulated, and the people get to vote directly on policy changes, and that combination seems to work fairly well So the alternatives to single payer aren't necessarily worse.

      Another consideration is that many nations with single payer also have for profit options available. It doesn't have to be one or the other exclusively.

  19. China's computer's lifespan = longer: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See my subject: China imitated my APK Hosts File Engine in hardcoded favorites @ top of hosts where you spend most time online that speeds you up past ad/malware/script blocks + makes you safer vs. DNS poisoning/DNS down & being more RELIABLY connected (+ less tracking vs. DNS requestlogs which you avoid via this too) & it lightens DNS server loads (bonus 4 admins too as DNS goes down).

    * I did it LONG BEFORE China per http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/

    (The Chinese IMITATED "lil' ole' me" & "Imitation = sincerest form of flattery")

    APK

    P.S.=> My Win32/64 version of APK Hosts File Engine was good but 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux blows it away (10x as fast, just as accurate - & can reverse DNS 'ping' NON-Root (said to be impossible - bs, I do it in ICMP @ API level MINUS Root! In fact, no Root/Admin SuperUser use @ all in it + Write Root/etc too - "pats self on back")... apk

  20. America is just starting ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... to excel at a much more coveted metric -- profits -- as she continues to deregulate fossil fuel and emission standards.

    In support of the prime directive of asymptotic wealth gained in nanoseconds, Americans will die rich.

    The age at which that happens is not important.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  21. This will never be fixed in the USA by coolmoe2 · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is what you get when you run healthcare for profit.

    You basically have a choice to return shareholder value or save lives but you certainly cannot have both. It's really simple to understand because if you run it for profit it becomes unaffordable for the poor. That is why we pay more for heathcare then anybody else in the world.

    We have made our choice here to keep raking in profits over saving lives here so this problem is not going to get better in the near future.

    1. Re:This will never be fixed in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of people who die prematurely die from their own behaviors. They die of the results of poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, being obese, etc. Attacking "expensive healthcare" is an attempt to distract delusional idiots from the actual problems eroding western culture.

    2. Re:This will never be fixed in the USA by coolmoe2 · · Score: 1
      You have nothing to back that up except your own delusional ideas.

      Im guessing you flunked econ 101 and thats why your trolling as AC. You simply cant add billions to middle men and make the numbers work.
      Back to moms basement with you.

  22. For various values of "healthy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering how trashed their environment is, I don't think China's "healthy" is nearly as good as it could be. Maybe they meant "maintainable."

    Unfortunately the U.S. of A. is on a solid downward trend and seems to have China's "healthy" as its new goal - thanks to Trump and it's people.

  23. Unsurprising given east asian diet vs american by yaznaz · · Score: 1

    I am actually surprised this was not already so. Typical chinese meal is healthier and more balanced than western diet and most people in asia still cook their food.

    The only thing holding back was healthcare and as economy grew, it has caught up as well.

  24. Thank god... by johnwfran · · Score: 2

    Looking at my retirement funds, I'm certainly hoping I die in my sleep at age 78. Or maybe 75. I just can't be sure.

    1. Re:Thank god... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Looking at my retirement funds, I'm certainly hoping I die in my sleep at age 78. Or maybe 75. I just can't be sure.

      You're one of the lucky ones, many people wonder if they will be able to retire by the age of 75 or 78

    2. Re:Thank god... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm a "software developer" and martial arts teacher, it is still an open bet on/in which profession I retire first.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  25. Hospitals in China... by Nocturrne · · Score: 1

    Healthy lifespan my ass.. I spend a lot of time in China. Trust me, you don't want to spend the last 10yrs of your life in a communist/dictatorship shit-hole. Chinese hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Hospitals in China... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Seems you are an idiot:

      "A hospital scene from the movie Jacob's Ladder, the movie that inspired Konami's Silent Hill series."

      What has that to do with hospitals in China?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  26. Thank you Obamacare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the Regressives that made it law. Keep your doctor, keep your plan, premiums will go down $2,500. God damn lairs the lot of you. Hope you die from a simple infection because you can't find a doctor in your network, it's too expensive to use your plan, or you think you are to fucking smart for your own good.

  27. I smell so much BS by gx5000 · · Score: 1

    The Country that can't even process a proper Census has trustworthy stats on lifespan....
    Pull the other one.
    The amount of propaganda coming our way is nauseating.

    --
    End of Line.
  28. Re:Hmm. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    He has a point.

    Culture and genetics contributes a lot to these kinds of numbers. There are pockets of people in a number of places who have a various lifestyles that regularly live past 100.

    Some of the more targeted statistics clearly have a strong cultural component.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  29. My anectode by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

    I am Swiss, here is my non-scientific anecdote :

    I went 2 weeks in China last year, and I lost 3 kg (6 pounds). Last time I went to the US, I think I gained 2 kg in also 2 weeks, with a similar holiday life style.

    The explanation for the difference ? My guess is the sugar; in China, you find very little sugar in food.

  30. social control theory: deviance is exponential by epine · · Score: 1

    Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?

    Meanwhile, the prevailing elementary-school standard of discourse gaining sway in America sat this one out.

    Giorgos Lazaridis On PID theory:

    But the problem was that, if the automation turns the rudder let's say left, the ship will not turn instantaneously, instead it needs a long course, for ships do not steer like like cars, instead they have a big hysteresis.

    Another problem is also that when the ship finally turns to the right direction and the automation turns the rudder straight, the ship keeps turning left due to inertia and many other parameters like populism, bloviation, and general ignorance.

    Pull your head out of your sandbox. The American medical system isn't smaller than a midsize, coal-fired destroyer.

    All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten

    Or so the author believed. I'm not sure Robert Fulghum ever grasped the PID-controller dynamics of any system too large to model in his childhood sandbox (and all around cat-turd collector) under his mother's kitchen's deck.

    Think what a better world it would be if all — the whole world — had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap.

    Or if all governments had a basic policy to always put thing back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

    At government scale, merely keeping things where you found them involves multiply nested PID controllers. Of course, if we updated kindergarten to Ender's Game, we finally get somewhere. Inertia, it's a thing.

    The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not shake the confidence of the community in polity's ability to provide rules for safe, dependable marriage and family relationships.

    Man, and this is the guy who invented a kindergarten actually worth having, and he still believes the average citizen can't maintain his/her/zher own moral compass heading if anything weird is going on, on the other side of any fence, in the whole damn town. Oh, the exponential, global disruption of one improperly trimmed lawn.

    Apparently, not only do straight(-ish) Mormons need a moral PID-controller equipped with a loud pulpit, but they also need the sea around them artificially calmed—or who the fuck knows how they'd behave?

    Maybe it is true, though, that women (and Asians) can't parallel park because they didn't play in the sandbox enough at the right age.

    Amazing how much I learned, really, when not a single one of my Hot Wheels articulated anything: my entire childhood's cat-shit show was managed with ice-rink physics and fist-of-God flubber.

    Hot Wheels: one entire mind-blowing degree of freedom (linear translation), cruise-control not included.

    But go ahead, comment on Obamacare as if kindergarten was general-purpose PhD.

    1. Re:social control theory: deviance is exponential by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying that five years is too short a time frame for Obamacare to have changed the trajectory of life expectancy in the U.S.?

      If that is the case, what caused the trajectory of increasing life expectancy to reverse course?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  31. No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China does not have a land whale problem yet. As soon as they start turning up, life expectancy starts going down.

  32. USA = shithole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life of an American baby is tough. Once in pre-school, they have to practice shit like hiding under a desk to avoid being shot by other babies with Uzis and AR-15 borrowed from their parents.

  33. I find the W.H.O. to be rather questionable by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I find this 'World Health Organization' to be very questionable about any number of things they put in press releases; most of it sounds like they have a political agenda more than they have 'information to share' with the world. Wouldn't be the first time some group of influential intellectuals decided that they know what's best for our species and therefore have the right to 'guide' it.

  34. comparing US to US though... by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    Have those standards been changing the last few years the US has been going backwards? I can see how it may bring the number down, and make comparisons with other countries difficult. But how does it change it year to year in comparison to itself?

  35. Chinese food by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    Well, so much for my belief that food from China will cause cancer if I so much as touch it.

  36. Cherry Picking Stats by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia the trains always ran on time ... but was it worth having lots of innocent people sent to the gulags?

    A long lifespan doesn't indicate a good life !!

  37. lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your link doesn't show anything you have claimed in your post.

  38. Statistics bases are different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States counts infant mortality. Most countries do not count infant deaths before one year of age. That is why Spain, for example, is ahead of us. Most likely China does something similar, as well as 'fixing' their data to make themselves look good.

  39. of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course their lifespan is best, they do what the government says. The govt knows what's good for us.

  40. Re:lies, damned lies, and AMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My god, you linked a google AMP version of an article.

    I don't know if you were trying to be more insulting to Slate, or to us.

  41. Newsflash! Classic asian diet healthier than ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... US standard Fast Food Fare.

    In other news:
    Society that regards Kung Fu Masters higher in status than lawyers healthier than fat-ass society that loves sitting at desks and has a quota of morbidly obese through the effing roof.

    Yet in other news:
    Rice and Soy Sauce healthier than Hamburgers, Fries & Ketchup.

    Insights brought to you by Captain Obvious Research Institute.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  42. Re:lies, damned lies, and AMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes

  43. Missing link by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  44. Canada by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re: Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol you are a retard if you think its cuz of guns..how about getting access to healthcare? Fucking morons...more people in PR died for this reason that than directly from the fucking storm.

    2. Re: Canada by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      you are a retard if you think its cuz of guns..how about getting access to healthcare?

      The idiots peddling guns to kids in America while wrapping themselves in the flag are the same ones trying to tear down Obamacare. I stand by my original comment. OK, then fatasses with guns.

      BTW, you call others retards??

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re: Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mentally handicapped is not a retard. Fucking shit for brains. :)

  45. Changes... by jtgd · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna start eating more Chinese food!

    --
    J
  46. comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... is a shit show.

    I've rarely found a single instance of this being done with any integrity. Various statistics between nations don't mean the same thing.

    Murder for example is a legal concept which we take for granted as being universal but it isn't. An "unsolved" murder in one country can be cited as an "accidental death" or a "suicide" in another. Some countries have very very very low murder rates because they tend to designate unsolved murders as not murders in the first place. This renders comparing those countries to other countries that cite any presumed murder as a murder impossible with any accuracy.

    Infant mortality is another very hard to compare statistic across national borders. Again, we take this statistic for granted and assume that it is a simple statistic. It is again a legal concept because first you have to identify whether the baby is "alive". Now especially for Americans this is an odd question because under US law, babies are generally alive the instant they slide out of the vagina... sometimes even if they don't have a pulse. Where as in other countries they often has different rules that the child has to meet to be considered alive. Body weight for example is frequently a requirement for a baby to be legally alive in some countries. In other countries the baby has to scream or cry to be alive. The slapping on the ass you see is to upset a non-crying baby so that it checks a legal box of "being alive". If a non-alive baby dies then it isn't recorded in infant mortality statistics but rather in miscarrage statistics. In the US especially our miscarriages are very low compared to international statistics whilst our infant mortalities are high. Many sloppy or biased publications will cite US infant mortality statistics as an example of a bad medical system when properly understood the US has excellent infant mortality statistics... we just consider babies that most countries would not consider alive to be alive.

    So this statistic is going to have those sorts of problems and then it runs into a very subjective element that renders this entire type of statistic probably useless. They're trying to compare end of life health between two national populations. According to which metrics? Why do the chosen criteria matter? Is the methodology empirical?

    If I went through this, I think we'd find that the statistic is not reliable, useful, and might not even be ethically well intentioned.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      under US law, babies are generally alive the instant they slide out of the vagina... sometimes even if they don't have a pulse.

      I don't know where you came up with that statement, but it is absolutely wrong. In the US if the baby comes out and never has a pulse, it is a stillborn or a miscarriage. Period. I've been in delivery suites and ORs (for c-sections). This is the criteria.

      Now, they can attempt to start the fetal heart if they have reason to believe it would be fruitful, but generally if the baby has no pulse it is accepted as a stillborn and not an infant mortality. Being as we monitor heart rate in utero during pregnancy, if the baby comes out without a pulse it is usually understood that something went very wrong during delivery or late stage development.

    2. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I'll accept that I exaggerated to that point. However, I think the larger argument still stands. :)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll accept that I exaggerated to that point.

      you went past exaggeration and straight into either making shit up or spouting out something that you knew to be untrue.

      either you didn't know what you were talking about, or you knew you were lying.

      However, I think the larger argument still stands

      is your argument that you don't like statistics? you could have made that by sticking to just valid and truthful statements. what did you have to gain by going in this direction instead?

    4. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      An exaggeration in the context of a sound argument is not an invalidation of the entire argument.

      You're a thirsty one, aren't you? :-D

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An exaggeration in the context of a sound argument is not an invalidation of the entire argument.

      Just because it is factual to state your opinion to be your opinion does not mean that you are making a strong argument when you try to sell other people on your opinion. You're left only with your opinion at that point, not a "strong argument". Trying at invalidating your opinion is a pointless endeavor - it is after all your opinion. I can try to convince you that spam is delicious or that pizza hut is terrible but if you hold the opposite opinion then what's the point? I can't invalidate your opinion, all I can do is provide facts that counter it or show where you lied to try to support it.

    6. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it. If after actually reading my point you disagree with it, then I can offer citations. After providing those, I'll expect you to concede the point to me.

      Your move.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it.

      That is a pointless exercise in you moving the goalposts. As stated before, you made a completely unfactual statement on infant mortality:

      under US law, babies are generally alive the instant they slide out of the vagina... sometimes even if they don't have a pulse

      Which a previous comment already refuted. Being as your first comment started with

      ... is a shit show.

      It seems pretty clear you have some sort of weird anti-statistics agenda. While statistics is not a perfect science (arguably no science is), properly applied statistics at least shows its work so you can examine it directly. If you want to take an anti-statistics stance there is plenty to attack the statistics with, but at least be reasonable enough to point out your qualms instead of just carrying on with this handwaving and dodging.

      Though as was stated earlier, you are entitled to hold your opinion if you want. It doesn't seem from this thread that you have any interest in learning enough on this topic to influence your opinion to waver, and you have the right to do that if you wish. But claiming that someone should "concede the point" because you aren't willing to read up on the topic is - to put it kindly - not based on sound reasoning.

    8. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      1. You've made it clear you didn't actually read or understand anything I said.

      2. As to my exaggeration, I already addressed that.

      Being thirsty for a point doesn't mean you have one. ;)

      If you don't know what I was talking about or my central argument which was not especially relevant to the exaggeration then you're not really talking about what I was talking about.

      Any honest person that addressed this would have to confess that you're arguing in very bad faith.

      Now, if you want to stop acting like a degenerate, I'll let bygones be bygone and we'll pick up as before and we can see if you actually even disagree with anything I've said once you've understood my point.

      To facilitate that, please actually read my argument again and then paraphrase it here so I know you actually read it at least once.

      If you don't do that, then I have to assume you're doubling down on arguing against a point you didn't understand in the first place.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your request was met, and you can't seem to accept it. you can't seem to handle facts when they are laid at your feet, either. you keep slinging insults at the people who reply to you even when they are responding to you with civility.

      you can haz downmod, kid. flamebait duly honored.

    10. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Quote where it was met, I don't think it was there.

      As to downmods, you are posting under AC which means you knew you were trolling ME and didn't want your bad behavior to reflect on your main account.

      What is more, the downmod system is very vulnerable to sad people that make multiple accounts, as well ideologically biased people, and of course people that just didn't read anything very clearly.

      It doesn't mean much. For all I know its all literally just you.

      If you think I care about the modding system, then you're mistaken.

      Now, if you answered my challenge, quote it. I went through the past posts and saw nothing that approached my challenge.

      If you did, then I'll apologize and move forward with the discussion. If you don't, then I'll assume my assessment was accurate and you're likely just lying.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you were directly quoted with your own words from your own comments

      that very plainly meets your request of

      To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it.

      feel free to stop slinging insults at any point. an apology is owed from you at this point as well. the one who has not demonstrated any clear intent to have an honest discussion here is you, which is why you keep getting downmodded. you can hold your opinion on that as well but the moderations reflect your comments accurately.

    12. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these people who are conspiring to get you, do they follow you to school? can you see their cars parked outside when you look out the window from your parents' basement? do they try to talk to you through animals on the street? do they leave you notes in public trash receptacles?

      you might want to ask your doctor if you can cut back on the ambien. maybe increase the prozac while you're at it ...

    13. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      I thought that is what you meant...

      You proved my point, shortstack.

      You said this in the post where you said you restated my point:

      "To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it.

      "It seems pretty clear you have some sort of weird anti-statistics agenda."
      That isn't my point. So first sentence didn't meet the standard.

      "While statistics is not a perfect science (arguably no science is), properly applied statistics at least shows its work so you can examine it directly."
      Second sentence also didn't restate my point.

      "If you want to take an anti-statistics stance there is plenty to attack the statistics with, but at least be reasonable enough to point out your qualms instead of just carrying on with this handwaving and dodging."
      Third sentence didn't meet the standard.

      Hmm, this isn't a good start for you and you only have so many sentences left. Sad.

      "Though as was stated earlier, you are entitled to hold your opinion if you want."
      Failure.

      "It doesn't seem from this thread that you have any interest in learning enough on this topic to influence your opinion to waver, and you have the right to do that if you wish."
      Failure

      "But claiming that someone should "concede the point" because you aren't willing to read up on the topic is - to put it kindly - not based on sound reasoning."

      Okay... so you didn't restate my point to prove that you had actually read what I said even once.

      You failing to do this and then citing your failure gives us a fun failure within a failure.

      We're done. I gave you lots of chances and all you did with them is whine, prove you never read anything I said, prove you didn't read what you even said, and then use decoy accounts to abuse the mod system.

      That's all you did. You're literally the problem with the community and proof as to why the AC system shouldn't even exist. All people like you do with it is troll.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:comparing statistics between nations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are willing to keep changing your mind and telling us what your point is not (this hour). care to share with us what your point is, oh great enlightened one? your comments give lots of support for the idea that you are just pushing an anti-statistics agenda here. if you are trying to make some other point and you fear that people are not seeing it, please restate it.

      slinging yet more insults does not do anything to help you make any kind of point, it just makes you look angry.

  47. What about 'diversity'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there no call for 'diversity' in China?

  48. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hitler couldnt have said it better himself

  49. Who cares who is in 34th place ?! by fygment · · Score: 1

    This is like comparing the stats of two teams at the bottom of their league standings.
    Who cares?
    Except for the obvious question: how can two of the most scientifically advanced and prosperous nations on Earth be duking it out for last place?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.