General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Health in America today

Started by cardarch · · Last activity · 14 posts · 266 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
3 May 2006
Last activity
17 May 2006
Original author
cardarch
Posts
14
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
266
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–14 of 14
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. From:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02cnd-health.html
    (registration required, free)
    Excerpt:

    An article in the May 3 issue of JAMA said "middle-aged to
    older U.S. residents have higher rates of diabetes,
    hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease
    and cancer than their English counterparts."

    The article said American per capita expenditure on medical care
    was $5,274 a year compared to $2,164 in Britain, where many
    people depend on the state-run National Health Service,
    currently facing huge deficits that have made thousands of
    hospital beds not longer available.

    "However, whether greater financial expenditures translate into
    better health for a country's citizens is uncertain," JAMA said
    in a press release summarizing the article.

    The conclusions followed an inquiry, using American and British
    data, to compare the relative health of older individuals and
    the way health varies as a result of social and economic status.

    "The researchers found that U.S. citizens in late middle age are
    much less healthy than their English counterparts for diabetes,
    hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease
    and cancer," the press release said. For instance, it said, the
    prevalence of diabetes was twice as high in the United States as
    in England and hypertension was 10 percent more common in
    America.

    Comparing the habits of older people, the article said "smoking
    behavior was similar in both countries, with about one in five
    people between the ages of 55 and 64 years currently smoking."

    But it observed: "Obesity rates were much higher in the U.S. and
    heavy drinking was more common in England."

    The article concluded that wealthier and better-educated people
    in both countries were much healthier than poorer and less-
    educated people. "Differences in socio-economic groups between
    the two groups were so great that those in the top education and
    income level in the U.S. had similar rates of diabetes and heart
    disease as those in the bottom education and income level in
    England," it said.

    The JAMA article said that "health insurance cannot be the
    central reason for the better health outcomes in England because
    the top socio-economic status tier of the U.S. population have
    close to universal access but their health outcomes are often
    worse than those of their English counterparts."

    Among its "simple but powerful conclusions" the article found
    that: "Americans are much sicker than the English."

  2. cardarch said:

    From:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02cnd-health.html
    (registration required, free)
    Excerpt:

    An article in the May 3 issue of JAMA said "middle-aged to
    older U.S. residents have higher rates of diabetes,
    hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease
    and cancer than their English counterparts."


    SNIP

    Quoted message said:


    The JAMA article said that "health insurance cannot be the
    central reason for the better health outcomes in England because
    the top socio-economic status tier of the U.S. population have
    close to universal access but their health outcomes are often
    worse than those of their English counterparts."

    Among its "simple but powerful conclusions" the article found
    that: "Americans are much sicker than the English."


    OK, healthy people had fewer problems (starvation, fleeing debts, etc.)
    that caused them to want to emigrate to the US whereas those tired,
    poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free and come to America had
    all kinds of predispositions for disease.

    The education, class and employment systems are also very different--the
    English system may be ultimately less stressful, although it has always
    seemed very tough to me for the little ones.
    Madelaine

  3. Madelaine said:
    cardarch said:

    From:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02cnd-health.html
    (registration required, free)
    Excerpt:

    An article in the May 3 issue of JAMA said "middle-aged to
    older U.S. residents have higher rates of diabetes,
    hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease
    and cancer than their English counterparts."


    SNIP

    Quoted message said:


    The JAMA article said that "health insurance cannot be the
    central reason for the better health outcomes in England because
    the top socio-economic status tier of the U.S. population have
    close to universal access but their health outcomes are often
    worse than those of their English counterparts."

    Among its "simple but powerful conclusions" the article found
    that: "Americans are much sicker than the English."


    OK, healthy people had fewer problems (starvation, fleeing debts, etc.)
    that caused them to want to emigrate to the US whereas those tired,
    poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free and come to America had
    all kinds of predispositions for disease.

    Highly unlikely. Even if the emigrants were less healthy, it would
    have been due to lifestyle (poor nutrition, working conditions, etc)
    not to underlying genetic problems which would still have any effect
    today.

    Quoted message said:


    The education, class and employment systems are also very different--the
    English system may be ultimately less stressful, although it has always
    seemed very tough to me for the little ones.
    Madelaine

    Nothing to do with stress levels or the 'class system' - which nowadays
    has very little to do with class and a lot more to do with money, just
    like the US. Most lords are skint. I've worked in the US and the UK
    and the working culture's pretty similar. There's not much difference
    in the education systems either.

    It's all down to diet and obesity levels. Regardless of the cause -
    greater wealth, cheaper food, culture, availability of fast food
    outlets - the US has historically had much worse diet and hence much
    greater obesity than the UK. Again, possibly due to greater wealth and
    cheaper petrol, Americans seem to drive absolutely everywhere while
    Britons are more likely to walk or cycle. We're catching up - kids
    over here are about the most obese in Europe I think. Combination of
    increased prosperity in the last couple of decades, fast food outlets
    opening everywhere and successive governments flogging off school
    sports pitches to developers, reducing sport to a paltry 2 hours a week
    in the national curriculum and almost entirely phasing out competitive
    sport for kids.

  4. rookie said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Excerpt:

    An article in the May 3 issue of JAMA said "middle-aged to
    older U.S. residents have higher rates of diabetes,
    hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease
    and cancer than their English counterparts."

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    OK, healthy people had fewer problems (starvation, fleeing debts,
    etc.) that caused them to want to emigrate to the US whereas those
    tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free and come to
    America had all kinds of predispositions for disease.

    Highly unlikely. Even if the emigrants were less healthy, it would have
    been due to lifestyle (poor nutrition, working conditions, etc) not to
    underlying genetic problems which would still have any effect today.

    While I suppose there might be some argument for genetic fitness having
    any direct correlation with social class I would suggest that immigration
    might not be the most significant culling or self selection event in the
    history of modern north American genetic diversity.

    For that I'd look, not to events which _increased_ genetic diversity, to a
    couple 'pinch points' in the last few generations. Namely the drafts of
    world wars 1 and 2 and Vietnam.

    Slaying your fittest is hardly an effective solution for selective
    pressures.

    This is not to say that Britain didn't suffer casualties or even that I
    have any evidence to suggest that these events were significant in this
    way. I'm pretty sure, though hardly qualified to offer opinion as
    fact or even forward a theory, that environment and habit are more
    important in this case.

    --Mike

  5. Michael Edey said:
    rookie said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Excerpt:
    >
    > An article in the May 3 issue of JAMA said "middle-aged to
    > older U.S. residents have higher rates of diabetes,
    > hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease
    > and cancer than their English counterparts."

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    OK, healthy people had fewer problems (starvation, fleeing debts,
    etc.) that caused them to want to emigrate to the US whereas those
    tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free and come to
    America had all kinds of predispositions for disease.

    Highly unlikely. Even if the emigrants were less healthy, it would have
    been due to lifestyle (poor nutrition, working conditions, etc) not to
    underlying genetic problems which would still have any effect today.

    While I suppose there might be some argument for genetic fitness having
    any direct correlation with social class I would suggest that immigration
    might not be the most significant culling or self selection event in the
    history of modern north American genetic diversity.

    For that I'd look, not to events which _increased_ genetic diversity, to a
    couple 'pinch points' in the last few generations. Namely the drafts of
    world wars 1 and 2 and Vietnam.

    Slaying your fittest is hardly an effective solution for selective
    pressures.

    This is not to say that Britain didn't suffer casualties or even that I
    have any evidence to suggest that these events were significant in this
    way. I'm pretty sure, though hardly qualified to offer opinion as
    fact or even forward a theory, that environment and habit are more
    important in this case.

    --Mike

    Total US deaths in the 3 wars you mention were ~450,000. Britain lost
    over a million in the 2 world wars and has a population about quarter
    the size of the US so you're right, it's probably not significant...

  6. Here's the key statistic:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/295/17/2037

    "To illustrate, among those aged 55 to 64 years, diabetes prevalence is
    twice as high in the United States and only one fifth of this
    difference can be explained by a common set of risk factors."

    <<<<

    The cost of diabetes care in the USA in 2002 was a staggering $132
    billion.

    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/3/917

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >

    Now, the prevalence of diabetes has nothing to do with health care, but
    everything to do with lifestyle. As the above (JAMA) study was
    controlled for obesity and other factors, but not for any markers at
    all of physical fitness, I think it's perfectly obvious that the factor
    most likely to explain the doubled prevelance of diabetes in the US is
    the decreased level of exercise in the US, relative to the UK. And this
    single factor explains the most important differences between the UK
    and US relating to the health of each nation's citizens.

    One of the things (among many) which most ticks me off about George W
    Bush is the fact that his own devotion to fitness is admirable and
    praiseworthy, but he has eschewed a golden opportunity to use his own
    example and the bully pulpit of the Presidency to do something which
    would do more than anything else to save lives and reduce health care
    costs. The "crusade" he should be leading (but isn't) is a national
    movement to increase physical activity.

    - Larry Weisenthal

  7. Quoted message said:

    One of the things (among many) which most ticks me off about George W
    Bush is ...

    Ah, the moonbats continue with their gratuitous, psychotic, and
    irrational Bush bashing.

    Keep it up; it really fires up our base.

  8. Quoted message said:

    Ah, the moonbats continue with their gratuitous, psychotic, and
    irrational Bush bashing.

    Quoted message said:

    Keep it up; it really fires up our base.

    Common, Don. In the present context, it's a legitimate criticism.
    America is spending 182 billion dollars on diabetes care. America has
    double the incidence of diabetes as the UK. It's clearly related to
    lack of exercise. The President is an exercise freak (good for him).
    He's got a golden opportunity to do something which would do more to
    improve the nation's health than a dozen Medicare Prescription Drug
    acts. And he's wasting it. It's a pity, that's all. Opportunity
    lost.

    By the way, it's not only moonbats who are noticing the lack of
    clothing on the emperor. You can tell that there is trouble in River
    City when even Right Wing Talk Radio starts to jump ship....

    http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Morning

    - Larry Weisenthal

  9. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Ah, the moonbats continue with their gratuitous, psychotic, and
    irrational Bush bashing.

    Quoted message said:

    Keep it up; it really fires up our base.

    Common, Don. In the present context, it's a legitimate criticism.
    America is spending 182 billion dollars on diabetes care. America has
    double the incidence of diabetes as the UK. It's clearly related to
    lack of exercise. The President is an exercise freak (good for him).
    He's got a golden opportunity to do something which would do more to
    improve the nation's health than a dozen Medicare Prescription Drug
    acts. And he's wasting it. It's a pity, that's all. Opportunity
    lost.

    I imagine he wouldn't draw any criticism at all for firing up a 'pet
    project' in the midst of all his other woes.

    Quoted message said:

    By the way, it's not only moonbats who are noticing the lack of
    clothing on the emperor. You can tell that there is trouble in River
    City when even Right Wing Talk Radio starts to jump ship....

    http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Morning

    - Larry Weisenthal

  10. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629161/posts

  11. Don provides a link:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629161/posts

    ....duly noted

    69% of Americans do seem to be angry about something...according to the
    latest Gallup/USA Today Presidential approval polls.

    Seriously, it's interesting that, all through the Clinton impeachment
    proceedings and to the day he left office, he had a 67% approval rating
    and 33% disapproval rating. Now it would seem that it is the same 33%
    of the electorate who disapproved of the previous incumbent who are the
    only ones left who approve of the present incumbent.

    ....but this is once again thread drift.

    It doesn't require hatred of the current incumbent to hope that he
    might do something to reduce healthcare costs which would involve
    neither tax increases nor increased regulation. I'll bet if he made it
    a signature, personal issue, it would give him a + 5% approval bump and
    perhaps be his greatest positive legacy.

    - Larry W

  12. (Larry Weisenthal) said:

    Don provides a link:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629161/posts

    ...duly noted

    69% of Americans do seem to be angry about something...according to the
    latest Gallup/USA Today Presidential approval polls.

    Seriously, it's interesting that, all through the Clinton impeachment
    proceedings and to the day he left office, he had a 67% approval rating
    and 33% disapproval rating. Now it would seem that it is the same 33%
    of the electorate who disapproved of the previous incumbent who are the
    only ones left who approve of the present incumbent.

    ...but this is once again thread drift.

    It doesn't require hatred of the current incumbent to hope that he
    might do something to reduce healthcare costs which would involve
    neither tax increases nor increased regulation. I'll bet if he made it
    a signature, personal issue, it would give him a + 5% approval bump and
    perhaps be his greatest positive legacy.

    - Larry W

    Problem is that he is too stupid to come up with one single positive
    thing.

  13. Pat in TX said:
    Quoted message said:


    It's all down to diet and obesity levels. Regardless of the cause -
    greater wealth, cheaper food, culture, availability of fast food
    outlets - the US has historically had much worse diet and hence much
    greater obesity than the UK. Again, possibly due to greater wealth and
    cheaper petrol, Americans seem to drive absolutely everywhere while
    Britons are more likely to walk or cycle. We're catching up - kids
    over here are about the most obese in Europe I think. Combination of
    increased prosperity in the last couple of decades, fast food outlets
    opening everywhere and successive governments flogging off school
    sports pitches to developers, reducing sport to a paltry 2 hours a week
    in the national curriculum and almost entirely phasing out competitive
    sport for kids.

    What you are overlooking is that American cities "grew up" differently from
    those in Europe. Would you walk or cycle to work if your work was 25 miles
    away and the only way to get there was a high speed highway?

    Not overlooking at all - just commenting on a fact that is a
    contributory factor to obesity/poor health. Doesn't matter whether the
    cause is down to culture, cheaper petrol, people living farther from
    work, poorer public transport, etc.

    Example: my companies' offices are ~20 miles outside London and about
    17 miles from where I live. I cycle most days as do a couple of
    hundred other people judging from the bike shed there. Many people use
    a nearby train station and walk to and from the station. Some do drive
    but they're a minority.

    The company also has an office ~20 miles outside Chicago, among other
    US cities. I was there last week and counted 3 bikes on site. There
    is a train station or bus apparently but nobody uses it. Everybody
    drives. I stayed in a hotel about a mile away and walked in because it
    was easier than hiring a car or booking a taxi every day. They all
    thought I was crazy.

    Quoted message said:

    Our cities are
    much more spread out due to the way they were settled a long time before
    automobiles were invented.

    Pat in TX

    Out of interest when do you think European cities were settled?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

  14. Quoted message said:


    Out of interest when do you think European cities were settled?

    It's not so much WHEN but how they were settled and for what reason.
    European cities tended to be defensive groupings of buildings, or in many
    cases, the farmers lived in towns and worked the fields surrounding the
    towns but could retreat to the city area for safety. In America, there was
    the frontier mentality and people (from crowded European cities) wanted
    their "own space" and so everything was more spread out. When there is more
    room, people tend to spread out. You can see the original port cities in the
    U.S. have developed more like European cities, especially those with
    clusters of neighborhoods by ethnicity. I remember when I was in college, a
    boy from New York asked me where the "Irish neighborhood" was. Cities in
    Texas didn't develop in neighborhoods of ethnic groups with a
    pub/bar/inn/gasthaus on each corner. You can find that in Chicago or Boston
    or even Baltimore, but not in western cities. That tends to mean our cities
    aren't so close to each other. People like to think Dallas/Fort Worth as if
    they are a unit, but in reality, it would take me about 1 hour and 15
    minutes to drive my car to Fort Worth.

    Pat in TX

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.