3 ms·

> Case in point? We’re still alive. But we die younger than Europeans: 78.6 years in U.S. vs 82.4 in France or 83.3 in Italy. I've always thought this was mos

> Case in point? We’re still alive. But we die younger than Europeans: 78.6 years in U.S. vs 82.4 in France or 83.3 in Italy. I've always thought this was mostly because healthcare systems over there better tackle preventable deaths, but now I wonder if there might be some environmental factors at play too. Data: https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.htm https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.ht...

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Yes and we work more than the French I hear. Working less and better healthcare seem like they would be large factors. As an aside, I think our “blacklist” approach also really leads to a lot of environmental harm. Our system basically says “use this unless we start to notice harm” which is a clear plan for legalized environmental harm. You can use some pesticide unless after 20-30 years of use a few studies indicate harm, then we will review it. This led to the Slient Spring and DDT being so widespread that the Peregrine Falcon almost went extinct. Our default view that things are okay until they’re obviously causing problems isn’t the best. I likely wouldn’t want to live under a government that prohibited everything by default either, so I’d hope some middle ground could be reached. And ultimately I have to accept that some things should be prohibited even if I really want to do them. I suppose my policy plan would be to much better publicly fund research and whitelist with a fast initial review period and a collaborative research based initial rollout. :shrug:
esyir 7y ago
The obesity rate alone says leagues here.
wang_li 7y ago
>mostly because healthcare systems over there better tackle preventable deaths, This is not a chart of life expectancy as a result of medical care. When you remove fatalities from car accidents and murders, the US life expectancy is in line with other developed countries.
- bonzini 7y ago
  The United States are also an outlier for medical expenses though. American healthcare is not efficient, despite the common claim that US healthcare is expensive because it provides patients with the best treatments.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >despite the common claim that US healthcare is expensive because it provides patients with the best treatments. To play devils advocate, nothing is cost efficient at the top end. You can buy a Honda Civic that gets you from A to B just fine, a 'vette for under $100k or some super-car that's the absolute limit of what technology can do within the bounds of what's road legal and it costs an order of magnitude more than the 'Vette. You can buy a rug at Walmart for $100, Ikea for $200 or you can buy some fancy pants oriental rug befitting royalty for a million bucks.
    - bonzini 7y ago
      Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents.
      - wang_li 7y ago
        >Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. For plenty of maladies the US has the best care as measured by things like five year cancer survival rates for particular cancers. >Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents. If the point is to use life expectancy to compare quality of medical care, then you have to remove causes of death that don't involve treatment. E.g. if I'm a 35 year old person in good health sitting on the steps with my homies and someone drives by and shoots me in the head and I die, how is that a failing of medical care? It should be done from all countries. Ultimately, life expectancy is a bad metric to use anyway. It treats it as a score for bureaucrats to maximize. In the US, at least, people have the right to live in ways that will reduce their life span.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

Yes and we work more than the French I hear. Working less and better healthcare seem like they would be large factors. As an aside, I think our “blacklist” approach also really leads to a lot of environmental harm. Our system basically says “use this unless we start to notice harm” which is a clear plan for legalized environmental harm. You can use some pesticide unless after 20-30 years of use a few studies indicate harm, then we will review it. This led to the Slient Spring and DDT being so widespread that the Peregrine Falcon almost went extinct. Our default view that things are okay until they’re obviously causing problems isn’t the best. I likely wouldn’t want to live under a government that prohibited everything by default either, so I’d hope some middle ground could be reached. And ultimately I have to accept that some things should be prohibited even if I really want to do them. I suppose my policy plan would be to much better publicly fund research and whitelist with a fast initial review period and a collaborative research based initial rollout. :shrug:

esyir 7y ago

The obesity rate alone says leagues here.

wang_li 7y ago

>mostly because healthcare systems over there better tackle preventable deaths, This is not a chart of life expectancy as a result of medical care. When you remove fatalities from car accidents and murders, the US life expectancy is in line with other developed countries.

bonzini 7y ago
The United States are also an outlier for medical expenses though. American healthcare is not efficient, despite the common claim that US healthcare is expensive because it provides patients with the best treatments.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >despite the common claim that US healthcare is expensive because it provides patients with the best treatments. To play devils advocate, nothing is cost efficient at the top end. You can buy a Honda Civic that gets you from A to B just fine, a 'vette for under $100k or some super-car that's the absolute limit of what technology can do within the bounds of what's road legal and it costs an order of magnitude more than the 'Vette. You can buy a rug at Walmart for $100, Ikea for $200 or you can buy some fancy pants oriental rug befitting royalty for a million bucks.
  - bonzini 7y ago
    Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      >Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. For plenty of maladies the US has the best care as measured by things like five year cancer survival rates for particular cancers. >Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents. If the point is to use life expectancy to compare quality of medical care, then you have to remove causes of death that don't involve treatment. E.g. if I'm a 35 year old person in good health sitting on the steps with my homies and someone drives by and shoots me in the head and I die, how is that a failing of medical care? It should be done from all countries. Ultimately, life expectancy is a bad metric to use anyway. It treats it as a score for bureaucrats to maximize. In the US, at least, people have the right to live in ways that will reduce their life span.