Health of middle-aged Americans lags behind English counterparts

[tocqueville]

1 hour, 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - White middle-aged Americans, aged 55 to 64, are not as healthy as their English counterparts, according to a new study which examined US and British health and aging surveys.

Comparing self-reports of chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease between the two countries, the Anglo-US research team found that Americans reported significantly higher levels of disease than the English.

"This comparison raises some important questions about the relationship among health, education and income in both countries," Richard Jones, director of the US National Institute on Aging (NIA) said in a statement.

"As many nations try to address the challenges of population aging, it will be critical to know why these differences in health status appear," Jones said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060503/wl_uk_afp/usbritainhealthresearchdisease

[BooScout]

1. Do ya think......

"As many nations try to address the challenges of population aging, it will be critical to know why these differences in health status appear," Jones said."

Oh could it beeeeeeeee..........saaaaaaaaaaay.......that 45 million Americans don't have health insurance? And every single person living in Britain os covered by the NHS? Hmmmmmmm

[tocqueville]

2. the answer is there :

The researchers said the difference between the two countries in smoking, obesity and alcohol use explained little of the health differences.

The study underlined that the gap exists "despite greater American health care expenditures, similar patterns in life expectancy and the fact that the smoking habits in both countries are similar".

The researchers noted that social welfare programs in England, which has a universal National Health Service, "might help protect those who are sick from loss of income and poverty".

"The lack of such programs in the United States may explain the greater association between health and wealth for Americans," the study noted.
............................................................................

in other words, if you have free health care, you are likely to go to a doctor at an early stage, get medecine, counseling etc... that might save your life...

[NewJeffCT]

8. my local paper didn't carry that part...

Same article, but that part was snipped out.

edited to add: I re-read the article in my paper & they do NOT mention the national health care part.

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-sick0503.artmay03,0,6781474.story?coll=hc-headlines-nationworld

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Start running the illegal, immoral, lie infested pharmco ads on

British tv and they'll start dropping like flies, same as here. :)

[NewJeffCT]

4. The article dances around NATIONAL HEALTH CARE

The article has every other possible explanation for the differences, but nowhere is it mentioned that the Brits have a system to cover everybody, while nearly 1 American in 6 has no coverage and millions more are underinsured.

[Vinca]

5. It's like when they compare gas prices in the U.S. and other

countries. They fail to mention that the extra 2 bucks they pay at the pump funds health care for everyone. Come to think of it, that might be a win-win plan for this country: fuel conservation, health care for all.

[NewJeffCT]

6. That would make too much sense

Can't have that.

[Triana]

7. That was the first thing I thought of before I read the article...

...National Healthcare. They have it. We don't.

Interesting they don't even mention it.

[Mika]

9. Even Cuba does better than the US.

And the per capita income would put most all Cubans in the (US) poverty bracket, but still they do better.

From the lead article,

The study underlined that the gap exists "despite greater American health care expenditures, similar patterns in life expectancy and the fact that the smoking habits in both countries are similar".

The greater expenditures in the US does not equal greater dollars get to each patient in the US h-c system.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. Unfortunately, any discussion in the US about national health care

inevitably ends up with the "...but that's communism!" argument from the right. Using public money to subsidise the corporate oligarchy is OK (the same oligarchy that uses loop-holes to pay very little tax), but for the public to get any of their money back through public services is considered 'commie'.

[NewJeffCT]

11. Well, how can ExxonMobil survive without tax breaks?

I mean, they already paid $23 billion in income taxes last year on revenues of $366 billion or so, and they only made $36 billion in net profit. I mean, if they only made $36 billion last year, how can they survive without huge tax breaks?

(I hope I don't need the "sarcasm" smilie for this one)