Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Fuzzy math: O'Reilly says higher Canadian life expectancy is "to be expected" because "we have 10 times as many people" Mensa member Bill O'Reilly' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Fuzzy math: O'Reilly says higher Canadian life expectancy is "to be expected" because "we have 10 times as many people" Mensa member Bill O'Reilly' In other words, if Canada had a larger population, they'd regress toward the mean, and therefore their higher life expectancy is wrong. Seriously, though...it probably has less to do with health care than it does with lifestyle. I'd bet, on average, your typical Canadian eats better and gets more exercise than your typical American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 In other words, if Canada had a larger population, they'd regress toward the mean, and therefore their higher life expectancy is wrong. Seriously, though...it probably has less to do with health care than it does with lifestyle. I'd bet, on average, your typical Canadian eats better and gets more exercise than your typical American. What's the life expectancy in China? Gotta be close to 3.5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Seriously, though...it probably has less to do with health care than it does with lifestyle. I'd bet, on average, your typical Canadian eats better and gets more exercise than your typical American. Which brings up another under-discussed point. The administration likes to point to Minnesota as an example of better health at lower costs, in comparison to places like southern Texas. And yet factors like diet, lifestyle, environment and even genetics are never raised for their impact on collective health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Which brings up another under-discussed point. The administration likes to point to Minnesota as an example of better health at lower costs, in comparison to places like southern Texas. And yet factors like diet, lifestyle, environment and even genetics are never raised for their impact on collective health. Minnesota also had one of the best PUBLIC health systems in the country - the world, even - until Governor Ventura gutted it. But public health isn't what the administration is proposing. That's what irks me most about the whole issue: the people making policy can't even define the issue. But they think they can solve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 But public health isn't what the administration is proposing. That's what irks me most about the whole issue: the people making policy can't even define the issue. But they think they can solve it. There was an interesting and subtle poll recently done which revealed that a majority of the public believes that Congress does not understand the issues well enough to competantly work on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I read somewhere that African Americans have a lower life expectancy than whites, and that's why ours is lower than countries like Canada and Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I read somewhere that African Americans have a lower life expectancy than whites, and that's why ours is lower than countries like Canada and Britain. There are many factors that might play into that statistic that have nothing to do with genetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Oh, and Bill O'Reilly and his entire staff are a bunch of !@#$ing morons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 There are many factors that might play into that statistic that have nothing to do with genetics. Many that do, too. There's enough genetic variation between races that the lifestyles of one might be unhealthy (or more unhealthy) to another. I would be entirely unsurprised if the environmental factors that put African-Americans at higher risk for heart disease weren't exacerbated by genetics, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Oh, and Bill O'Reilly and his entire staff are a bunch of !@#$ing morons! That which is understood need not be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 That's what irks me most about the whole issue: the people making policy can't even define the issue. But they think they can solve it. This is probably my biggest criticism of what DC is doing right now with regards to health care reform. One group is proposing one thing, another group is proposing another thing, and neither group seems to be proposing what the president keeps promising everyone. Still, we can commit 637 billion taxpayers dollars as a downpayment on something that no one has been able to consistently define. To make matters worse, the president is spending a lot of time being critical of those who "chatter" and criticize the plans without realizing that the reason the plans are so easily criticized is because you can write down the names of every person who understands what is being proposed and balance them on the head of a thumbtack. Another problem they seem to be having according to a congressman I heard interviewed yesterday is that (to paraphrase) Pelosi went around twisting and breaking arms to get Cap-n-Trade passed by Congress, and there are no more arms to twist and break to get health care passed. Not sure how true that is, but it certainly sounds very plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Many that do, too. There's enough genetic variation between races that the lifestyles of one might be unhealthy (or more unhealthy) to another. I would be entirely unsurprised if the environmental factors that put African-Americans at higher risk for heart disease weren't exacerbated by genetics, as well. Absolutely. Also, consider that more research dollars have been spent to develop treatments for diseases that white people are genetically predisposed to rather than things like Sickle Cell Anemia. My guess is that the better health stats in Canada have more to do with lifestyle than anything. After all, we are all a bunch of fat-assed, chain smoking, sedentary heart attacks waiting to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Life expectancy has very little to do with health care. Fill out any life insurance application and they don't ask you about your current or past health coverage but more about your lifestlye and and family history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 In other words, if Canada had a larger population, they'd regress toward the mean, and therefore their higher life expectancy is wrong. Seriously, though...it probably has less to do with health care than it does with lifestyle. I'd bet, on average, your typical Canadian eats better and gets more exercise than your typical American. If you look at an obesity rate chart, and then a life expectancy chart, you will see an almost direct correlation. The nations with the lowest obesity are at the top of the life expectancy chart, and vice versa. There are a few exceptions, but its a very noticeable trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2102rank.html http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 If you look at an obesity rate chart, and then a life expectancy chart, you will see an almost direct correlation. The nations with the lowest obesity are at the top of the life expectancy chart, and vice versa. There are a few exceptions, but its a very noticeable trend. And there are people that will say that better health care will reduce obesity. My response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Well, thats the problem with liberalism and its "feelings based" thought process in a nutshell. Sure...sounds good..."World Peace"...."Health Care for everyone"....."tolerance"...but when applied in that crazy, nutty thingy called the REAL WORLD, such "feel good" things become really hard to define. And if youre ever able to come up with a real definition, they become even harder to realize. People without a goal and vision are less likely to push for solutions, and are willing to settle for war, health care for some, and intolerance. Too bad you're willing to settle for less than success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 And there are people that will say that better health care will reduce obesity. My response? I love how obesity is considered a "disease" in our society. Yes, some people are afflicted by dangerously slow metabolisms and other genetic quirks, but the VAST majority of obese people just eat too f*cking much and never exercise. When the cure to your "disease" is to order the vegetables instead of the french fries and then take your dog for a walk around the block, it's not a disease. This country has a higher rate of obesity than any other country in the world by a freakin country mile, and THAT is the reason for our low life expectancy...not health care. Why couldnt' Bill-O just have said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 People without a goal and vision are less likely to push for solutions, and are willing to settle for war, health care for some, and intolerance. Too bad you're willing to settle for less than success. I guess it all depends on your definition of "success," no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts