Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:06 PM
ProfessionalLeftist (4,982 posts)
U.S. Health Worse Than Nearly All Other Industrialized Countries
This is a fine argument for that "socialist" single-payer, nationalized healthcare most other countries enjoy...
U.S. citizens suffer from poorer health than nearly all other industrialized countries, according to the first comprehensive government analysis.
Of 17 high-income countries looked at by a committee of experts sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the United States is at or near the bottom in at least nine indicators.
These include infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, and adolescent pregnancies, as well as more systemic issues such as injuries, homicides, and rates of disability.
Together, such issues place U.S. males at the very bottom of the list, among those countries, for life expectancy; on average, a U.S. male can be expected to live almost four fewer years than those in the top-ranked country, Switzerland. U.S. females fare little better, ranked 16th out of the 17 high-income countries under review.
We were stunned by the propensity of findings all on the negative side the scope of the disadvantage covers all ages, from babies to seniors, both sexes, all classes of society, Steven H. Woolf, a professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University and chair of the panel that wrote the report, told IPS.
3 replies, 469 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
U.S. Health Worse Than Nearly All Other Industrialized Countries (Original post)
|Ron Obvious||Feb 2013||#3|
Response to ProfessionalLeftist (Original post)
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:55 PM
Ron Obvious (3,362 posts)
3. I'm sure our food is part of the reason
I've recently been put on a low sodium diet so I'm reading labels for the first time in my life. There's salt and sugar in everything! Sometimes the amount of sodium doesn't seem to be to bad, but then you realise the manufacturer's idea of what constitutes a "serving size" is laughably at odds with reality. Campell's, for example, claims that a can of soup contains 2.5 servings when it's clearly a single serving.
I'm having to do a lot of maths these days, which at least keeps my brain limber.