The National Center for Health Statistics announced today that "U.S. Life Expectancy Hits New High of Nearly 78 Years" and that:
"This report highlights the continued reduction in deaths from the three leading killers in the United States - heart disease, cancer and stroke - which is most likely due to better prevention efforts and medical advances in the treatments of these diseases," said Hsiang-Ching Kung, a survey statistician with NCHS and one of the report's authors. "If death rates from certain leading causes of death continue to decline, we should continue to see improvements in life expectancy."How does the AP headline this good news?
"U.S. deaths rise by 50,000 in 2005"
(that is factually correct, but misleading. The U.S. population is also larger and older than ever before, and the age-adjusted death rate, the NCHS points out, also fell to an all-time low of less than 800 deaths per 100,000 population)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 12, 2007 01:05 PM | Email ThisStatistics lie and liars use statistics...
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 12, 2007 01:18 PMJournalists poll as poorly as used car salesmen and members of congress because they no longer care about reporting the truth. In fact, their liberal/relativistic epistemology, in which there is no objective reality, there is only a personal reality for each person, means that liberals believe there is no objective truth possible to report.
In short, according to the liberal world view, it's all politics. It's all power. There are no morals or ethics, there is just avoiding getting caught. The ends justify the means.
They have a strong incentive to tell us inflamatory stories of fires and floods and chicken-little stories to sell papers and to sell their political viewpoint. Why do they report individual fires and thefts, when what we need in order to make rational decisions is overal fire and crime statistics and trends? Because these don't sell papers.
They have socialistic axes to grind. The politicians control their sources, and the politicians want more money and power. So the media reports what the government wants in exchange for access to the information.
They ignore the fact that in the more free-market countries, poverty and pollution are being reduced faster than in the big socialized countries like Germany and France. Unemployment and inflation are lower here, GDP growth per capita is higher here, etc. It is better to be poor here, and this is proven by our high rates of legal and illegal immigration compared to other countries.
Lower tax rates, especially on the rich, lead to better conditions for the poor, than do big government redistributionist programs.
Stefan has pointed out yet another example of bias in the media. But the fundamental hypocrisy is between the media and the profit motive. They decry it at every turn, yet they lie in order to enhance their bottom lines all the time.
In conservative areas of the US, the media is conservative. It's all about selling papers. It's all about marketing. The papers know they can not change peoples' opinions much. They can at best nudge them a little bit. So they print what they think people want to read. That's why in the big cities the papers are liberal; because liberals tend to live in big cities.
It's just like advertisers that the left thinks control our buying behavior. In fact, advertising just nudges people a little bit in the direction of buying a product. They do not control our minds as the liberals fear.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 12, 2007 01:28 PMSurrender Ceremony Creates Giant Cleanup Mess on USS Missouri
Gettysburg Crowd Tramples on Graves to as Lincoln Mumbles
Sermon on Mount Affects Many with Loaf, Fish Allergies
Posted by: Rey Smith on September 12, 2007 01:51 PMThe body stops growing at 25.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 12, 2007 02:09 PMHalf right. All MSM is about selling papers.
I just checked foxnews.com, which is not normally considered liberal MSM. The lead story, with a photo of a cute kid, is "HANGING HORROR - First Grader Found Dead In Garage".
Posted by: Bruce on September 12, 2007 02:36 PMAlso, the internet is a completely different beast than papers, which is what Bruce G. was talking about.
Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2007 03:52 PMIt would be nice if they would tell us what age expectancy is for someone who has reached the ripe ol' age of 40 or even 65.
It's a lot higher than 78. That's for sure.
Posted by: Yankee Doodle on September 12, 2007 04:00 PMIt would be nice if they would tell us what age expectancy is for someone who has reached the ripe ol' age of 40 or even 65.
It's a lot higher than 78. That's for sure.
Posted by: Yankee Doodle on September 12, 2007 04:00 PMAnd the clock is ticking.
Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2007 04:47 PMAnd ARS* victims wonder why no intelligent person takes your comments on global warming or taxes seriously?
BTW ...
I am very proud that your neighborhood (I was told you live in fremont) now has a statue to Lenin and Karl Rove! http://seattlejew.blogspot.com/2007/09/kark-rove-memorial-in-fremont-wa.html
*ARS ... alternative reality syndrome, attributed to toxins introduced in cigars and cigarettes when the uS started importing wrapper materials from China after the Nixon visit. The epidemic of ARS went unrecognized until 2010 when at autopsy of GW Bush, the failed president of the US, a large cyst was found in his limbaughl brain stem. Scientists at the University of Texas were able to culture the HA virus from the cyst, leading to the introduction of a vaccine in 2105.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 12, 2007 04:48 PMSorry to disappoint...but I'm not a lefty. I just call 'em like I see 'em. Kinda wish more people did that instead of being so dang partisan...like Stefan and Goldy...both of whom all too regularly create purposely false impressions using bits of data.
Posted by: BIll Anderson on September 12, 2007 05:02 PMLife is good.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2007 05:54 PMI can give you a somewhat optimistic expectation (based on an annuity mortality table--so a somewhat self-selected group), the remaining life expectancy for a Male 65 is 19.5 years (so age 84.5), and for a Female 65 is 22.2 years (so age 87.2). For age 40, the expectancies are 41.6 (so age 81.6) for males and 45.3 (so age 85.3) for females.
Any other ages you want? By the way, these are average expectancies not median life expectancies. The median ages would be a couple of years older.
Posted by: Bill H on September 12, 2007 06:30 PM"Life expectancy of Americans climbs to 78 years, longest in U.S. history --
"ATLANTA (AP) -- The life expectancy for Americans is nearly 78 years, the longest in U.S. history, according to new government figures from 2005 released Wednesday."
Okay.....good!
"That age, based on the latest data available, was still lower than the life span in more than three dozen other countries, however."
Oh hooray, we're 37th in the world. Gulp. Not good.
"More bad news: The annual number of U.S. deaths rose from 2004 to 2005, a depressing uptick after the figure had dropped by 50,000 from 2003 to 2004. In 2005, the number of deaths increased by about that same amount."
Gulp our bad again.
"The United States continues to lag behind at least 40 other nations."
Oh no, we're actually 41st!
Now in this context is the story MSM is biased....an iffy judgment call at best....when the report contains bad and good news....and when CLEARLY the bigger picture is we are far back in the ranks at no. 41.
1) We have greater racial diversity than most other nations. Blacks and Hispanics tend to live shorter lives, even when you account for income. Norway and Japan have high life expectancy, and near racial uniformity of long-lived racial groups. This isn't a racist comment. It is a statistically verifiable truth.
2) The US has one of the highest immigrants per capita. Immigrants tend to start out poor and malnourished, and this shortens their average lifespans.
The fact that the US is not much further down on this list is due mostly to our relatively free market policies. Free market policies are the key to increasing wealth for poor and rich alike.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 12, 2007 08:19 PMhow many of them have the break-in-treaspasser border problems we do? i'd expect an exodus from a rat-hole; guess the left can't figure it out;
hey--who's illegally breaking INTO the Netherlands lately?! or Denmark? other than terrorists?
guess a day in Omak beats any in Oman.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 12, 2007 08:51 PMJimmie: Illegal immigration has been a huge political issue throughout Europe in recent years. Don't you read the papers? Did you hear about that little wall that fell in Germany a while back?
Posted by: Bruce on September 12, 2007 11:50 PMSeems that a new Michael Moore movie is once again on a mission and leftist morons falling for more of his idiocy. The link above documents conditions at a few of the Cuban hospitals Moore didn't choose to feature. The people who buy into this garbage are intellectually one and the same as those who pointed to Walter Duranty's glowing reports on life in the Soviet Union. In case you attended public school here's a short excerpt on what leftists were falling for a couple decades ago.
"In 1932, reports of famine in Ukraine started appearing from journalists such as Gareth Jones of The Times and Malcolm Muggeridge of The Guardian. Both men defied travel restrictions and secretly went to view conditions in Ukraine. In the spring of 1933, Jones left the Soviet Union and reported the famine under his own name in the Manchester Guardian. Around the same time, six British citizens were arrested on charges of industrial espionage. On March 31, 1933, Walter Duranty denounced the famine stories and Gareth Jones in the New York Times. In the piece, he described the situation under the title "Russians Hungry, But Not Starving" as follows: "In the middle of the diplomatic duel between Great Britain and the Soviet Union over the accused British engineers, there appears from a British source a big scare story in the American press about famine in the Soviet Union, with 'thousands already dead and millions menaced by death from starvation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
But this just makes it all the more disgraceful that a rich country like ours has such bad health outcomes.
Posted by: Bruce on September 13, 2007 08:24 AMA couple of thoughts, though. The USA is subsidizing drugs for the rest of the world. I believe the drug companies supercharge us for their R&D. For example, my one asthma medication is made by Glaxo- Costco is about $160-180 for one month, Canada is $100 for one month and in the Philippines it is $25 and over-the-counter. Pays for a trip to the Philippines.
Second, I would like some stats that show poor people get good cancer or heart treatment without insurance or ability to pay. Those of us that are against nationalized health care use the fact that really, everyone has health care by checking into the emergency room. People never get turned away.
I want to know if that is true or not and would affect my opinion in the debate.
Posted by: swatter on September 13, 2007 01:11 PMBECAUSE WE CAN.
We are a rich country. We have the LUXURY of spending more on health care. Our consumers spend more on prescription drugs and fund the drug research, while other countries' consumers get a free ride. They pay less because they can't afford it. The drug companies recoup their research costs in the US market, and view international sales as marginal gravey.
When French politicians need cancer or heart disease care, they come to the US, (not Cuba, har, har) because the US has the best quality of health care, even if it costs more. When Canadians tire of waiting lines for care, they come here and pay cash.
Single payer health care has another name: monopoly. Under monopolies there tends to be higher prices, lower quality and longer wait times for service. This is what I predict when the US goes to socialized medicine.
But the poor demand health care. OK. Here is the solution: Give a taxpayer-funded health insurance policy to the poor, based on a means-tested system. Say, bottom 20% on income and assets. The rest of us use private hospitals, get private insurance and pay for these ourselves. Delete the tax-deductibility for employer provided health benefits so that our medical insurance is portable, and the market can work more competitively.
Problem solved. The poor get their basic health care, and most of us get high quality health care at lower costs.
Let the market work, and provide a means-tested safety net that goes only to the poor. It is stupid to give a taxpayer-funded benefit to the rich and middle class, no? It is immoral to force people into a monopoly system that would provide worse health care and violate our rights.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 13, 2007 01:30 PMBECAUSE WE CAN.
We are a rich country. We have the LUXURY of spending more on health care. Our consumers spend more on prescription drugs and fund the drug research, while other countries' consumers get a free ride. They pay less because they can't afford it. The drug companies recoup their research costs in the US market, and view international sales as marginal gravey.
When French politicians need cancer or heart disease care, they come to the US, (not Cuba, har, har) because the US has the best quality of health care, even if it costs more. When Canadians tire of waiting lines for care, they come here and pay cash.
Single payer health care has another name: monopoly. Under monopolies there tends to be higher prices, lower quality and longer wait times for service. This is what I predict when the US goes to socialized medicine.
But the poor demand health care. OK. Here is the solution: Give a taxpayer-funded health insurance policy to the poor, based on a means-tested system. Say, bottom 20% on income and assets. The rest of us use private hospitals, get private insurance and pay for these ourselves. Delete the tax-deductibility for employer provided health benefits so that our medical insurance is portable, and the market can work more competitively.
Problem solved. The poor get their basic health care, and most of us get high quality health care at lower costs.
Let the market work, and provide a means-tested safety net that goes only to the poor. It is stupid to give a taxpayer-funded benefit to the rich and middle class, no? It is immoral to force people into a monopoly system that would provide worse health care and violate our rights.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 13, 2007 01:33 PMI feel I have to get her into some good insurance for her long term health. Therefore, I am not completely happy with the insurance for the poor. The doctors are good, but it takes more time for the diagnosis than it would if I has a similar ailment.
So, Bruces, that is what piqued my curiosity if the poor got treated just as well for cancer and heart attack as I would.
Posted by: swatter on September 13, 2007 01:46 PM
Swatter as a medical person myself. Yes it could be much better for the US health care. If you come to an ER you get the best of what the US can offer, now it's returning to see other doc's where the problem starts.
But ask yourself one very big question. Walk into any hospital and look at how many docs we have from around the world. Why are they here?
Easy answer.
These AP propagandists are sooo predictable!
Posted by: Michele on September 13, 2007 01:56 PMOne of the reason we see many doc's and nurses from other countries working here. They got tired of the long hours and so little pay.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 13, 2007 02:01 PMRelatives in the Philippines all want to be nurses and emigrate to Australia, the US or elsewhere. Newspapers there say nurses are that country's biggest export.
Easy to see why they want to be in the States.
Let's not talk about ERs. ER Nurse talked about how wonderful triage was and I responded back they weren't all good. But, once inside, I am impressed by the care and diligence and professionalism.
Posted by: swatter on September 13, 2007 02:19 PMWe do NOT have a free market. There is a huge difference between private and free. IU yu have some idea how to create a true free market .. write it UP! No one else has such an idea.
No, the US is no longer a "rich" country vis a vis the others with socilized systems. We are well down below several others in GDP/citizen.
The US system is not so much broken as it is very fragile and overpriced. ERs are a good example, the cost to someone of your visiting an ER is in the thousands! We also tax our industries for health care, making our products uncompetitive.
FWIW, the VA .. a single payer socialist system and the military both offer good care at a lower cost than the private domain.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 13, 2007 03:54 PM
As Stossel says "Mr. Moore claims that because private insurance companies are driven by profit, they will always deny care to deserving patients. For this reason, he argues, profit-making health-insurance companies should be abolished, our health- care dollars turned over to the government, and the U.S. should institute a health-care system like the ones in Canada, Britain or France. But does Mr. Moore think, even for a second, that any of the government systems he touts in his movie would have provided a bone-marrow transplant to Ms. Pierce's husband? Fat chance."
I agree with Bruce Guthrie, we need to get the government out of health care--they're the ones who screwed it up in the first place with the wage and price controls back in WWII that caused health insurance to be provided through employers rather than purchased by individuals.
Third party payers takes all of the "free market" out of health insurance. The ones seeking the treatment are not the ones paying for it, so they have no incentive to seek out the best deal or to use health care costs wisely. That is the main reason costs are out of control here (Also the prescription drug situation already mentioned). HSA's, if they become more widely used, may have a shot at turning some of this around.
Stossel's last paragraph is true: "Mr. Moore thinks that profit is the enemy and government is the answer. The opposite is true. Profit is what has created the amazing scientific innovations that the U.S. offers to the world. If government takes over, innovation slows, health care is rationed, and spending is controlled by politicians more influenced by the sob story of the moment than by medical science." Hear! Hear!
Posted by: Bill H on September 13, 2007 04:49 PMHate to break your heart there dude, but England is already cutting back on medical care if your.
Over weight, smoker, or pass the age of 55.
Nice, just what we need here.
By the way seattle... I'll leave of the Jew because I know many jewish people and they are nothing like you. I see people in the ER all day long and they always get the best of care.
Please try out the goverment care, IE Vet hospitals... Been there done that, or did you for get just a few months ago when the VA had our boys in sub-std rooms.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 13, 2007 05:20 PMO.K. SeattleJew and Bruce consider this. How about I agree that we can afford to provide EXACTLY the same as Cuba provides as documented at the I provided @ 24 and again here for all uninsured Americans "free of charge." Not what Cuba and Michael Moore claim Cuba provides, but exactly what Cuba actually delivers. Would this satisfy you? I say that the ACLU and every other leftist group would sue our asses off for providing facilities which are as filthy as a puppy mill and care which amounts to systemic neglect and malpractice. Your tone would change pronto and you know it. I could go on, but why bother. You would not be satisfied if we offered the same exact care as any country that provides socialized medical offers - if we retained for ourselves what we now have as well.
Posted by: JDH on September 13, 2007 06:44 PMMy proposal above would leave less than 20% of health expenditures in the government sphere, while still giving the poor better care. My suggestion moves us closer to a free market, (80% free market!) and makes everyone better off.
Sorry to disagree with the veteran above, (and thanks for defending my fredom...) but the VA hospitals are not as good as the private ones, on average. I'll bet they provide much better care than the Cuban hospitals, but that's not saying much. It is a national embarassment how badly we treat our veterans. The government should still give lifetime health insurance coverage to veterans as part of their pay package. That's just part of their deal for serving their country. But the VA hospitals should all be privatized. This would improve their quality. Nothing like the discipline of competition to improve quality. Right now, the poor veterans are forced to deal with a monopoly, and you lefties know that monopoly is bad. Right?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 13, 2007 09:08 PMBruce....
I agree with you on the VA mess. But it's not something new (BUSH) It has been going on for 50+ years and a damn shame at that.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 14, 2007 06:54 AM