CHICAGO (AP) -- Middle-aged, white Americans are much
sicker than their counterparts in England, startling
new research shows, despite U.S. health care spending
per person that's more than double what England spends.

A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes
and heart disease than the English. Americans also
self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes,
lung disease and cancer.

The gap between the countries holds true for educated
and uneducated, rich and poor.

"At every point in the social hierarchy there is more
illness in the United States than in England and the
differences are really dramatic," said study co-author
Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University
College London in England.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/0....ap/index.html


It figures, of course, that both the epidemiologists
and CNN and AP draw the wrong conclusion about Murkah's
2:1 health care spending versus the UK's. The wrong
supposition is that, with all that money spent, Murkans
"ought" to be healthier than Brits. In fact, quite
probably the much higher spending is because the
Murkans are much sicker, and can afford the care.
Imagine what it would be like if Murkans were as sick
as they seem to be, but *without* the resources to pay
for care.

On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:47:34 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>CHICAGO (AP) -- Middle-aged, white Americans are much
>sicker than their counterparts in England, startling
>new research shows, despite U.S. health care spending
>per person that's more than double what England spends.
>
>A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes
>and heart disease than the English. Americans also
>self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes,
>lung disease and cancer.
>
>The gap between the countries holds true for educated
>and uneducated, rich and poor.
>
>"At every point in the social hierarchy there is more
>illness in the United States than in England and the
>differences are really dramatic," said study co-author
>Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University
>College London in England.
>
>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/0....ap/index.html
>
>
>It figures, of course, that both the epidemiologists
>and CNN and AP draw the wrong conclusion about Murkah's
>2:1 health care spending versus the UK's. The wrong
>supposition is that, with all that money spent, Murkans
>"ought" to be healthier than Brits. In fact, quite
>probably the much higher spending is because the
>Murkans are much sicker, and can afford the care.
>Imagine what it would be like if Murkans were as sick
>as they seem to be, but *without* the resources to pay
>for care.

tbh. I've always considered the 'fact' that murkans are fat
and unhealthy to be a myth similar to the myth surrounding
rotten British teeth.

My regimen of exercise and a vegan diet has paid off. Click
here http://tinyurl.com/kv23z

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:47:34 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>CHICAGO (AP) -- Middle-aged, white Americans are much
>>sicker than their counterparts in England, startling
>>new research shows, despite U.S. health care spending
>>per person that's more than double what England spends.
>>
>>A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes
>>and heart disease than the English. Americans also
>>self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes,
>>lung disease and cancer.
>>
>>The gap between the countries holds true for educated
>>and uneducated, rich and poor.
>>
>>"At every point in the social hierarchy there is more
>>illness in the United States than in England and the
>>differences are really dramatic," said study co-author
>>Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University
>>College London in England.
>>
>>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/0....ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>It figures, of course, that both the epidemiologists
>>and CNN and AP draw the wrong conclusion about Murkah's
>>2:1 health care spending versus the UK's. The wrong
>>supposition is that, with all that money spent, Murkans
>>"ought" to be healthier than Brits. In fact, quite
>>probably the much higher spending is because the
>>Murkans are much sicker, and can afford the care.
>>Imagine what it would be like if Murkans were as sick
>>as they seem to be, but *without* the resources to pay
>>for care.
>
>
> tbh. I've always considered the 'fact' that murkans are fat
> and unhealthy to be a myth similar to the myth surrounding
> rotten British teeth.

Not entirely. In the red states, corpulent people are
the norm. I don't mean just a few pounds overweight; I
mean, you find lots of people at least 50% over their
healthful body weight.


> My regimen of exercise and a vegan diet has paid off. Click
> here http://tinyurl.com/kv23z

So what? I think most countries in the world are healthier than
Americans. We have a horribly unhealthy diet. Most Americans scoff at
the very idea of eating healthy. I also think Americans work way too
damn hard, which I think contributes to health problems.

But on the other hand I saw a british woman on TV recently.
She was pretty except she had horrible teeth.
Some japanese women have very brown teeth from smoking.

wrote:
> So what? I think most countries in the world are healthier than
> Americans. We have a horribly unhealthy diet. Most Americans scoff at
> the very idea of eating healthy. I also think Americans work way too
> damn hard, which I think contributes to health problems.
>
> But on the other hand I saw a british woman on TV recently.
> She was pretty except she had horrible teeth.
> Some japanese women have very brown teeth from smoking.

There is a notorious stereotype of the British having horrible teeth.
"Derek" in the subject line disputes it, though.

The Brits aren't necessarily so healthy themselves. I saw an item in
The Economist (British news magazine) some years ago comparing the
incidence of cardiovascular disease with that in (at the time) West
Germany. Although the two countries had roughly the same population -
the UK was then about 56 million, West Germany about 60 million - the
UK had a whopping 50% higher incidence of major heart disease.