Re: Productivity - Norway leads the table.

On Sep 9, 3:09 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:10 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 9, 12:02 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 9, 11:53 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 9, 8:19 am, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:23 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:28 am, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 8, 7:35 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
The health care system's policy on looking for various cancers in the
elderly can have a big impact of the survival rate number. If nobody
finds the cancer and a heart attack kills you, it may never be known
of. This improves the cancer survival number.

Cancer survival rates reflect the survival of people treated for
cancer--clearly the cancers were detected !

<snip>

The eating habbits in poor countries are not very good. It is the
countries with a modest economic system that generally have a good
diet. The poor tend to eat way too much of things like corn that are
super cheap.

Of the richer countries, the US was near the bottom of the list.
There has to be more at work than having the money to buy junk food.

Why does there have to be any more at work? Why do we need look any
farther?

Others have the money to buy junk food too. You made a claim about
the eating habits that was wrong it two ways. I pointed out both.

I've travelled much and don't agree--poor people in Chile, for
example, eat fish.

But then maybe you've been some places I haven't,

I was in China some time back. The diet of the poor was very heavy on
rice. Other places in the far east had so little vitamin A intake
that blindness was more common that it should have been. In China a
lot of people I saw were fairly obviously in bad health.

so you could easily
prove your point: kindly show us one of those European countries--
enjoying slightly longer average life expectancies--that also matches
our junk food consumption, obesity, and diabetes rates. Then we'll
compare outcomes.

You have made a claim that the diet explains the difference and
brought a claim about the poor into it. I don't need to prove
anything. At the most I need only to show some evidence that you were
incorrect in your claim.

No, Joerg said that. I seconded the theory,

But none of the three of you offered any statistics to back the theory
up.

but you're the one who
said "There has to be more at work than having the money to buy junk
food."

Yes and the question the poor countries and their diet and the fact
that people in the richer nations other than the US are not so poor
that they can't afford junk food were in the further discussion.

The theory that europeans etc are healthier because they can't afford
junk food has been I believe well rebutted now.

But the initial question, which you originally raised, was whether
modest improvements in European life expectancy over ours are due to
better healthcare--your theory--or other simple, obvious factors (mine
& Joerg's).

No, I did not raise that question. It was raised by others in the
negative. They claimed that the difference was due to the difference
in diet. There was a further claim about affording junk food also as
per the above.

Re-reading our conversation, I see I've been unclear.

Life-expectancy figures for the US are close to, but not as good as
our European friends.

My suggestion is that the (small) difference in our figures mightn't
reflect poor medical care in general, but the lifestyle choices of a
few groups within our population, and that European figures aren't
similarly handicapped.

I don't think poverty makes you eat junk food--junk food's expensive!

I hope that clarifies my speculations.

They're thinner, for one. We have more young people dying in
gangfights, for another. (A few dead 18 year-olds really drags down
the average.)

How many Europeans vs: Americans are obese, and what's their rate of
diabetes?

No, you go look up the numbers and see if you can prove the claim you
and others are making. The links I posted, I believe show that the
claim is likely false.

I'm doing that, but it's quite a project to analyze the prevalence of
a wide range of conditions, their healthcare costs, and outcomes, for
Europe and the US, so I'm sure you'll understand if I take a little
time to consider it & make a meaningful presentation.

I think, anyhow, that you've been refuting an argument I never
intended.

I'm also wondering if there might be a simpler metric that would
satisfy you, whereby we could gauge various effects on the US life-
expectancy number, and thereby see directly how much it's lowered by
gang violence, excess diabetes, etc.

After all, if you want to know what limits life-expectancy, you have
to know why people are dying, right?

We already know clogged arteries are #1, lung and colon cancer are #2
and #3. The US-Europe difference is subtler, small, and in the
details.

Cheers,
James Arthur

.

Quantcast