Here is a list, for 2000, of countries with a higher life expectancy than the United States.

Japan 80.7
Singapore 80.1
Australia 79.8
Sweden 79.6
Switzerland 79.6
Canada 79.4
Iceland 79.4
Italy 79.0
France 78.8
Spain 78.8
Liechtenstein 78.8
Norway 78.7
Israel 78.6
Greece 78.4
Netherland 78.3
Malta 77.9
Belgium 77.8
New Zealand 77.8
Austria 77.7
United Kingdom 77.7
Finland 77.4
Germany 77.4
United States 77.1

Every single country with a higher life expectancy than the United States has Universal Health Care! Everyone in the United States has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life seems to have limits.

To present a balanced picture, here are the life expectancies in the other countries with Universal Health Care.

Luxembourg 77.1
Ireland 76.8
Cyprus 76.7
Denmark 76.5
Taiwan 76.4
Portugal 75.8
Slovenia 74.9
South Korea 74.4

Yeah... I know it's a dead horse, but maybe it'll increase the life expectancies of future horses.

We know Thicket. We're moving towards universal health care, but it's a big nation with 50 states, and it's going to take some time.

Also, unlike the other countries you listed, we have a huge population spread over a lot of land area and a population with many different ethnic and cultural groups.

Not to mention, the obesity crisis is threatening to reduce our average life expectancy.

Jokes on you! Thats Three more years your social budgets have to be stretched!

This would greatly depend on the quality of those extra three years in my opinion.

77-80th year of age?

Able to move around, feed and clothe myself, transport myself to the store and various places of interest, more or less independent?

Sure, let's add the years on!

Bedridden, myopically blind with cataracts/glaucoma/macular degeneration, unable to feed, clothe, transport or relieve myself, marinating in my own urine?

Pass.



The problem is everyone obsessing over years is obsessing over the wrong thing. Tacking on 3 more years without ensuring they will be at least liveable is not the first priority. You've heard it before, and you'll hear it more and more often as the baby boomers continue to age. Seniors value above everything else, their independence, up to and including their lives.

You know I once heard a senior citizen refer to pneumonia as the "old man's last friend"? He was only half joking.

This would greatly depend on the quality of those extra three years in my opinion.The quality of life for the Japanese is even better than the extra 3 years would suggest. They live much healthier lives than Americans do and are more fit in old age, whereas Americans are basically pill-popping blimps hooked up to tubes.

Take a look at the Okinawa Centenarian Study (http://www.okicent.org/study.html), that type of longevity and fitness is unheard of in the United States.

Jokes on you! Thats Three more years your social budgets have to be stretched!

Shame on us for not thinking that the right to life only applies as long as it doesn't cost money! We're bad bad people indeed!

Horrible people!

I wonder how much life exptency on a country basis is done by health care, and how much is done by not having a population of fat smokers.

Horrible people!

I wonder how much life exptency on a country basis is done by health care, and how much is done by not having a population of fat smokers.

We ARE a bunch of fat, binge-drinking smokers.

The quality of life for the Japanese is even better than the extra 3 years would suggest. They live much healthier lives than Americans do and are more fit in old age, whereas Americans are basically pill-popping blimps hooked up to tubes.

That is for the Japanese that didn't commit suicide. That nation has a very high suicide rate.

At any rate. Yea, quality of life is as important as length. I, personally, can't do much more about it than I already do. I think the Mass. solution to just make it unlawful to not have health insurance isn't really going to fix the problem.

Even for those of us with insurance its pitiful. You have to deal with beauracracts who decide what medical treatment you really need. Its frustrating and expensive and you get little from it. That's a different subject, however.

That is for the Japanese that didn't commit suicide. That nation has a very high suicide rate.It's higher than average, though ours isn't exactly low either. It doesn't really matter, though, since suicide isn't a leading cause of death in either country.

We ARE a bunch of fat, binge-drinking smokers.You're not even remotely as fat as Americans are.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

I don't think you realize just how fat, lazy, and unhealthy the average American really is. Walk around many places in the South and Midwest and you'll see mountains of blubber waddling their way from their SUV to the doughnut shop. And they consider that their weekly exercise.

Smoking wise i've read that we arnt so bad anymore, but I still wish more people quit cause they dont bear the full financial costs of their stupid habit.

I went to New York a bit ago, it was really weird, there were very few fat people walking around, at least compared to home.

Must be the public transporation requires people to walk more.

I went to New York a bit ago, it was really weird, there were very few fat people walking around, at least compared to home.

Must be the public transporation requires people to walk more.Actually New Yorkers are relatively fat, just not as fat as Texans, Southerns, and Midwesterners. Other cities, like San Francisco, have a fairly low obesity rate. It's really a function of attitude more than anything else.

well

New York City's adult obesity rate was 20% in 2003, compared to 23% nationwide in 2004. The national average has nearly doubled from 12% in 1993

maybe I'm just used to seeing fat people, cause its definately not 20% where I live!

maybe I'm just used to seeing fat people, cause its definately not 20% where I live!In the South it's much higher. Texas is one of the fattest states in the country.

Smoking wise i've read that we arnt so bad anymore, but I still wish more people quit cause they dont bear the full financial costs of their stupid habit.I've said it before, we need to increase tobacco taxes so that they offset the cost of treating all those drug addicts. We can do this by increasing the cost of a pack to about $10 (assuming smoking rates stay the same).

Unfortunately, a recent proposition in California for a large tax increase, funneling some of the money to anti-smoking programs, narrowly lost. Tobacco-funded groups spread propaganda to convince the majority non-smoking population that the proposition would be lining the pockets of doctors, and that in general the world will stop turning if we tax cigarettes any more. It's hard to beat the tobacco companies because they have so much money, and 25% of the population are their drug-addicted slaves.

The proposition was stupid, the money should have only been directed towards paying for healthcare that is effected by smoking (which as you said is huge), but instead tried to divert money to unrelated things (Childrens healthcare [why should smokers pay for it?], anti smoking campaigns (which dont work)

Still I voted for it out of pragmaticity, but it should just been a way to recoup societies cost for treating dumbasses who smoke, and nothing more.

the money should have only been directed towards paying for healthcare that is effected by smoking (which as you said is huge)Why?, but instead tried to divert money to unrelated things (Childrens healthcare [why should smokers pay for it?]The small percentage that went towards treating uninsured children is a reimbursement to health care, which is the point of the law. It's practically impossible to fund only those specific health care procedures that are proven to be caused by cigarettes.anti smoking campaigns (which dont work)Yes, they do.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_Anti-Smoking_Efforts_Cut_Lung_Cancer_Deaths.asp

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/documents/press/PressRelease05-22-05.pdf

In this case, a gram of prevention is worth about 20 tons of cure.but it should just been a way to recoup societies cost for treating dumbasses who smoke, and nothing more.What do you suggest, setting up a board of inquiry every time a patient is diagnosed with heart disease to determine whether it was, in fact, caused by cigarettes? Outside of the obvious impracticality, it would give hospitals an incentive to over-diagnose tobacco-related illnesses.

It's far more practical to give health care a general reimbursement, which was what Proposition 86 was trying to do.

Our Govenor just signed a bill to increase the pack of cigarettes 44 cents a pack. The extra money will supposedly go to those with no healthcare in Indiana.

Full Story (http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/15713)

I love that this quote comes from our rep. Charlie Brown:
“The stars were aligned in order for us to do this. It is indescribable what happened, that we were able to come together to pass this wonderful piece of legislation that is comprehensive in terms of covering mental illness, pregnant women, children, the works,” said Brown. “We have all come together to say that if we want to improve the quality of health care for the citizens of Indiana, then we need to take this bold step.”