Forums | MacLife

big cities in the middle ages (IE London) were different, because they had improper sanitation that resulted in diseases getting into the drinking water - but in the rural areas, the findings were pretty similar to the palestine graveyard findings.

resedit wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Yeah, and life expectancy was... what?  24 years?

If you made it past childhood - life expectancy was in the 60's in most of the world.
I don't have a link - but they did a study on graveyards in Palestine circa time of Jesus.

When you remove those killed by the sword, most were children or in their 60's.
So it seems that other than warfare, if you made it to your 20's you probably would make it to your 60's.

PROVIDE A GOD DAMNED LINK.

I am so sick of this smurf. It's as bad as plagiarism, in my book. Your numbers are grossly wrong, res. Choose a link, any link.

Just one of the MILLIONS of possible sources wrote:

Life expectancy has increased steadily through history. During the Roman Empire, average life expectancy at birth was a brief 22 years. By the Middle Ages it had risen to about 33 years in England, and increased to 43 years by the middle of the 19th century. In the early 1900s, life expectancies in more developed countries ranged from 35 to 55.

During the second half of the 20th century, health conditions around the world improved more than in all previous human history. Average life expectancy at birth in low- and middle-income countries increased from 40 years in 1950 to 65 years in 1996. Over the same period the average under-5 mortality rate for this group of countries fell from 280 to 80 per 1,000. But these achievements are still considerably below those in high-income countries, where average life expectancy at birth is 77 years and the average under-5 mortality rate is 7 per 1,000.

The two factors most responsible for increasing national and regional life expectancies are improvements in medical technology and development of and better access to public health services (particularly clean water, sanitation, and food regulation). Education, especially of girls and women, has made a big difference too, because wives and mothers who are knowledgeable about healthier lifestyles play a crucial role in reducing risks to their families’ health.

Last edited by iBubba (2006-03-28 10:24 am)

iBubba wrote:

PROVIDE A GOD DAMNED LINK.

Here is another one

http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/02.php

resedit wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

resedit wrote:

I'm not opposed to laws just because they are "liberal".
Reasonably priced health insurance from the employer is a good thing.
Universal health insurance is not a good thing.

Universal health insurance will drive prices up and quality down, and it will be paid for by the tax payer. Communism doesn't work.

Did you miss the thread comparing health care statistics? Where the US paid HUGE amounts more per person than countries with universal health care, yet had equal or worse benifits? I dont know why people say Universal Health Care doesn't work, when it has been shown to work very well in many different cases.

We don't have "equal or worse" benefits.
First of all - prescription drugs are subsidized in many of those countries - as in the drug manufacturer is not allowed to charge market value for the drug.

Additionally - it is not uncommon for the better doctors in those countries to come to the USA where they can make more money. Canada in particular has this problem.

Finally - having to wait for non critical medical service is not what I would consider "equal" benefits. I like being able to make an appointment because I have a sore shoulder and be able to see a doctor that week - not to get evaluated into a priority list, but to get the dang thing taken care of.

I'd be willing to bet that the US medical costs are also inflated by

1) A pill popping society
2) our general obesity

Both of those increase medical by a large amount and have nothing to do with private vs public medical providers.

Resedit, your hunches are often wrong.  Drastically wrong.  Get facts before you spout off.

See also the life expectancy bit.

Pariah wrote:

Ah, OK...The "people are starving in Africa so be grateful for what you have" arguement.

More like mussing about values and what we place importance on compared to other societies and the changes on what we have considered critical have been.

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

You know what else we survived without? Mass communication, logic, scientific verification, freedom, human rights, and an attempt at justice and equality.

Ah for the good old days.

Is there any reason we shouldn't try to better our world just because we can?

I think socialized health services (no different than socialized education, military, firefighters, police, and paved roads) would be an incredible benefit to our economy seeing as businesses would no longer have to spend any amount on health costs.

Farmerkev wrote:

be nice now

Oooh, look at the n00b mod go!

,xtG
.tsooJ

JakeTheTall wrote:

Resedit, your hunches are often wrong.  Drastically wrong.  Get facts before you spout off.

See also the life expectancy bit.

I don't think so.
Obesity results in all kinds of medical conditions - such as heart disease, diabetes, etc. that increase the medical costs for everyone.

midgetcop wrote:

resedit wrote:

Finally - having to wait for non critical medical service is not what I would consider "equal" benefits. I like being able to make an appointment because I have a sore shoulder and be able to see a doctor that week - not to get evaluated into a priority list, but to get the dang thing taken care of.

Another misconception - I don't have to wait to see my physician for something like a "sore shoulder". I make an appointment to see him for *whatever*, and I usually get my appointment in the next few days, and it has nothing to do with the seriousness of my condition.

Waiting lists refer to hospitals and in particular the E.R. - patients are attended to based on the seriousness of their condition (triage). i.e. when I went in for heart palpitations about 2 years ago, I was rushed in because it was a heart issue. On another occasion, I had nicked my wrist with a nail, and I waited for a couple of hours. Lists also refer to necessary operations, etc. I do realize, but I can't speak on much experience on that issue because I haven't yet been in that situation. I've had familiy members go in for heart surgery, hip replacement, cancer treatment, etc. I have yet to hear their complaints in regards to waiting times.

I'm paying $300 a month to Blue Cross now.

When I started 8 years ago, it was only $127.

I think I'd rather pay for this in my taxes with a guaranteed level of care than watch this cost continue to rise annually until I can't afford it.

Pariah wrote:

Ah, OK...The "people are starving in Africa so be grateful for what you have" arguement.

Well, that isn't a good argument anymore. It holds true in large areas, yes. The rest of Africa is in the throes of AIDS.

So which of the three horsemen do you really want to die from?

War, Famine, or Pestilence. In many places you have an equal chance from all three. Death from old age is becoming uncommon.

With a change in access to health care you can expect the life expentency to drop. I saw or heard that many health professionals think we will see a drop in the life expectancy of the generation that is currently growing up.

Last edited by sturner (2006-03-28 1:54 pm)

Yes, it does. And since I can't back it up with any data or links to accredited sources, it should be viewed as speculation, mere rumor.