4 ms·

I have my stats memorized. Accidents are at the very least in the top ten cause of death every year. Every year, around 100K people die in accidents, of which 4

by kiba 14y ago

I have my stats memorized. Accidents are at the very least in the top ten cause of death every year. Every year, around 100K people die in accidents, of which 40K were car accidents. However, that is dwarfed by 600K people dying of heart disease and 570K people dying of cancer every year.

tptacek 14y ago
Not sure how we get to the word "dwarfed" in that analysis, since despite ranking below Europe on life expectancy, the US does significantly better on heart disease and cancer mortality. Point being: something's going on here that confounds life expectancy comparisons.
- kiba 14y ago
  I didn't disagree with your analysis. I was only pointing out that accidents(ranked 5th) are indeed one of the top cause of death in the US, which I didn't make it clear in my last comment.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    I believe we also count infant mortality in life expectancy. Not sure.
- Retric 14y ago
  Your statistics are simply wrong. Which is why they numbers don't seem to add up correctly. US has a mixed heath-care system with some people reviving enough treatment that it actually lowers there chances of survival and others getting little to no treatment. PS: It's hard to get good data. Japan has twice the US suicide rate and a longer life expectancy. However, some of their numbers are off due to people not reporting deaths so they can continue to collect pension benefits.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Is there data to back up your argument? What you're saying seems to amount to this: If you're wealthy, the US health care system is so good that not only does it outdo Europe's system at handling heart disease and cancer, but it does so much better than Europe's that the effect is evident from mortality statistics even though 75MM people in the US make less than $22,000/yr. At the same time, you're saying that regardless of the fact that US hospitals are required by law to treat indigent patients regardless of cost, enough people receive so little care that they bias the mortality statistics. This seems like an extraordinary claim. I am not an apologist for the US health care system, as a cursory look at HNSearch will show you. But I don't think the problem is that people don't get care in the US; it is, as policy wonks will tell you, better (from a health care perspective) to be homeless in 2012 than it was to be President in 1955. The problem is that the US health care system routinely bankrupts patients.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Your assuming at the lower end of the scale are accurately diagnosed. However, for a simple idea of how bad the US healthcare system really is look at this: http://www.cddep.org/tools/methicillin_resistant_staphylococcus_aureus_infection_rates_united_states_and_other_countries http://www.cddep.org/tools/methicillin_resistant_staphylococ...
      - tptacek 14y ago
        In 2007 there were 8,324 deaths linked to MRSA in the UK. In 2005, there were between 4,429-8,850 (6,639 w/ 95% CI) deaths linked to MRSA in the US. There are more than 5 times as many people in the United States than in the UK. I obviously do not have the specific stats at my fingertips to refute the anecdote you've supplied, but if there were a way for us to bet on which of our arguments the correct statistic is going to support, I'd bet on my argument.
        Retric 14y ago
        Where do you get those numbers? MRSA is thought to have caused 1,652 deaths in 2006 in UK up from 51 in 1993.[104] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphyloc... Still, for those numbers to be useful the rate of infection, detection, treatment, death, AND linking deaths to MRSA must be considered before you can compare those healthcare systems as well as a near constant rare of infection.
joshuahedlund 14y ago
> Every year, around 100K people die in accidents, of which 40K were car accidents. I don't know about overall accidents, and I don't have numbers memorized, but I know that vehicle accident deaths have dropped pretty significantly over the last couple of decades. Trends are relevant, too.

by kiba 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Not sure how we get to the word "dwarfed" in that analysis, since despite ranking below Europe on life expectancy, the US does significantly better on heart disease and cancer mortality. Point being: something's going on here that confounds life expectancy comparisons.

kiba 14y ago
I didn't disagree with your analysis. I was only pointing out that accidents(ranked 5th) are indeed one of the top cause of death in the US, which I didn't make it clear in my last comment.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  I believe we also count infant mortality in life expectancy. Not sure.
Retric 14y ago
Your statistics are simply wrong. Which is why they numbers don't seem to add up correctly. US has a mixed heath-care system with some people reviving enough treatment that it actually lowers there chances of survival and others getting little to no treatment. PS: It's hard to get good data. Japan has twice the US suicide rate and a longer life expectancy. However, some of their numbers are off due to people not reporting deaths so they can continue to collect pension benefits.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Is there data to back up your argument? What you're saying seems to amount to this: If you're wealthy, the US health care system is so good that not only does it outdo Europe's system at handling heart disease and cancer, but it does so much better than Europe's that the effect is evident from mortality statistics even though 75MM people in the US make less than $22,000/yr. At the same time, you're saying that regardless of the fact that US hospitals are required by law to treat indigent patients regardless of cost, enough people receive so little care that they bias the mortality statistics. This seems like an extraordinary claim. I am not an apologist for the US health care system, as a cursory look at HNSearch will show you. But I don't think the problem is that people don't get care in the US; it is, as policy wonks will tell you, better (from a health care perspective) to be homeless in 2012 than it was to be President in 1955. The problem is that the US health care system routinely bankrupts patients.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Your assuming at the lower end of the scale are accurately diagnosed. However, for a simple idea of how bad the US healthcare system really is look at this: http://www.cddep.org/tools/methicillin_resistant_staphylococcus_aureus_infection_rates_united_states_and_other_countries http://www.cddep.org/tools/methicillin_resistant_staphylococ...
    - tptacek 14y ago
      In 2007 there were 8,324 deaths linked to MRSA in the UK. In 2005, there were between 4,429-8,850 (6,639 w/ 95% CI) deaths linked to MRSA in the US. There are more than 5 times as many people in the United States than in the UK. I obviously do not have the specific stats at my fingertips to refute the anecdote you've supplied, but if there were a way for us to bet on which of our arguments the correct statistic is going to support, I'd bet on my argument.
      - Retric 14y ago
        Where do you get those numbers? MRSA is thought to have caused 1,652 deaths in 2006 in UK up from 51 in 1993.[104] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphyloc... Still, for those numbers to be useful the rate of infection, detection, treatment, death, AND linking deaths to MRSA must be considered before you can compare those healthcare systems as well as a near constant rare of infection.

joshuahedlund 14y ago

> Every year, around 100K people die in accidents, of which 40K were car accidents. I don't know about overall accidents, and I don't have numbers memorized, but I know that vehicle accident deaths have dropped pretty significantly over the last couple of decades. Trends are relevant, too.