Thread: SATURN is D-E-A-D...DEAD

Originally Posted by James48843

James, I think this article can explain the above chart.

September 30, 2009
US News & World Report : Could the Recession Be Good for Your Health?

• But when the researchers looked at mortality rates among men, women and children from 1920 to 1940, they found death rates declined during years of falling economic activity and rose when times were better.
• During the two decades spanning the 1920s and 1930s, overall life expectancy increased by 8.8 years. But it wasn't a steady rise, instead shooting up and falling back in a pattern that correlated with the rise and fall of economic activity
• Between 1921 and 1926, the so-called "Roaring 20s" and a time of robust economic growth, life expectancy for non-white men fell by 8.1 years. Yet between 1929 and 1933, the years of steepest economic decline, their life expectancy grew a similar amount.
  Likewise, non-white women lost 7.4 years of life expectancy during the Roaring 20s, but they gained 8.2 years of life expectancy during the Depression.

Originally Posted by phil

Efficiency is efficiency. All of these countries spend less (in Cuba's case, much much less) and have higher life expectancies than we do.

So, I guess that we're saying is that we want to continue the same inefficiencies that we've always had. Sounds feudal.

How much is spent on health care is not a very good indicator of how long one might live. Eating habits, work habits, genes, physical activity rates - those have much more influence on whether one lives to 70 or 100 years old. Okinawans and the Mediterranean cultures have long enjoyed long lives, but most likely because of their good climates, active lifestyles, good eating habits (lots of healthy fresh foods), etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much health care costs. Okinawans in particular are reportedly becoming much less healthy (when 'averaged' across the entire population demographic), even as health care has improved. Why you ask? Because the younger generations are eating less and less of the traditional Okinawan foods and more and more of processed and fast food.

It pains me deeply to see people extolling the virtues of a communist regime. One wonders how many people around the world could be living in freedom if it weren't for folks fostering love and admiration for tyrannical, socialist, and fascist regimes the world over. Useful idiots have proved their worth to those that dominate and enslave others time and again.

I agree only with your last sentence.

Originally Posted by OBGibby

How much is spent on health care is not a very good indicator of how long one might live. Eating habits, work habits, genes, physical activity rates - those have much more influence on whether one lives to 70 or 100 years old. Okinawans and the Mediterranean cultures have long enjoyed long lives, but most likely because of their good climates, active lifestyles, good eating habits (lots of healthy fresh foods), etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much health care costs. Okinawans in particular are reportedly becoming much less healthy (when 'averaged' across the entire population demographic), even as health care has improved. Why you ask? Because the younger generations are eating less and less of the traditional Okinawan foods and more and more of processed and fast food.

It pains me deeply to see people extolling the virtues of a communist regime. One wonders how many people around the world could be living in freedom if it weren't for folks fostering love and admiration for tyrannical, socialist, and fascist regimes the world over. Useful idiots have proved their worth to those that dominate and enslave others time and again.

Originally Posted by McDuck

James, I think this article can explain the above chart.

September 30, 2009
US News & World Report : Could the Recession Be Good for Your Health?

• But when the researchers looked at mortality rates among men, women and children from 1920 to 1940, they found death rates declined during years of falling economic activity and rose when times were better.
• During the two decades spanning the 1920s and 1930s, overall life expectancy increased by 8.8 years. But it wasn't a steady rise, instead shooting up and falling back in a pattern that correlated with the rise and fall of economic activity
• Between 1921 and 1926, the so-called "Roaring 20s" and a time of robust economic growth, life expectancy for non-white men fell by 8.1 years. Yet between 1929 and 1933, the years of steepest economic decline, their life expectancy grew a similar amount.
  Likewise, non-white women lost 7.4 years of life expectancy during the Roaring 20s, but they gained 8.2 years of life expectancy during the Depression.

Very interesting article, thanks McDuck. It IS interesting data.

However, I'm not sure what it means. There could be a lot of different takes on the data. Like, they say life expectancy fell between 1921 and 1926. Let's think about all the things going on in that time period. Yes, we had robust economic growth following the First World War. But we also had the flu pandemic of 1919, and then some massive industrial growth in that period up to 1928 or so, then the crash of 1929.

Anyway- thanks for the article. I'll mull it over for a bit and see what I can think of.

We are all Feds, eh...
We all have good healthcare - good health insurance...

Has anyone performed a study to determine whether our life expectancy is higher than the general population?