A new rationalization has emerged to explain why the average lifespan is longer --- because the U.S. has the world's most expensive health care system.
According to a study by an economist published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a baby born in 2000 can expect to live for nearly 77 years, while one born in 1960 can only expect about 70 years of life. The reason for this increase? Declines in the rates of smoking and fatal accidents account for at least half, but more and better health care account for all of the rest.
But there are some rather glaring and obvious holes in this conclusion. For one, the U.S. spends more per capita on health care --by far-- than any other nation in the world, yet the U.S. ranks 31st among all nations in longevity and 40th among all nations in the rate of infant survival after birth. Dollar for dollar spent, the U.S. is doing an immensely poor job in keeping its population healthy.
Medical technology in the form of heart pacemakers, kidney dialysis machines, and many other innovations do help to extend the length of people's lives. But synthetic chemicals, especially in pharmaceutical drugs, play little if any role. My contention is that the widespread use of these chemicals in the U.S. accounts for why the U.S. ranks behind 30 other nations in lifespans. Those 30 nations are less dependent on synthetic chemicals in food and medicine than the U.S., yet many seem to be in a mad rush to emulate the U.S. example.
Another key reason why U.S. health care costs now consume 16 percent of the nation's entire economic output is that we focus on treating the symptoms of illness and disease rather than preventing illness and disease. Pharmaceuticals mostly treat symptoms. Synthetic chemicals weaken the human immune system and help to trigger a person's susceptibility to illness and disease.
