countries.
So says a NY Times article from Wednesday.
Gun deaths, car wrecks, drug overdoses, and poor health care all contributed.
snip
snip
Clearly universal health care, wiser drug laws, restrictions on guns and much better mass transit would improve the relative performance of the USA.
One of the biggest factors is that a far larger portion of the US population is what can be called historically disadvantaged and also more culturally conducive to a lot of these factors than any other developed country.
Incidentally I am curious really as to why very old Americans have a higher life expectancy than their counterparts elsewhere. Any idea why?
nm
If we just kept the coasts and got rid of most of the middle of the country I’m guessing those numbers would change.
In other words, the U.S. has higher levels of economic inequality than other developed nations.
I wonder why.
Remind me, which is the country without UHC health cover and any cover for 30% of the population.
Outside the US, even the unhealthy ones die over 50.
Because in the best of circumstances we have the technology to sustain just about every organ system that’s failing. Not that that care comes cheap, nor distributed evenly or wisely.
This will surely bring up the issue of so-called “death panels”, but should we really provide pacemakers and dialysis to 90 year olds? Perhaps those resources could be better put to addressing gun violence, drug addiction, mental illness etc in younger/ more salvageable individuals?
I think it’s probably more the former reason than the later. It’s not like they don’t have the same medical technology in other developed countries.
I would also wonder if it’s alcohol related. We drink and drive more (which kills young people) but drink-and-drink less, which is the sort of thing that kills you in your 50s and 60s.
LOL. Excellent. For no apparent reason this reminded me of Donald Rumsfeld’s ‘old Europe’.
Anyway, must get back to experiencing socialized medicine.
Do they? Rather, do they have a statistically significant higher life expectancy? I don’t know, I’m asking. (I don’t remember enough Statistics to figure it out.)
This site here gives the following information:
Additional life expected for 65 year old men in the US: 17.1, UK: 16.9. That’s a 0.2 year difference. Less than 2 1/2 months. That sounds like it could be statistical “noise” to me.
The oldest men get another 0.6 years in the US.
Biggest gap is 80 year old women, expected to live another 9.8 years in the US, and 9.0 years in the UK. Still less than 10 months. That’s 0.89% of their lifetime, if my math is right. Less than 1%.
Also, no mention of *quality *of life - are those 10 months spent fighting multiple infections while suffering dementia, on a respirator, unable to hug your grandchildren? Whoopee.
I can’t find anything on other countries that may or may not support your claim that isn’t behind a paywall.
It might be due to a simple statistical “paradox”: Suppose that a certain portion of any population is predisposed to heart failure death. Those people, for whatever reason, are more likely to die young, from heart failure, in U.S. than in Europe. This implies that among European old people, the portion predisposed to heart failure death will be larger than among their American counterparts.
(Did I explain that well? If not, I’m sure some Doper will understand the point; will he or she please explain it better?)
ETA: According to Why Not, any difference may be insignificant anyway. But please help me rephrase my conjecture, even if it’s false! 
Sure…we let 'em die younger in the US, so only the hardy ones live to be very old. Darwin in action.
ETA: In other words, cherry picking just “the very oldest” ignores what percentage of the population even lives long enough to earn that title.
I thought under Medicare and Medicaid, these extra years of life were back in your twenties?
Who is “we”, and what political mandate exists to allow one section of society to die younger than another?
I wonder if genetics could be the difference-the USA has a substantial population of immigrants. Many of these people came from 3rd world countries, where childhood diseases are poorly treated. Can these people, entering their 50s, be under greater risk of earlier death?
Potentially a legacy of WWII, or at least that might be a factor. Many nations suffered food shortages for many years during those times, in some places there was outright starvation which can cause long-term health problems. While the US had rationing of some types of foods there was never a real shortage of food, just of some sorts of food. Sugar and meat were the main items limited to civilians in WWII but a lack of warfare on US home territory meant that people could raise small livestock even in the cities (my dad used to raise rabbits for the dinner table in St. Louis during that time) and people could hunt for wild food without fear of stumbling over a battlefield. The end result was that the Americans may not have always had the luxury food items they desired but there wasn’t really a problem with getting an adequate diet. Contrast that to something like the Siege of Lennigrad, where the city was cut off from resupply for 900 days and 600,000+ people died of starvation. Three years of inadequate calories and nutrients can leave permanent effects even among survivors (supposedly the city was cleaned of rats and vermin - the people ate them all. And it still wasn’t enough - there are accounts of people scraping the grease from machinery and eating it out of hunger). Food rationing continued in Britain until 1954. The WWII generation of Americans had a significantly better diet than their counterparts elsewhere. There may have also been less disease burden in the US. For example, typhus reached epidemic levels in many places in Europe during WWII but such outbreaks did not occur in the US. Vaccination may have been more common in the US, which also would reduce disease burdens.
Basically, it was a hell of a lot healthier to be living in the US in WWII than in many other places and the long term health effects of poor diet and disease account for at least some of the longevity differences seen.
Interesting…I have read that the British people of WWII were actually healthier because of food rationing-they walked more, and consumed less food. This lowered their cholesterol levels. Look at films from 19401960-very few obese English people.
The famous “Framingham” heart study found that Americans who lived through the war years also had lower rates of heart disease (attributed to lower food consumption during the war years).
Reduced fats/calories are healthier only up to a point. While Britain did suffer under the war there were places that experienced true starvation-levels of hunger, such as the Siege of Leningrad and for a time in the Netherlands. Below a certain point deprivation causes damage.
The one where Medicare only begins at age 65.