Posted on 05/16/2006 6:45:28 AM PDT by A. Pole
MEDICAL researchers recently set heads to shaking on both sides of the Atlantic with a study showing that white, middle-aged English people are much healthier than white, middle-aged Americans. The English have less cancer, less high blood pressure, less heart disease and stroke, and less diabetes. To make sure that the difference was not just the result of stiff-upper-lip Brits keeping quiet about what ails them, the researchers also examined biological data, which confirmed the disparity.
The results are so striking because there is no ready explanation for them. Yes, the English have a national health insurance system and we don't, but the gap is just as great between wealthy Englanders and their wealthy US counterparts, nearly all of whom have insurance coverage. In both countries, health relates directly to wealth, but the richest third of Americans have as much heart disease and diabetes as the poorest third of the English. The study focused on persons aged 55 to 64 and included only non-Hispanic whites, to keep health problems related to race or ethnicity from skewing the findings.
[...]
The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has prompted considerable speculation about the roots of American bad health. One theory is that it reflects the fact that Americans on average have fewer vacation days than the English, contributing to an unhealthy level of stress on this side of the Atlantic. The average American gets 12 days of vacation a year; the average British person gets 23.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Waste not want not. Anyway we are what we eat.
Call me Ars..ole. Can I call you Kidney?
What are the life expectancies for the respective countries?
Who ya callin' neurotic? Huh? Who? Huh? Neurotic? Huh???? Ya talkin' to me?
I like your theory even better than mine!
Seriously, the current trend for sifting through a mixed bag of studies and statististics and calling the result "meta-research" is of very dubious value.
If we are what we eat, then I contend that your former boss had been eating some of the aforementioned hamburgers full of a*sehole.
I'm chuckling here thinking of me in earlier times and my former business associates (petrochemical engineering). We would have experienced a real psychotic break if forced on a four week vacation without our wireless laptop computer, email, and PDA. :-)
However, the long days of hard work have their reward; a very early retirement with many long years of happy and healthy leisure time with family and friends.
78.38 years for the UK versus 77.71 for the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Yes.
From http://www.aihw.gov.au/mortality/data/faqs.cfm:
Life expectancy at birth, selected countries, 2003
Males | Females | |||
Rank | Country | Life expectancy | Country | Life expectancy |
1 | Japan | 78 | Japan | 85 |
2 | Iceland | 78 | France | 84 |
3 | Sweden | 78 | Switzerland | 83 |
4 | Australia | 78 | Spain | 83 |
5 | Switzerland | 78 | Australia | 83 |
6 | Israel | 78 | Sweden | 83 |
7 | Singapore | 78 | Italy | 82 |
8 | Canada | 78 | Canada | 82 |
9 | Italy | 78 | Austria | 82 |
10 | New Zealand | 77 | Iceland | 82 |
11 | Norway | 77 | Norway | 82 |
12 | Austria | 76 | Singapore | 82 |
13 | Spain | 76 | Germany | 82 |
14 | Netherlands | 76 | Finland | 82 |
15 | Malta | 76 | Belgium | 82 |
16 | France | 76 | Israel | 82 |
17 | Greece | 76 | New Zealand | 82 |
18 | United Kingdom | 76 | Netherlands | 81 |
19 | Germany | 76 | Greece | 81 |
20 | Ireland | 76 | United Kingdom | 81 |
21 | Denmark | 75 | Portugal | 81 |
22 | Finland | 75 | Malta | 81 |
23 | USA | 75 | Denmark | 81 |
24 | Belgium | 75 | Ireland | 81 |
25 | Portugal | 74 | USA | 80 |
26 | Poland | 71 | Poland | 79 |
27 | China | 70 | China | 73 |
28 | Indonesia | 65 | Indonesia | 68 |
29 | South Africa | 48 | South Africa | 50 |
I did a similar case study (admittedly using a very limited sample size) and came to the exact same conclusion. Just look at the basic differences between these two:
The British guy has the characteristics of a fairly normal, healthy middle-aged man. The American one looks terrible, has had to deal with a number of ailments over the years, and is such a certifiable loony-tune that if he were in any field other than politics he would have been consigned to a psychiatric ward years ago.
It's gotta be the beer -- English beer is much better than the American variety.
I have a number of British friends who fly to the US, to get treatment as Johns Hopkins or Sloan Kettering, when they have a truly serious health problem. And yes, that's even with private health care in the UK. Something about those facilities being on the cutting edge of research and being able to offer the very latest drugs and treatment modalities. Sometimes it works.
Thanks for the comparison.
Or, live to 85 with an umbrella permanently attached to your wrist, teeth that could frighten a wolverine, 6 TV channels (two of which are left wing propaganda mills for which you're obligated to pay a steep user fee), a car that might well fit in your average size pantry, in a culture of "don't do anything to hurt the nice young thug", and a medical rationing system right out of George Orwell.
I always enjoy visiting Britain and consider myself an anglophile, but there's more to life than longevity.
Which one, may I ask?
I figured it would be close, and that the U.K. would have the edge if there was any. Our fatties, who are mostly poor and living off the state, have flattened our increase in life expectancy.
Hmm, maybe you are on to something. If the intruders get shot it will shorten the average life expectancy!
Aussie beer is better.
"Ones" England and Canada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.