IZA DP No. 4992

James Banks, Alastair Muriel, James P. Smith:

Disease Prevalence, Disease Incidence, and Mortality in the United States and in England

Abstract:
We find disease incidence and prevalence are both higher among Americans in age groups 55-64 and 70-80 indicating that Americans suffer from higher past cumulative disease risk and experience higher immediate risk of new disease onset compared to the English. In contrast, age specific mortality rates are similar in the two countries with an even higher risk among the English after age 65. Our second aim explains large financial gradients in mortality in the two countries. Among 55-64 year olds, we estimate similar health gradients in income and wealth in both countries, but for 70-80 year old, we find no income gradient in UK. Standard behavioural risk factors (work, marriage, obesity, exercise, and smoking) almost fully explain income gradients among 55-64 years old in both countries and a significant part among Americans 70-80 years old. The most likely explanation of no English income gradient relates to their income benefit system. Below the median, retirement benefits are largely flat and independent of past income and hence past health during the working years. Finally, we report evidence using a long panel of American respondents that their subsequent mortality is not related to large changes in wealth experienced during the prior ten year period.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4992.pdf

So why do we so slavishly try to imitate the inferior American system? The higher death rate among English over 65 is probably because poorer Americans have already died uninsured and untreated.

My landlord is early retired on health grounds, both he and his wife are incapacitated, probably each others carers, their 2 daughters have 2 chidren each with various fathers. They have 5 homes paid for plus 2 flats provided by the state. This together with other income from dubious sources provides wealth beyond my wildest dreams. As a labour party member and previously shop steward to a national industry he has been responsible for crippling industrial strikes.
Despite all that has happened he firmly believes that "the money is there", and despite what the goverment intend, he is right, it will always be there because we are simply a soft touch.
For myself, having paid in and received nothing through mi life, I say close the welfare system and close the NHS. Then at least we shall return to 'survival of the fitest' and no 'fatest' as we have today.

anon1
One of many not one off, stop press! there is another bastard on the way. I can count on one hand those I know who make a positive financial contribution, the vast majority are a drain. No business could survive this way. As for unions, we would be poorer without them. I lived in poverty from 1968 until the unions dragged us out with the pay boom and of course inflation. I buried a wife and child in paupers graves, both died from chest infection brought on by cold and damp. Yes I am bitter, it is not something I like to recall. However there have been many times when my union has 'downed tools' for a week or two for no gain but simply for fun. No fun if you can't afford a bag of coal.
I know we must balance our books after gordons vote-catching lunacy but can it be done? "the moneys there" the unions believe and disruption is already under way. Seeing the greed and excess at board level who can blame them?
The crap is about to hit the fan.

Nobody is sorry for the plight of a stranger, merely grateful that it is not theirs. As for the rest I am of an age where I have seen it all before, even to the point of boredom. There are no excesses in my life, never a penny owed, yet the actions or inactions of this government mean that I continue to support those who live beyond their means.