It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Life Expectancy

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:53 AM
The United States spends more money on health care than any other country, over $2 trillion dollars in 2007 (link). That's more than $7,000 per person. What are we getting for all that money, I wonder?

We are not getting high quality health care. According to the CIA World Factbook, we rank #50 in life expectancy (link). We come in after Bosnia/Hetzegovina, which I find discouraging because they're still fighting over there.

We came in after Canada - which was #8 on the list. That probably tells us something about their health care system. We came in after the United Kingdom - #36. So, OK, their health care system may not be top-notch, but they still beat us. And everybody there gets medical treatment. Australia, which also has national health service, came in as #7.

I don't know how much these countries are spending on health care, but I can guarantee you, no one else is spending $2.2 trillion. I seriously doubt anyone's spending $7000 per person each year, either. They're still healthier than we are. Why is that?

Well, I have a couple of thoughts on that. First, they're not going to the doctor as much. Probably they don't run to the doctor with every little problem, like we do. They go for checkups, and when they're actually sick. That weeds out a lot of unnecessary, expensive visits, and it cuts costs. It also reduces the number of times you're exposed to the many dangers of medical treatment - including medical errors, prescription mistakes, adverse drug reactions, antibiotic-resistant infections, and so on.

Second, their governments aren't quite as sympathetic to Big Pharma. They require the use of proven medications, and leave off the experimental drugs, the unproven but expensive newer ones, and the patented repackaged old drugs. Fewer people are used as guinea pigs; fewer people receive unniecessary and often dangerous drugs. Fewer people die as a result.

If this doesn't show that our health care system is broken, I cannot imagine what would show that.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:22 AM
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Starred and Flagged!

My father was a high ranking public servant in the Australian dept of statistics and he once told me a story that as an experiment that they worked out the average life expectancy of an individual in a potentially immortal lifespan society. I was horrified when he told me the average was just 400yrs and this was due not to morbidity but was attributed soley to ACCIDENTS! Yes 95% of humans wouldn't make 500yrs because we fall down and don't get back up again for whatever reason! Still back then [20yrs ago] nanotech wasn't on the publics radar yet and Alcor was barely even heard of so personally I think they fullfilled that old motto concerning statistics which is "you can show practically anything with selective statistics"!

Personal Disclosure: I wonder if it was true though and if everybody knew it, then would we all be so desperate in pushing the current extreme amounts of $$$'s just to achieve even 1/100th the immortal average lifespan of 4-500yrs [i.e 4 to 5yrs life extension]?
It would seem a waste to me!

Edited to add that financially the law of diminishing returns is a powerful force for federal/state/local/personal budget oversight when combined with the effects of aging [mortality and morbidity] of the population demographic being measured. Accurate Cost to Benefit ratio's for all those stated demographics become a very important factor regarding current and future lifestyle choices made by the constituents of those specific demographics! If it cost 200 times the current amount spent yearly by the US to bring the life expectancy for 100% of the population up to 4-500yrs [wishfull thinking fully applied here] and that this has to be paid every yr for the next 450yrs at least just to cover this generations demographic! Buget Oversight would "Choke! Gasp! Wheeze!" and keel over stone dead upon looking at just the back of the envelope figures!

2nd edit was for punctuation! :shk:
[edit on 21-8-2009 by OmegaLogos]

[edit on 21-8-2009 by OmegaLogos]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:30 AM
I resent what the OP implies.

America still has "the best healthcare in the world"

Would You please refrain from using facts against my convictions! :p

Well, either this thread is going to attract haterz like you wouldn't believe, or it is going to be met with deadly silence and seething, foaming at the mouth, frustration thanks to cognitive dissonance.

[edit on 8/21/2009 by diakrite]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by diakrite
Well, either this thread is going to attract haterz like you wouldn't believe, or it is going to be met with deadly silence and seething, foaming at the mouth, frustration thanks to cognitive dissonance.


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:52 PM
Any society that can virtually squeeze chemicals out of a tube and call it "lunch", is on the fast track to low life expectancy.

This goes for all western cultures and any other that try to emulate them. Once we were taught that dinner can be ready after a quick shot in the microwave there wasn't much point in wasting anymore time "considering" food.

The only difference between life expectancies in the various first world countries is the impact of pharmaceuticals on the population. Now more than ever, we use more pill and pharmaceuticals per person yet we have the HIGHEST instances of chronic disease and illness. Can you say cash money?

For extremely high instances of life expectancy you'd have to reference "non-privileged" societies/cultures, the ones who actually live off the land, consume whole, live foods and nutrients and have never heard of a chemical additive being used to extend "shelf life".

In the end it all comes down to food, nutrition and what we think we know about those two issues, given what the government, medical authority and regulatory bodies tell us.

Again, can you say cash money?

new topics

top topics

log in