- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
You are incorrect in cause-and-effect. Specifically, several nations with a greater life expectancy than the United States currently feature diets which place much greater emphasis on fish and fish oil, which are proven to lessen heart disease and cardiac death. Japan is the best example.
Other developed nations with greater life expectancy - Canada and Australia, most notably - have very small populations with extremely limited immigration. The United States has millions of immigrants, the majority illegal, who have not had childhood immunizations, have re-introduced tuberculosis into the United States, and reduce life expectancy significantly.
It is an undeniable mathematical statement that smaller, homogenous populations in the developed world, and with little immigration, will have greater life expectancies. The United States is neither small nor immune from immigration.
We lead the world in obesity, which is a big reason our life expectancy is lower. Also a big reason why we spend so much treating chronic obesity related conditions.
Life expectancy is a skewed figure anyway, as the US counts premature babies who are born alive and die soon after as births and deaths, whereas many other countries count them as stillbirths or don't count them at all. We keep babies alive that would never survive in other countries, which is also expensive.
We also lead the world in medical innovation and have far greater long term survival rates for many diseases. You are much more likely to survive cancer, heart disease or stroke if you live in the US than in most other countries. We lead the world in pharmaceutical and biotech research and development. Our healthcare is expensive because it's top of the line. But there are ways to bring down costs without hurting medical innovation.
Life expectancy is a meaningless statistic in terms of the quality of healthcare.