7 ms·

(I am not the original poster, but I thought I'd provide some info). As he pointed out it's difficult to find objective data. But you can check: * Human Devel

by nanairo 16y ago

(I am not the original poster, but I thought I'd provide some info). As he pointed out it's difficult to find objective data. But you can check: * Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Deve...): the USA is at position 13. It includes things like life expectancy and education. * Satisfaction with Life index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index):the USA is at position 23. * World Health Organisation ranking of health care: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s_ranking_of_health_care_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s_ranking_of_health_care_...): the USA is at position 37 * Education index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index): the USA is at 19 * Income inequality (Gini coefficient): (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) USA has a score of 47 (out of 100 for maximum inequality). EU has an average of 31 I am sure there's many other indices. And I am also sure that a lot of complains could be thrown on each of these. But I think overall they paint a pretty consistent picture of the USA.

rick888 16y ago
Ignorance is bliss. I would rather have the chance of making it big (or fail) than have the government take most of it away with huge taxes and strict rules that make it really difficult to have a successful business. "It includes things like life expectancy and education." Life expectancy is low because of the vast amount of people that eat crappy food (and don't exercise) in the US. I don't think this is going to change any time soon (unless it's mandated by the government). "Income inequality (Gini coefficient)" This to me just means that in those other countries, the government is re-distributing wealth. People aren't earning more wealth. The government is taking wealth away from people by force and giving it to the rest. The only thing I do agree with is our bad education system system. However, our higher education institutions are some of the best in the world. I also wonder sometimes if the reason our "satisfaction of life" index is low is because of liberal democrats that want us to be more like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Would you rather be happier or have less freedoms? I also find it really funny because Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are not only very homogeneous, but very racist. It's very difficult to go against what is considered "normal" (IE: groupthink).
- bad_user 16y ago
  Life expectancy is low because of the vast amount of people that eat crappy food in the US. And what makes people eat crappy food in the US? Could it be that crappy food is sold starting from the school's cafeteria? Could it be that people don't have enough time to cook or eat at better restaurants? This to me just means that in those other countries, the government is re-distributing wealth It could also mean any number of things ... like a middle-class that is better represented, or that the distribution of wealth is more efficient. I would rather have the chance of making it big (or fail) than have the government take most of it away with huge taxes and strict rules that make it really difficult to have a successful business. .... Would you rather be happier or have less freedoms? Oh, the freedom argument :) I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it seems to me that you've got no idea of how Consumerism works. When you're sunken in debt, how much freedom do you have left?
  - nanairo 16y ago
    Exactly. You want better food at school cafeteria? The government has to pay. You want less death by secondary smoke? You need government intervention (which incidentally the USA have accepted now). Having a government is not such a bad thing. Even Americans used to embrace regulations, until Reagan and the "get the government off my back" idea spread out. Regulations are what help internalise in the price externalities such as these. You could tax unhealthy food, or subsidise healthy food. But somehow this is felt as a wound to people's freedom of doing anything they want, including eating crap if they want. And freedom is all great: pity for those poor people who are so poor that their only choice is eating crappy food, and who can't afford preventive measures such as cancer screening.
    - richcollins 16y ago
      Our diet is in large part a result of government intervention. Farm subsidies make distort the price of corn based products (HFCS for instance). The existence of government run schools prevent choice in school lunches. However I do agree that government should play a role in regulating second hand smoke, as that is an instance of one individual using coercive force over another (making me inhale your smoke in public). Although even that issue is a slippery slope. Do we ban cars because their exhaust is toxic?
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Only one of those measures is even remotely related to the factors I asked for data on (working hours, health care or luxuries), namely the WHO rankings of health care. Unfortunately, the WHO rankings of health care are not actually rankings of health care. They rank a weighted average of health (25%), health inequality (25%), responsiveness (12.5%), responsiveness inequality (12.5%), and financial inequality (25%). Go read the actual report: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf Only 37.5% of the ranking is even peripherally related to health care, namely health outcomes (measured by DALE, Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy) and responsiveness (how satisfied patients are). The US is #1 in responsiveness and #24 in DALE (4.5 years behind Japan at #1 and 0.5 years behind Germany at #22). It's unclear how significant the gap in DALE is, since lifestyle and genetics strongly affect DALE. Fun fact: life expectancy for Japanese Americans is higher than for Japanese (84.5 in the US [1], 82.6 in Japan). Within the US, life expectancy varies from 44 (Lakota Men) to 86 (Chinese American Women), a gap of 42 years. To actually rank health care, one would need to measure medical outcomes for specific medical diagnoses, adjusted for patient quality. E.g., it would need to answer questions like "given a group of non-overweight white males aged 45-55 with prostate cancer, how many survive at least 5 years?". [1] http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=53 http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&#3...
- nanairo 16y ago
  (mini-rant: Well, to be honest I found your attitude a bit annoying. The poster mentioned three things. You asked for data. He provided one and your reply was: "Not sceptic of that", without specifying much. I provide different measures, including one covering one more of the three original points, and you complain that some of them are off topic. So yeah, if one gives you on topic data you are not sceptic of that, if one gives you partially on topic partially off topic, then you complain too. Not very polite, if you ask me. Anyway, on with the actual reply.) Your definition of health care is who got the best doctor. But the point is that there's a lot more than that to good health care. If a country has better diet, or a less polluted environment, or people are less stressed (which itself can cause further problems, including physical problems), then I think all of that should be included. Why shouldn't the average health be counted? Is preventing an illness less effective than curing it? And what's the point of measuring how good are your doctors or facilities if a lot of people cannot afford those? (edited for grammar.)

by nanairo 16y ago

rick888 16y ago

Ignorance is bliss. I would rather have the chance of making it big (or fail) than have the government take most of it away with huge taxes and strict rules that make it really difficult to have a successful business. "It includes things like life expectancy and education." Life expectancy is low because of the vast amount of people that eat crappy food (and don't exercise) in the US. I don't think this is going to change any time soon (unless it's mandated by the government). "Income inequality (Gini coefficient)" This to me just means that in those other countries, the government is re-distributing wealth. People aren't earning more wealth. The government is taking wealth away from people by force and giving it to the rest. The only thing I do agree with is our bad education system system. However, our higher education institutions are some of the best in the world. I also wonder sometimes if the reason our "satisfaction of life" index is low is because of liberal democrats that want us to be more like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Would you rather be happier or have less freedoms? I also find it really funny because Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are not only very homogeneous, but very racist. It's very difficult to go against what is considered "normal" (IE: groupthink).

bad_user 16y ago
Life expectancy is low because of the vast amount of people that eat crappy food in the US. And what makes people eat crappy food in the US? Could it be that crappy food is sold starting from the school's cafeteria? Could it be that people don't have enough time to cook or eat at better restaurants? This to me just means that in those other countries, the government is re-distributing wealth It could also mean any number of things ... like a middle-class that is better represented, or that the distribution of wealth is more efficient. I would rather have the chance of making it big (or fail) than have the government take most of it away with huge taxes and strict rules that make it really difficult to have a successful business. .... Would you rather be happier or have less freedoms? Oh, the freedom argument :) I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it seems to me that you've got no idea of how Consumerism works. When you're sunken in debt, how much freedom do you have left?
- nanairo 16y ago
  Exactly. You want better food at school cafeteria? The government has to pay. You want less death by secondary smoke? You need government intervention (which incidentally the USA have accepted now). Having a government is not such a bad thing. Even Americans used to embrace regulations, until Reagan and the "get the government off my back" idea spread out. Regulations are what help internalise in the price externalities such as these. You could tax unhealthy food, or subsidise healthy food. But somehow this is felt as a wound to people's freedom of doing anything they want, including eating crap if they want. And freedom is all great: pity for those poor people who are so poor that their only choice is eating crappy food, and who can't afford preventive measures such as cancer screening.
  - richcollins 16y ago
    Our diet is in large part a result of government intervention. Farm subsidies make distort the price of corn based products (HFCS for instance). The existence of government run schools prevent choice in school lunches. However I do agree that government should play a role in regulating second hand smoke, as that is an instance of one individual using coercive force over another (making me inhale your smoke in public). Although even that issue is a slippery slope. Do we ban cars because their exhaust is toxic?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Only one of those measures is even remotely related to the factors I asked for data on (working hours, health care or luxuries), namely the WHO rankings of health care. Unfortunately, the WHO rankings of health care are not actually rankings of health care. They rank a weighted average of health (25%), health inequality (25%), responsiveness (12.5%), responsiveness inequality (12.5%), and financial inequality (25%). Go read the actual report: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf Only 37.5% of the ranking is even peripherally related to health care, namely health outcomes (measured by DALE, Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy) and responsiveness (how satisfied patients are). The US is #1 in responsiveness and #24 in DALE (4.5 years behind Japan at #1 and 0.5 years behind Germany at #22). It's unclear how significant the gap in DALE is, since lifestyle and genetics strongly affect DALE. Fun fact: life expectancy for Japanese Americans is higher than for Japanese (84.5 in the US [1], 82.6 in Japan). Within the US, life expectancy varies from 44 (Lakota Men) to 86 (Chinese American Women), a gap of 42 years. To actually rank health care, one would need to measure medical outcomes for specific medical diagnoses, adjusted for patient quality. E.g., it would need to answer questions like "given a group of non-overweight white males aged 45-55 with prostate cancer, how many survive at least 5 years?". [1] http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=53 http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&#3...

nanairo 16y ago
(mini-rant: Well, to be honest I found your attitude a bit annoying. The poster mentioned three things. You asked for data. He provided one and your reply was: "Not sceptic of that", without specifying much. I provide different measures, including one covering one more of the three original points, and you complain that some of them are off topic. So yeah, if one gives you on topic data you are not sceptic of that, if one gives you partially on topic partially off topic, then you complain too. Not very polite, if you ask me. Anyway, on with the actual reply.) Your definition of health care is who got the best doctor. But the point is that there's a lot more than that to good health care. If a country has better diet, or a less polluted environment, or people are less stressed (which itself can cause further problems, including physical problems), then I think all of that should be included. Why shouldn't the average health be counted? Is preventing an illness less effective than curing it? And what's the point of measuring how good are your doctors or facilities if a lot of people cannot afford those? (edited for grammar.)