More Obamacare fuckups

[Latrinsorm]

Basically what Gelston said, there is all the excessive eating, drinking, smoking, and drugs. Not to mention we probably have more people who engage in recreational sports.

Well, we can certainly put numbers on drinking and smoking.

Smoking in France, 2010: 30%.
Smoking in the United States, 2011: 19%.
Possible sources of error:
The France figures are 18-75, the US 18+. There are about 18.6m Americans older than 75, so if none of them smoke the 19% would be 19% * 293 / (293 - 18.6) = 20.3%. Not a big problem, especially since there probably are people who smoke and are older than 75.
The definition of "smoker" might be different, and the United States report is the only one to define it. But still, 30% to 20% is a huge gap to even make us even, let alone make us worse.

Drinking in France, 2010: 1 glass of wine (or equivalent) per adult per day. 17% are daily drinkers.
Drinking in United States, 2005: 1 glass of wine (or equivalent) per adult per 12 days. 4% are daily drinkers in 2006.
One possible interpretation is that the Americans who drink drink, while the Frenchman surrenders after a single glass but is back for more the next day. Regardless, the average American drinks less overall and less frequently.

Obviously, statistics on illegal drug use are hard to come by with any certainty. "Excessive" eating is also a tricky one. The marathoner who consumes 3000 Calories of a well-balanced, nutritive diet (kale, tofu, whatever) is doing better by his body than the office worker who consumes 2000 Calories of Big Macs. As you and I have discussed before, it's also not always clear what constitutes a healthy diet. Partially hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners... there's a lot of stuff out there we're just now learning about as far as the long term effects.

I'm not sure where you're going with the recreational sports angle. American football carries a unique risk of brain trauma, but very few Americans play enough of it to make that trauma lifespan-significant. Blowing out a knee is unpleasant, but again I'm not sure how it would be lifespan-significant.

[Jeril]

I'm not sure where you're going with the recreational sports angle. American football carries a unique risk of brain trauma, but very few Americans play enough of it to make that trauma lifespan-significant. Blowing out a knee is unpleasant, but again I'm not sure how it would be lifespan-significant.

Skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, rolling blading, water skiiing, jet skies, ect, all those extra fun things a lot of people like to do. They add to health care costs and when something bad happens from some of these things and a kid dies young, how many people need to live past the average ages to make up for it?

[Tgo01]

stuff

What about murder rates? Pollution? I hear the US produces the second most pollution in the world by quite a margin compared to the third most.

Car accidents? Accidents in general? Obesity? Diabetes due to poor nutrition?

What about record keeping? Maybe France just sucks at keeping proper track of how old their citizens die at and the US is (as usual) perfect at it? Maybe countries like Japan don't count still born births as a life/death and that skews their numbers? Maybe the US does keep track of those and that skews their numbers in the other direction?

Maybe there are far too many variables to possibly tie life expectancy and healthcare spending together and try to compare different countries based on this?

[Jarvan]

So, the chart above is due to the people who make poor life choices? Our healthcare costs are due to people who get sick, or injured?

If you think so do you believe we should ban smoking, drinking, 400oz. Big Gulps, etc? Or does it just not bother you that we spend far and away every country in the world to pay for mediocre life expectancy?

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/onli...nation-method/

http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/chemicals/...icingstudy.pdf

http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=791

Read, learn, try to understand Back.

And that's just ONE aspect of healthcare. It applies to almost all things though.

Then there is this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_average_wage

We make about 50% on average more then France. Granted, our healthcare costs are double what France's is, then again, France is a socialist country, we are not.

If America had the same type of system as France, and put strict price control on drugs for example, we would see VASTLY reduced innovations in new drugs. Now.. in some ways this could be a good thing. I am getting tired of seeing commercials where taking a shot clears up skin flaking, but could give you 5 different things that could kill you. Yeah.. dandruff on the face.. or die. Choices choices.

[Warriorbird]

So the argument here is that more uninsured people is good for the rest of us who pay for their poor life choices. Got it.

[Jeril]

So the argument here is that more uninsured people is good for the rest of us who pay for their poor life choices. Got it.

No one has said this. The big bone is that Obamacare isn't the way to do it. And as someone already pointed out, that 630+mil that has been spent on their nightmare of a computer system could have been better spent else where. You are also seem to be forgetting that those uninsured people only account for 2% of healthcare costs.

[Jarvan]

Well, we can certainly put numbers on drinking and smoking.

Smoking in France, 2010: 30%.
Smoking in the United States, 2011: 19%.
Possible sources of error:
The France figures are 18-75, the US 18+. There are about 18.6m Americans older than 75, so if none of them smoke the 19% would be 19% * 293 / (293 - 18.6) = 20.3%. Not a big problem, especially since there probably are people who smoke and are older than 75.
The definition of "smoker" might be different, and the United States report is the only one to define it. But still, 30% to 20% is a huge gap to even make us even, let alone make us worse.

Drinking in France, 2010: 1 glass of wine (or equivalent) per adult per day. 17% are daily drinkers.
Drinking in United States, 2005: 1 glass of wine (or equivalent) per adult per 12 days. 4% are daily drinkers in 2006.
One possible interpretation is that the Americans who drink drink, while the Frenchman surrenders after a single glass but is back for more the next day. Regardless, the average American drinks less overall and less frequently.

Obviously, statistics on illegal drug use are hard to come by with any certainty. "Excessive" eating is also a tricky one. The marathoner who consumes 3000 Calories of a well-balanced, nutritive diet (kale, tofu, whatever) is doing better by his body than the office worker who consumes 2000 Calories of Big Macs. As you and I have discussed before, it's also not always clear what constitutes a healthy diet. Partially hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners... there's a lot of stuff out there we're just now learning about as far as the long term effects.

I'm not sure where you're going with the recreational sports angle. American football carries a unique risk of brain trauma, but very few Americans play enough of it to make that trauma lifespan-significant. Blowing out a knee is unpleasant, but again I'm not sure how it would be lifespan-significant.

Lets look at this in context though.

France population 65.7 million @ 30% = 19.71 million smokers.

America population = 308 million @ 19% = 58.52 million smokers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ion_per_capita

Looking at %'s we are far better.. looking at cigarettes per capita tho.. we are about 25% WORSE then France.

US 1028 per

France 854 per

Less % wise of our people smoke, but they are smoking significantly more cigarettes.

As for excessive eating.. France Obesity rate.. 10%, US 30%. Pretty cut and dry there... but once again, you need to LOOK at the population difference.

France 6.57 million fatties..

America 92.4 million fatties...

Direct comparison of % doesn't apply to healthcare costs, since it is the SHEER number of people that impact it.

[Warriorbird]

No one has said this. The big bone is that Obamacare isn't the way to do it. And as someone already pointed out, that 630+mil that has been spent on their nightmare of a computer system could have been better spent else where. You are also forgetting and those uninsured people only account for 2% of healthcare costs, or have you forgotten that little tidbit?

So what's your theory? That by the magic of tort reform companies will spontaneously cover these people? I'm also somewhat confused how these 16% cause 2% of all healthcare costs only. Are you claiming that these people are the healthiest in the whole world, or at least America?

[Jeril]

So what's your theory? That by the magic of tort reform companies will spontaneously cover these people? I'm also somewhat confused how these 16% cause 2% of all healthcare costs only. Are you claiming that these people are the healthiest in the whole world, or at least America?

I am saying there is a better way to do it. What that is is probably better left up to the 'experts', maybe. The way I see some of this is that the huge chunk of money that was spent on the computer system could have easily been used to pay every ones premiums and the deductibles of all the people who couldn't afford it. You take that a step further and if the government is paying for all that why do we need the insurance companies? But then you run into two problems, what to do with all the people who work in the health insurance industry and government inefficiency. The answer to the first is likely to make them government employees filling similar roles. The second would be a harder one to solve because we the people by and large expect and accept that our government is that way.

[Latrinsorm]

Skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, rolling blading, water skiiing, jet skies, ect, all those extra fun things a lot of people like to do. They add to health care costs

Oh, I get you now, I was looking at the wrong half of the equation. It's an interesting point, but I think it's too densely packed to compute, and if we can't compute something I as always recommend drawing no conclusion. Here's what I mean:

-America is rich, therefore we have MRIs, arthroscopic surgery, ligament transplants etc. available for sports injuries, therefore we make use of them. These all cost money but do not impact lifespan. Nation X isn't as rich as us, so they don't have these treatments as available or use them as much, so they spend less but live just as long.

-But... everyone plays. Even cavemen had significant leisure time. And while speed/motorization is a big risk factor for injury, one of the biggest risk factors is lousy equipment/field. I played rec league softball on an artificial turf field that surely cost thousands of dollars; I am reasonably sure that these are not common in Nation X. Surely we agree that poorer people are more likely to find employment as physical labor, and while a torn ACL makes it annoying to sit at a desk, it makes it prohibitively difficult to lift pallets. Unemployment follows, destitution follows, snowball effect.

I'm not even sure how we could design an experiment to evaluate these costs, but if you have suggestions I am all eyes.

and when something bad happens from some of these things and a kid dies young, how many people need to live past the average ages to make up for it?

Like with guns, accidental deaths due to sporting are very rare - surprisingly so, really, especially since (in each case) a lack of coordination and fine motor control seems like it would be catastrophic. If 1 kid out of a million dies 50 years young, you only need the rest of the million to live an extra 26 minutes to balance it out. (Note that they don't have to all live 26 minutes past the average age, but only 26 minutes past what they would have anyway.) Looking at it the other way, 1 kid out of a million dying 50 years young only decreases that million's average lifespan by about half an hour.