What's wrong Amerifats? Not able to live as long due to how fat you are?
Posted Jul 20, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC
2039
You don't want to live that long, or else you'll start forgetting important details in TV shows.
3
Hey woah woah woah. Hey. I also smoke dicknose.
1
oh nooooo, instead of living to 81 I’m going to live till i’m 79
The horror, I just lost probably the worst 2 years of my life
1
Living 79 years being an American> living 82 years being a euro 🤮🤢
1
“here for a good time not a long time” america wins again
1
Jokes on you, my chronic bulimia takes care of that - bucko
0
More apt comparison would be to add China and even then it’s not super comparable.
There’s very few countries with population spread so widely over such a large area. Our population density(or, lack of density) requires a lot of redundancy which leads to higher expenditure with little to gain in terms of outcomes
0
Population density in square Km
US: 36
Sweden: 25
Try again
2
You’re misunderstanding-
Look at a population heat map of the US and a population heat map of Sweden.
The US has a population spread massively across both coasts as well as significant inland population centers.
Sweden has most of the population densely packed into the south with a small population distributed on the northeast border with finland.
Essentially Sweden has the luxury of building most of their medical facilities in the south, and those facilities can serve a huge number of people by proximity, with a few facilities in the north which will drive efficiency down.
If you look at the US the same cannot be said. Because the population is so spread out and people live in relatively remote areas, many more facilities are required per capita than in Sweden, per your example.
Just looking at raw population density numbers isn’t sufficient for this, you have to actually look at where the people are concentrated. If you look at Canada for example, a nation with a much lower population/square km number, they would also have a lower density than the US and more efficient outcomes. This only starts to make sense when you actually look at where Canadians live, and see that a vast, vast majority of Canadians live in a relatively tiny sliver of the country on the southern border with the US.
Try again.
-6
California is even smaller than Sweden and one of the wealthiest states by far, much wealthier than Sweden. Cali size = 424.000 Km^2, Sweden size = 528.000 Km^2
According to Google, life expectancy
Cali: 80,9
Sweden: 82,96
Cali health care spendning per capita, source.
$9.859
Sweden Healthcare spending per capita, source
$5.782
5
Why the fuck do you want to live past 70?
Your body starts to decay, dementia sets in, you can get the shakes, you lose reaction time, struggle to see and hear.
Like fuck that shit put my ass down 💀
-2
Now do eastern Europe
NOOOO THAT DOESNT COUNT AS EUROPEANS NOOOOO
Then mexico should count as NA...
Comparing european union (not the whole continent) to the usa may make sense
Fuck it, compare US Canada and Mexico to the EU in whole
Portugal's there.
eastern
r/PortugalIsEastEurope
Eastern and Central European countries according to EuroVoclife expectancy data
Albania: 78.96
Armenia: 75.55
Azerbaijan: 73.33
Belarus: 75.20
Bulgaria: 75.49
Croatia: 79.02
Czech Republic: 79.85
Georgia: 74.24
Hungary: 77.31
Moldova: 72.30
Montenegro: 77.39
North Macedonia: 76.26
Poland: 79.27
Romania: 76.50
Russia: 72.99
Serbia: 76.47
Slovakia: 78.00
Slovakia: 81.85
Ukraine: 72.50
Portugal: 82.65
Spain: 83.99
Italy: 84.01
Finland: 82.48
Netherlands: 82.78
Austria: 82.05
Germany: 81.88
Belgium: 82.17
Switzerland: 84.25
Denmark: 81.40
Portugal seems to be more representative of the countries in the graph than eastern Europe in terms of life expectancy.
Not cherry-picked copium.
Spending would be even lower though
And so would life expectancy
It would be pretty comparable. Multiple Eastern European countries actually have higher life expectancy.
The point is that Americans don't have low life expectancy because of economic circumstances, but because they're fat.
?
It would make sense to do the eu...otherwise you need to add canada and more importantly mexico to the NA statistics as we are doing continents
Why not just eastern Europe vs the US then? I can exclude parts I don't like. Problem?
Because the eu (european union) is something similar to the USA...
Doing easter union vs usa and call it a win for the usa vs europe would be like doing european union vs mexico and call it an easy win for the EU vs NA
Data
You're right, we should just compare EU countries to the US:
Bulgaria: 75.49
Croatia: 79.02
Estonia: 79.18
Austria: 82.05
Germany: 81.88
Hungary: 77.31
Belgium: 82.17
Latvia: 75.73
Lithuania: 76.41
Finland: 82.48
Denmark: 81.40
Poland: 79.27
Romania: 76.50
Slovenia: 78.00
Mean = 1106.89/14 = 79.0635714286 < 79.11 (United States)
The graph only included 10 EU countries, while I included 14 so it's more representative.
They don't reach the age of 60.