Liberals and the ‘Average Life Expectancy’ Lie


Promoted from the diaries by Jeff

Tell any pro-ObamaCare Democrat that socialized healthcare doesn’t work, and you are sure to receive the smug reply that “countries with a single-payer system have a higher life expectancy.”  Technically, that’s true.  But, as the saying goes, there are “lies, damned lies and statistics.”  The lie in this particular set of stats is indeed not in the stats themselves, but in the inference you are asked to draw from them.  You are told, for example, that Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom rate higher in life expectancy than the U.S. because of their public healthcare systems.

You’re asked to believe that all this happens in a vaccuum.  That the only — or at least largest — factor in life expectancy is the mode and quality of health insurance.  But that isn’t the case.  The Life Expectancy figure is based upon an average of death ages from any cause; and that includes non-medical causes.

But you are asked to ignore other, non-medical causes of death.  Causes like violent crime, household accidents, car accidents, etc.  These are numbers which should not be ignored in this discussion; if average age of death is seen as important to the issue of healthcare, certainly the circumstances surrounding those deaths, and whether a single-payer system would actually effect those rates, are equally important.

For example, let’s compare car accident fatalities.  Comparing the United States to the U.K. and Canada (since, after all, they have higher life expectancies), we see that per capita fatalities are dramatically higher in this country:

For 2002
United States: 14.9
Canada:  9.3
United Kingdom:  6.1

Would you say that this has nothing at all to do with the disparity in life expectancies?  In the United States in 1996, the per capita deaths by car accident for people aged 0-74 is 127.5, versus 58.4 for those aged 75 and older.  Surely, even this one set of statistics has a role in the national mortality rate.  And what about murder rates?  According to NationMaster.com, the three countries rank in murders per capita thus:

24. United States with 0.042802 per thousand people
44. Canada with 0.0149063 per 1,000 people 
46. United Kingdom with 0.0140633 per 1,000 people 

Those are two examples.  My point is not that these two sets of statistics themselves explain the difference of death rates between the United States and these other countries.  The point is that clearly, there are other factors to consider here.

Finally, the CDC has charts available, which I’ve been using above, of mortality by age, for various causes.  Under “Death Rates for All Causes,” we see that over 15,000 people per capita die from the age of 85 and up.  Other numbers which should be taken into account are the Population age structures, which can be found at the CIA website (the US and UK both have about 67% of the population falling within the 15-64 range, while the US has a higher percentage of children than the UK (20% versus 17%).  This difference is reflected in the percentage of elderly in each country.

So that’s a large number of statistics, but what’s the point?  Mostly, the point is, statistics can tell you whatever I want them to tell you.  I could tell you that the population of younger children in the US being higher than that in the UK is indicative of the quality of natal or pediatric care in the two countries.  It may or may not be true, but I’m quite certain I could dig up more statistics to back this up.  Likewise, you could probably dig up plenty of stats to prove me wrong. 

You simply cannot view a single statistic, like life expectancy, and expect that it makes the point.  In this case, it simply does not.  Life expectancy, as I said above, tells you nothing at all, other than the average age at which people die.  There are too many other mitigating factors for this single statistic to be used as any sort of indicator of the quality of the health programs of these countries.  Especially because the ages in question are so close (within a couple years between the countries).

Liberals who attempt to tell you that average life expectancy in any way negates your arguments about the quality of care in single-payer countries are either outright lying, or simply don’t understand how statistics work.


RSS feed

14 Comments Leave a comment

Excellent point, Randy

E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 3:02PM EST (link)

After all, the average person in the United States is 49% male, 51% female.

Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO

Newborns are counted in the US

Beaglescout (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 7:00PM EST (link)

Deaths of newborns, even critically ill newborns with terrible injuries or sicknesses, count against US mortality numbers. But in the UK and Canada, and in most European countries, newborns who die of any causes don’t count as people for their statistics. This knocks down the US statistical value for mean life expectancy by quite a lot. And all because of lying statistics.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton
 
 

Statistics 101

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 3:21PM EST (link)

You have to put them in their proper context. I’ve seen Republicans try to push over-reaching interpretations of statistics too often to say that they’re above reproach, but Dems really take it to an extreme–probably because the college student demographic that they appeal to comes up short in the critical reasoning department (yes, I shot myself down with that statement, but it’s by and large true). Good take-down, randy.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

 

I've read that infant mortality also weighs in on life expectancy numbers

Finrod (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 3:46PM EST (link)

Unfortunately I don’t have a link, but I recall reading that the United States does a lot more to save newly-born infants than just about any other country. Many countries don’t even count in their statistics infants that die shortly after childbirth, whereas thanks to the higher level of health care here, a greater effort is made to save them here, and so where in other countries, the birth isn’t even counted if the infant dies shortly after birth, but here it’s counted but with a very short lifespan, which of course would do quite a bit to drag down the total life expectancy numbers in the United States.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

Another useful fact.

randy streu (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 3:48PM EST (link)

If you don’t find a link, I’ll see if I can come up with one and post it. Thanks!

So far this is the best I've found

Finrod (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 4:26PM EST (link)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

It makes the case that both life expectancy and infant mortality are poor measures of how good a country’s health care system is, but it doesn’t make any connections between them like the article I remember reading.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

 
 
 

Has anyone distilled the info to get comparable #'s?

Common_Cents (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 3:55PM EST (link)

It would be interesting to see the numbers adjusted for those situations you describe to see an adjusted age.

Maybe we don’t want this to get to the one, he may ban autos altogether. Well he’s doing a good job in trying to run the companies out of biz already.

I’d also hazard a guess that our trauma system saves far more lives in those accidents than many other countries would as well.

I also assume abortion #’s fall through the cracks. We’d look much much worse if they were counted.

Obama=Golfer in Chief, Leading from, behind, the Back Nine.
Leaders don’t create movements. Movements create leaders. Get involved. Your future depends on it.
Govt “invests” YOUR tax money for POLITICAL return rather than economic return.

 

Whyizzit

boomer (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 5:03PM EST (link)

Here’s a liberal use of statistics I’ve always wondered about– when they look at per capita expenditure for health care, the higher amounts that Americans pay are always “fraud and waste.” However, when they look at dollars spent on education, the more spent per pupil, the better.

 

Great post.

skorrent1 (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 6:33PM EST (link)

Addressing a minor point: I believe “life expectancy” predicts the median age at death (50% live longer). It would take a lot of centinarians to “average” out an infant death.

You know, I never did go into mean or median...

randy streu (Diary) Wednesday, August 5th at 12:58AM EST (link)

I grabbed the stats off the CIA site, which doesn’t go into methodology.

But your point goes right along with LJ’s and Finrod’s. We count infant mortality in our figures, which drives the number down even more.

In short, with this info added too, this favorite argument of the Left really has next-to-zero bearing on the health care debate.

 
 

Another big impact on life expectancy is obesity.

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Wednesday, August 5th at 8:36AM EST (link)

Americans are among the fattest people in the world. We have cheap plentiful food and GOOD food too (as my Doctor who is from Pakistan says). In fact we are the ONLY country on earth where one of the biggest problems among the poor is obesity.

Obesity leads to heart problems, diabetes, hardened arteries, joint and bone stress, etc. In other words, we should expect to have a lower life expectancy than countries with less “husky” people because of higher rates of heart attacks. I haven’t checked the stats, but I’d bet weight related deaths per capita are higher in the USA than in the countries that the lefties like to use as examples.

Candidate for Trustee of Illinois Central College
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Take back our party!
Check out Unified Patriots

Sorry you are too "fat" for National Health Care

izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, August 5th at 8:50AM EST (link)

What until the folks who smoke and are not of the perfect weight category get “denied” from joining in on National Health Care.
This will be “pre-rationing”. It will happen. The government can and will do this. They will have to. Once the government takes over health insurance and you get denied then you really have no where to turn.
Just wait until smokers start coughing on about how the government screwed them.

The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.

Didn't you see all the hype over obesity a week or 2 ago?

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Wednesday, August 5th at 9:10AM EST (link)

The foundation is being laid now. McDonald’s and other “unhealthy” food vendors will be heavily regulated (read taxed) to pay for the extra cost they are causing for the national health system.. Because, after all, the government is paying the bill and should be able to regulate the causes of higher health care costs.

This same argument is currently used to justify motorcycle helmet laws. “You must wear a helmet because if you get in an accident the government will have to support you.”

Candidate for Trustee of Illinois Central College
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Take back our party!
Check out Unified Patriots

 
 

Sorry you are too "fat" for National Health Care

izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, August 5th at 8:51AM EST (link)

Wait until the folks who smoke and are not of the perfect weight category get “denied” from joining in on National Health Care.
This will be “pre-rationing”. It will happen. The government can and will do this. They will have to. Once the government takes over health insurance and you get denied then you really have no where to turn.
Just wait until smokers start coughing on about how the government screwed them.

The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.