[yobid]

Yeah, but you better bring your dentist with you!!

[Reaganesque]

And yet, not one mention of dental care in the US and UK. Hmmmmm....

[Mr. Jeeves]

Adding insult to injury, Americans pay more than twice as much for their medical care as the Brits, $5,274 a year per person in the U.S. vs. $2,164 in England, the study notes.

Yeah, the ability to actually get it when you need it does tend to jack the price up a bit. ;)

[prion]

Hm. Do we have more people with cancer because people with cancer live a lot longer here? Do we have more people with diabetes and high blood pressure because we diagnose it sooner (and they live longer, too)?

I have a little experience with the NHS. I'm guessing I'm right.

[tertiary01]

All this says is that more Americans make to a doctor in order to get a diagnosis in the first place.

I wonder if the Brits realize that poor Dental care is one of the biggest causes of strokes and heart attacks.

[DBrow]

Many people immigrate to the USA because health care in their native land is relatively poor.

Let's re-do the survey and adjust for immigration status.

[andy58-in-nh]

OK, JAMA - now exclude illegal aliens from your US analysis and tell us what you find.

[spintreebob]

Statistics are made for Liars. Britain is small compared to the US. What would be appropriate would be to compare the health of Scotland, Wales, England, N Ireland, etc

to Utah, Nevada, SanFranciso, LA, and every state and SMSA and congressional district. The same is true of education statistics. Compare each PART of Europe to each PART of the USA.

The variance is more important than the average in this case.

[Brilliant]

Of course the Brits are healthier. When the sick ones die off, survival of the fittest demands that the healthy ones remain. In the US, the health care system keeps the sick ones alive longer.

[weegee]

If it is environmental, then which country governs would not make much difference.

[Tokra]

One of the big reasons for the difference is that Americans eat much better than Brits. Britons eat an average of 120 lbs. of meat per year while Americans eat 190 lbs of meat per year. (per capita figures).

If we eat richer foods, it stands to reason that we are probably not as healthy.

Then again - when you are comparing 60 million people to 300 million people, you can't get a true comparison.

[stacytec]

Just pointing out the obvious, but many towns in the UK have buildings and services close together. People tend to walk to a location rather than drive. In the United States, unless you live in NYC or Chicago, locations are spread out and few cities have good public transit. You tend to drive to the place you are going to. If the stats are to be believed, I would speculate that health in the UK has to be lifestyle related because there is no way its diet related. Their food is still high in sugar and saturated fats. Clotted cream anyone?

[mc6809e]

It should be remembered that these figures are for people THAT ARE STILL ALIVE.

If you don't survive your stroke, or cancer, or diabetes, you don't end up part of the survey.

The study might then be implying the very opposite of what the author of the article believes. It may be that twice as many Americans are surviving these diseases as Britons.

[buwaya]

One explanation -

US people are more prone to get diagnosed earlier with all these problems, because a much higher rate of testing in the US - as an example, adult-onset diabetes is one of those things that typically comes out in a test battery than through symptoms.

[Our man in washington]

So if we had more primary care we'd have less diabetes?

I'll make sure to ask for a diabetes-prevention pill the next time I go to my primary doctor.

And with this all, the average life span in England is only about a year longer. If 40 percent lower rates of heart disease occurrence only buy you a year, it's hard to argue your health system is better.

[absolootezer0]

is the disparity possibly caused by the fact that since brits can't get in, they don't get diagnosed?

[Wiseghy]

People are using this as an argument for nationalizing the small portion of health care (about 40%) that is not yet government provided. To argue that "our system is failing" and is too expensive is actually to indite the 60% of the system that is controlled by the state and federal governments.

I would question the basis of the data, however. It is quite possible that different definitions of "disease" are being applied. National systems often understate disease as a way to ration care by delaying aggressive treatment.

Nonetheless, our culture does not put enough emphasis on preventive care and chronic disease management. However, that is more of a cultural problem rather than an issue of access or cost.

[driftless]

Take it from my wife who grew up in England, American health care is much better. I'll hazard to say that Brits probably practice better self healthcare, but if you've got a serious medical problem or have an emergency, you are better off in America. And that's my "still proud to be a limey" wife talking.

[MarkL]

As long as you don't really need critical medical care for chronic diseases, Britain is terrific, as is Canada. As soon as you need specialists, or critical care for a chronic disease, the costs go up, and the supply goes down, and there are shortages. When you most need the medical care, right now, that's where their medical systems tend to fail.

It's a typical leftist utopia... "As long as you really don't need medical care, we've got the best in the world, and look! It's free!"

Mark

[prion]

Another thing that impacts US numbers is that we attempt to save the lives of much younger preemies than most other countries. This badly skews our stats for both infant mortality and life expectancy.