« Do YOU See It? | Main | What is Free Trade?» Don Boudreaux
June 12, 2008
Better
Russell Roberts
Anytime you hear people talking about how dangerous and polluted and horrible life is in the United States, remind them of this:
Posted by Russell Roberts in Health | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5534d4d5c8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Better:
Comments
Egads! The continuous upturn of life expectency kicks in around the end of the WW2 and the beginning of the Welfare State! Hahahahahaha! Especially considering the 1800s was the more laissez-faire century! (But then it could be argued that high life expentency shouldn't be considered a 'right' and plenty of people lived fulfilling lives whilst dying before the age of 50) :P
Posted by: Gil | Jun 12, 2008 9:25:54 AM
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh Gil?
Posted by: John S. | Jun 12, 2008 9:44:39 AM
1800s more Laissez Faire than the 60s? You must be joking. Perhaps you should read a few books from that era.
John S. is right, but it seems you're even wrong on the basics.
Posted by: Gamut | Jun 12, 2008 10:05:20 AM
The world is obviously discriminating against men, to the tune of about 5 years on average. This proves the system is inherently sexist. I demand my government fix this unfair system.
Posted by: Russ Wood | Jun 12, 2008 10:31:15 AM
I don't hear many people talking about how dangerous and polluted and horrible life is in the United States, probably because I hang out with so many libertarians. I more often hear people talking about people talking about how dangerous and polluted and horrible life is in the United States.
Here's another factoid. Last I checked, life expectancy in Israel was higher than life expectancy in the U.S. and much higher than life expectancy in the West Bank and Gaza. What should I conclude? Are the horrors of terrorist Palestinian nationalism in Israel exaggerated? May I dismiss people talking about these horrors?
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 12, 2008 10:33:07 AM
Gil: "The continuous upturn of life expectency kicks in around the end of the WW2 and the beginning of the Welfare State!"
I'm sure you were just joking, but, of course, you were also mistaken. According to the Center for Disease Control, U.S. life expectancy grew from 47.3 to 59.7 in the first three decades of the 20th century - before Franklin Roosevelt was president and long before LBJ created his Great Society programs. The Welfare State had nothing to do with changes in life expectancy.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 12, 2008 10:33:41 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
On a list of countries sorted by life expectancy, the U.S. is 45th, behind Canada, the U.K., Sweden and lots of other countries requiring health insurance coverage.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 12, 2008 10:43:05 AM
The Welfare State had nothing to do with changes in life expectancy.
"nothing to do" is obvious hyperbole. You can't possibly know this.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 12, 2008 10:50:59 AM
martin brock: "On a list of countries sorted by life expectancy, the U.S. is 45th, behind Canada, the U.K., Sweden and lots of other countries requiring health insurance coverage"
Which would be significant if health insurance coverage actually had anything at all to do with life expectancy. But of course it doesn't.
In the developed nations, the most important determinants of life expectancy are genetics and lifestyle choices. That's why Japanese have higher life expectancies than Europeans, whether they are living in Japan, the U.S., or Europe. In fact, as I pointed out in another post, persons of Japanese descent living in the U.S. have a higher life expectancy than do the residents of Japan.
Persons of sub-Saharan African descent have a lower life expectancy than do persons of European descent, just about everywhere on the planet. So the U.S., with a significantly higher population of such persons, should be expected to have a lower life expectancy overall.
Is there a nation with life expectancies above 79, Mr. Brock, which has a significant sub-Saharan African population? I don't think so.
By the way, health insurance coverage is definitely not the same thing as access to medical care. Medical care is readily available to everyone in the U.S. with enough sense to take advantage of it.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 12, 2008 10:56:44 AM
This makes the leap of faith that such people care about life expectancy more than air quality (or the particular subject at hand).
Posted by: Name | Jun 12, 2008 11:34:15 AM
Which would be significant if health insurance coverage actually had anything at all to do with life expectancy. But of course it doesn't.
Why do you believe this?
In the developed nations, the most important determinants of life expectancy are genetics and lifestyle choices.
Even if I accept this assertion, it doesn't imply that health insurance coverage has nothing to do with life expectancy. If I smoke or eat or drink too much, modern health care can still extend my life expectancy. If health insurance is so inconsequential, why do people bother with it at all?
Persons of sub-Saharan African descent have a lower life expectancy than do persons of European descent, just about everywhere on the planet. So the U.S., with a significantly higher population of such persons, should be expected to have a lower life expectancy overall.
Even if this assertion is true, it's vague. Do you have any quantitative analysis accounting for the difference in U.S. and Canadian life expectancy with reference to differences in the population of persons of African descent? The more relevant analysis might compare the life expectance of African-Americans to the life expectancy of African-Swedes or the life expectancy of African-Americans with health insurance to the life expectancy of African-Americans without health insurance. Do you have these comparisons?
Is there a nation with life expectancies above 79, Mr. Brock, which has a significant sub-Saharan African population? I don't think so.
You ask the question. Why don't you provide the answer? I can also ask lots of rhetorical questions the answer to which might or might not support some assumption I make, but these questions aren't evidence of anything. You don't think so simply because you choose not to think so. You can do that.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 12, 2008 11:41:09 AM
Don't forget these figures are self-reported. I expect that the methodologies are inconsistent between countries.
Posted by: Earl Schlobodowicz | Jun 12, 2008 11:47:01 AM
Heck! Why can't average life expectancies increase via the Welfare State? Suddenly poor people are getting more food and medical treatment than they otherwise wouldn't have had. Isn't the point of Moral Hangover that losers suffer the consequences? But then who's to say lifespans equal wealth? Sure some nationalities may have longer lifespans (and there are token conspiracy theories where certain groups of people are getting shorter lifespans when introduced to the Western lifestyle) but are they necessarily wealthier? True movers and shakers accumulate most of their wealth before the age of 40. If you want correlate and causate why not ask if longer expectencies equal wealth gains? Perhaps not if it really means there are simply more eldery people to take care (IOW people living longer in their post-productive years rather than extending their productive years).
Posted by: Gil | Jun 12, 2008 11:50:25 AM
It appears life expectancy really fluttered with the emergence of Rock N Roll.
Posted by: R. Steven Cox | Jun 12, 2008 12:01:01 PM
Antibiotics!!!
The mass production of antibiotics in the 1940s is probably one of the main reasons for increase in life expectancy. Not so much due to who occupied the White House or the government expenditure to GDP ratio.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 12, 2008 12:03:04 PM
It appears life expectancy really fluttered with the emergence of Rock N Roll.
Posted by: R. Steven Cox | Jun 12, 2008 12:06:30 PM
"Why can't average life expectancies increase via the Welfare State?"
The welfare state takes resources from productive individuals in order to promote "equality." To the extent it even achieves this is debatable, but equality doesn't discover cures, it doesn't invent new procedures, it doesn't produce life-saving drugs. To the contrary, policies such as windfall profits taxes, high marginal tax rates, price controls, extensive regulation and the Federal government acting as a monopsonist in the medical arena are detrimental to everyone's quality of life.
Fortunately, the amazing payoffs from innovation have overwhelmed the ill effects of the welfare state. Socialist policies such as price controls on drug work only because they free ride on the R&D of countries that have (for now) more of a free market for drugs.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 12, 2008 12:20:52 PM
Conclusions:
FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society programs extended human life. BTW, life expectancy went down from 1981-1989 during Reagan, I wonder why? Probably because he pulled the plug on welfare queens! :-)
Posted by: Freedom_Lover | Jun 12, 2008 12:26:12 PM
Martin,
Do you know the average Body Mass Index of a swede and that of an American? Do you know how much excercise a swede get on a weekly basis?
Now, get off of your butt and get some ice cream!
Posted by: kook | Jun 12, 2008 12:31:15 PM
Suddenly poor people are getting more food and medical treatment than they otherwise wouldn't have had.
Last thing the american poor needs is more food. If only he could eat less and excercise more, he would increase his life expectancy and the quality of it. He will need less health care.
Posted by: kook | Jun 12, 2008 12:33:26 PM
I think lifestyle has a lot to do with it.
After all, over in Asia, the tend not to eat a lot of meat, cheese, cream, etc. And they live longer than Americans.
And over in France, they eat a lot of cheese, cream, drink a lot of wine, and they live longer than Americans?
The conclusion?
Eat whatever the fuck you want: it's speaking English that kills ya!
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | Jun 12, 2008 1:44:28 PM
In all seriousness, though, I do think lifestyle has a lot to do with it.
I don't have empirical data to back this up, but I really do think that Americans eat and work ourselves to death. I'm no different, as I find it annoying to take 2 weeks of vacation each year, while Europeans are offended if they're not statutorily guaranteed 5 weeks. And Americans, in the land where "bigger is better", eat like gluttons (a personal trait I'm guilty of and trying to improve).
It's not good for my health. But I was raised in the "work hard, play hard" culture, and it's how I feel comfortable living my life. I choose to continue this way.
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | Jun 12, 2008 1:49:04 PM
Martin Brock,
I didn't say that health insurance coverage was "inconsequential". I said it had nothing to do with life expectancy in the U.S.. I will concede that my meaning was that health insurance coverage has had an insignificant impact on U.S. life expectancy relative to other factors.
Basic medical treatment is available to almost everyone in the U.S., the few who live in extremely remote regions being the exceptions. Patience is necessary to take advantage of free clinics and charity hospitals, but not health insurance.
What health insurance provides is access to much more than just basic health care, as well as freedom from the queueing of "free" health facilities.
I have no doubt that quality of life is greatly improved through access to medical care unaffordable to those without insurance coverage. But quality of life is not the same as life expectancy.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 12, 2008 2:31:10 PM
Actually, those life expectancy numbers from wiki do not take into account fatal accidents and murder, where no amount of health insurance will extend life expectancy. Carpe Diem blog has a post here from november of last year, showing that adjusting for things like murder, suicide, auto accidents, the U.S. actually ranks first in life expectancy:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/beyond-those-health-care-numbers-us.html
Also, different countries count infant mortality differently, which will also affect life expectancy rates as well.
Posted by: RVTurnage | Jun 12, 2008 2:43:06 PM
RVTurnage mentions the big issue with Life Expectancy numbers: infant mortality. How old the average adult gets doesn't change much with time, however the number of children dying before they reach adulthood changes a great deal.
Historically if you lived to 20, you generally live to old age. However, with the advent of antibiotics that were cheap and available, vastly more children lived to make it to adulthood, changing life expectancy numbers significantly.
One of my favorite co-worker stories is of a lady who got pneumonia when she was a small child, and would have died since nothing seemed to work. After being bed ridden for 3 months, her doctor tried the new "miracle drug": penicillin.
Posted by: Hammer | Jun 12, 2008 2:56:20 PM
By "historically" I specifically mean "within the time frame of this graph", though in a broader sense one could go back pretty far and still have "old age" be around 70+
Posted by: Hammer | Jun 12, 2008 2:57:51 PM
"On a list of countries sorted by life expectancy, the U.S. is 45th, behind Canada, the U.K., Sweden and lots of other countries requiring health insurance coverage."
You forgot to exclude terrotories on that list. When you consider only independent countries, the U.S. ranked at 29th.
Posted by: Renato Drumond | Jun 12, 2008 3:55:09 PM
I think Russ's posting misses the actual criticism which is that we are by certain measures the wealthiest country in the world and spend the most on health care (as % GDP, we spend 60% more than the next highest country, Switzerland) and yet we don't have anywhere near the best health outcomes in the world as measured by life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
As to the point on "genetics and lifestyle choice", how can it be genetics? Think about it -- technology and health care compensate for the adverse effects of "bad" genes and allow those very genes to persist in the gene pool. Think about the incidence of glasses to compensate for bad eyesight. Health care clearly has an impact on infant mortality if only by eliminating preventable deaths and accidents.
And, btw, I love the gratuitous trashing of welfare state. Fellas -- You might find it interesting that the countries with the biggest welfare states -- the Nordics -- are consistently ranked as some of the most competitive economies in the world. The US also ranks high. So the fact is there is little relation between a country's overall tax burden and its economic competitiveness.
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 12, 2008 5:01:17 PM
Jeff, life expectancy rates shown and used in those studies don't take in to account non-health related issues like murder, suicide and accident. Infant mortality rates are calculated differently. So those differences in rate are inaccurate ways of showing how effective a health system is. As for the higher % of GDP, we're the wealthiest nation on earth. Of course we're going to spend more. We spend more on every product and service too, I'm sure.
Cato did a nice study on the defects of the WHO health ranking reports:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236
And regarding the countries with large welfare states are able to maintain them largely due to innovations made within the U.S. and many of those competitive economies were made competitive prior to enacting sweeping welfare policies. Policies which have caused slow downs in their economies, higher than (and rising) U.S. unemployment and possible loss of freedom of choice with regard to jobs...this link:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/milton_friedman_1.html#c25696999
mentions a job placement program Sweden has that places unemployed workers into jobs in whatever area of the market needs the work. Whether they wanted that job or not.
"What is happening is that more Swedes WANT to work, which is why the unemployment is lower. Why this? Because even if Swedish welfare subventions are a high percentage of final salary, a firm hand of the administration will find you another job that not only suits base qualifications but that you are not allowed to refuse. That is a subtle but important innovation in welfare subsidy in Europe"
Posted by: RVTurnage | Jun 12, 2008 6:14:11 PM
Jeff: "countries with the biggest welfare states -- the Nordics -- are consistently ranked as some of the most competitive economies in the world."
What does "the most competitive economies" mean? Are these rankings based on objective data or on the opinions of "selected" European academics and corporate leaders?
The Heritage Foundation'sIndex of Economic Freedom regularly provides the ranking that makes the most sense to me. The 7 most economically free nations, based on objective data rather than academic opinions, are:
Hong Kong
Singapore
Ireland
Australia
United States
New Zealand
Canada
I guess economic freedom is not as important to the nordic countries - but it is to me.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 12, 2008 7:55:22 PM
When I read this story this morning, the first thing that jumped in my mind was the Gil's and Martin's out there that would take a smidgen of data and jump off the cliff of false conclusions.
The life expectancy discussion is not a new one, and I am surprised that anyone hanging out at a blog like this would miss the obvious differences in population mix between countries.
This goes hand in hand with the whole standard of living debate. Some international organization comes out with an index every so often that rates the US abysmally low, and it's always because their index includes such things as national health care, mortality rates, etc without correcting for demographic imbalance.
Really, ideological differences aside, how much intelligence does it require to see the obvious flaws in data such as these?
Posted by: Ray G | Jun 13, 2008 12:11:51 AM
Russell Roberts “Anytime you hear people talking about how dangerous and polluted and horrible life is in the United States, remind them of this”
This reads like an example of a professor who never goes out... like the credit rating agencies who gave AAA ratings to mortgage instruments based on data without observing that with the lowered lending standards, what they actually were rating was a complete different population.
Dear professor let me advice you to take a little stroll down the street and just as the credit rating agencies would thereby much earlier had discovered the real sub-primeness of the mortgages to the subprime sector, you might discover that you have an on going health problem of monstrous proportions in the US, namely obesity.
But I guess that the only things the PhDs are allowed to do by their peer is to look at the past and correlate a future... no matter what the present says.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 8:39:34 AM
I guess economic freedom is not as important to the nordic countries - but it is to me.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 12, 2008 7:55:22 PM
This is an empty “mommy look no hands!” statement that leads nowhere. I would like to hear one single example on how John Dewey exercises an economic freedom in the US that he would not be able to exercise much in the same way in a Nordic country.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 8:46:34 AM
Per Kurowski: "...you might discover that you have an on going health problem of monstrous proportions in the US, namely obesity."
And yet, despite the rising "problem" of obesity life expectancy rates continues to rise! And we STILL have the freedom and wealth to eat the foods we want, and exercise as little as we want. What a country!
Posted by: RVTurnage | Jun 13, 2008 9:11:27 AM
per kurowski: " I would like to hear one single example on how John Dewey exercises an economic freedom in the US that he would not be able to exercise much in the same way in a Nordic country"
It's the degree to which we are free to make our own economic decisions which is important, Per.
Denmark and Sweden have the world's top tax burdens
As an American citizen, I get to decide how I will spend more of the money I earn - the rewards for my labor - than do taxpayers in Sweden and Denmark. I can think of no more important measure of economic freedom than that.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 13, 2008 9:32:17 AM
PER --
You're correct that the US has a big problem with obesity. I suggest, though, that this is a much better problem than one that we used to have -- starvation.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 13, 2008 9:57:01 AM
Giving people food stamps doesn't mean they are capable of making good dietary choices. How can a significant number of folks using welfare benefits become morbidly obese? This no doubt reduces life expectancy and increases the burden on health care industry. I am less in favor of letting folks starve at a young age, but I'm not sure if we are blessing them in the end either.
Another factor lowering life expectancy in the US is poor choices. Over eating with a sedentary lifestyle is a bad combination. (as I sit in front of my computer and wish I hadn't had a donut this AM)
Posted by: Harry B | Jun 13, 2008 9:57:24 AM
Harry B: "How can a significant number of folks using welfare benefits become morbidly obese?"
American capitalism has so reduced the cost of food that even small funding can enable the doubling and tripling of personal assets.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 13, 2008 10:41:41 AM
The world is obviously discriminating against men, to the tune of about 5 years on average. This proves the system is inherently sexist. I demand my government fix this unfair system.
Well, there is something the government could do -- adjust the retirement age, with men allowed to retire earlier. Right now, the men get, on average, say 45 working years to 8 retirement years, while women get 45:13. Ergo, men should get to collect full SS benefits at 63 rather than 67 to get the same ratio of working years to retirement years as women do.
Of course, during their working lives, men also spend far more years actually in the workforce, so they should actually get to retire even earlier than that (or, alternately, women should have to work longer).
Posted by: Slocum | Jun 13, 2008 10:45:52 AM
"As an American citizen, I get to decide how I will spend more of the money I earn - than do taxpayers in Sweden and Denmark."
Posted by: John Dewey
You might be right but then again it might just be a mirage since the way you have been building up public debt means that you have not been presented the bill yet. That you can spend more of your income because you leave it to your children to pay the taxes for you is a proposition that has little to do with freedom...
Cheers
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 11:12:14 AM
And we STILL have the freedom and wealth to eat the foods we want, and exercise as little as we want. What a country!
Posted by: RVTurnage
This reads like: There is nothing wrong with the good old USA... though there could be a problem with its people who “having the same freedom and wealth to eat the foods we want, and exercise as little we want” do not seem longer to be able to handle that freedom with the same sense of responsibility and that is why there is more obesity. Is this what you mean?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 11:28:38 AM
I am eating my steaks here in the US feeling good about it, although I must say the beef you get in Venezuela, or at least that you used to get in Venezuela, was leaner and tastier.
But now, seeing those hundred thousands protesting in South Korea against the import of meat from the US, one is sort of left with a nagging feeling of “do they know something I don’t?” And please do no interpret this as a criticism of the American Way of Life.
Blissful ignorance is great... until you have to wake up! What value does Professor Russell Roberts assign to the bliss of ignorance? I ask because I cannot really see how he can prove based on certain knowledge that there are no pollution dangers in this capitalistic grown thorn-free rose garden of his.
Cheers
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 11:49:09 AM
I ask because I cannot really see how he can prove based on certain knowledge that there are no pollution dangers in this capitalistic grown thorn-free rose garden of his.
Exactly where does the professor intimate that "there are no pollution dangers..."?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Jun 13, 2008 12:04:03 PM
per kurowski: "That you can spend more of your income because you leave it to your children to pay the taxes for you is a proposition that has little to do with freedom"
Not sure about Denmark, but Sweden's national debt has been reported to be about 37% of GDP. I'd like to compare that to the U.S. debt, but I'm not sure which U.S. number to use.
Total gross U.S. debt is currently about 66% of GDP. But debt held by the public is only 40% of GDP. The rest is intergovernmental debt, which represents surplus funds collected for one purpose (social security and medicare) but used for other purposes ("defense", ethanol subsidies, etc.)
If part of Sweden's national debt also represents appropriated surpluses from health care funds and pension funds, then Sweden does have less debt to pass on to future generations. But if Sweden did not engage in the same public pension accounting farce as the U.S., then Sweden and the U.S. seem to have equivalent debt levels.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 13, 2008 12:04:49 PM
Isn't "American obesity" measured by body mass index? If so, thats a terrible measurement. For example, I exercise every day (either running or lifting weights), and yet the BMI scale puts me at very nearly obese.
I would like to see body fat measurement statistics for each country, taken with the same methodology. My bet is that the US comes out fatter than average among industrialized nations, but not to an alarming degree. I'd also bet the US has more people in really great shape, due to the popularity of exercise and body building here vs. other nations.
Posted by: Grant | Jun 13, 2008 2:18:34 PM
Exactly where does the professor intimate that "there are no pollution dangers..."?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Jun 13, 2008 12:04:03 PM
Read the post: By suggesting that “Anytime you hear people talking about how dangerous and polluted and horrible life is in the United States” the reasonable response is that Americans live longer. Clearly such a blasé statement can only be given by someone who does not believe there are any real pollution dangers around.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 2:40:13 PM
Clearly such a blasé statement can only be given by someone who does not believe there are any real pollution dangers around.
No, it could also be given by someone who believes the existent pollution dangers, regardless of their extent, are less than they were at some other time or in some other place (given the chart, I'd guess Prof. Roberts is going for the temporal comparison).
Posted by: Billy | Jun 13, 2008 3:20:57 PM
Per - it's a statement directed at all of the doomsayers who go on and on about how terrible things are when, in fact, they are generally much better than they would lead you to believe. It is not a statement of the professor's belief that these things *don't* happen, just that it's not always the feces color brown everyone else wants to paint it to be.
The reality of the situation is that the "mortgage crisis" that you trotted out earlier isn't quite as bad as you want to believe. There is still a tremendous amount of movement in the real estate sector. Yes, some people are being hurt by the crisis while the majority of us are just fine.
It's odd that you trotted out the so-called obesity crisis when there is really no evidence of there being a crisis. As someone else pointed out - the BMI is often the most trotted out number which is, ironically, a bad measurement of obesity. There is no crisis. We aren't dropping like flies here. But thanks for the concern.
The point on pollution is that if our environment were truly that polluted and unfit, we would see a plateau or heavy negating effect on life expectancy. If today's environment is worse than yesterday's, it draws the question on why we are living longer now in a more dangerous and polluted world? Life expectancy has been fairly consistent in terms of progress. Considering economic booms in medical sciences, hygiene, food preparation and industrialization, we're doing pretty darned well.
Posted by: colson | Jun 13, 2008 3:53:43 PM
No, it could also be given by someone who believes the existent pollution dangers, regardless of their extent, are less than they were at some other time or in some other place
Posted by: Billy | Jun 13, 2008 3:20:57 PM
Come on, if that’s the case why does he not say so?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 13, 2008 4:21:03 PM
Per, I mean exactly what I said. We have the wealth and the freedom to choose our diet, our exercise routine and otherwise pursue happiness as we see fit. There is no "responsible/irresponsible" in the equation. Whether one person perceives anothers pursuit of happiness (and the weight gain/loss associated with it) as irresponsible is irrelevant as it is a personal decision we have the benefit of making.
Posted by: RVTurnage | Jun 13, 2008 4:28:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
