FYI this is a problem with private sector pensions as well. For the last 30 years or so direct deposit has resulted in pension plans paying a lot of money to dead people because direct deposits into a joint account don't stop unless the death is reported by the spouse or another family member, who have no incentive to report it.

Social security was still sending checks to some families who reported the deaths.

Found 75 seconds of Ron Paul on tort reform. Rep. Paul shows up around the three minute mark.

Paul against the sort of tort reform proposals that many other
members of his party support.
He is against a national tort reform bill. Says it should be done
at the state level. He also is against trial lawyers.

Less regulations + tort reform == the worst possible solution. Nothing worse than having your life in the hands of people without proper regulation AND an inability to hold them legally responsible for full damages when they screw up. Paul again seems to be the only (R) that understands this.

It really blows that this happens but I think staying out of federal prison is a pretty strong incentive to report it. Has the law been changed to mandate this? (Sorry if answered already, I'm grunching)

I've yet to come across a definition of tort reform that doesn't basically amount to "protecting companies from being held to account by juries."

Are we arguing semantics? Within the United States there are subgroups which have a life expectancy 30 years longer than other subgroups. I stand by my statement that a one year difference from being born in one nation over another nation is insignificant.

Drill into this a bit. What two subgroups have a life expectancy difference of 30 years? Now compare those. Can you not draw the conclusion that one is healthier than the other?

I prefer government run over dealing with for-profit insurance companies.

That's the whole point of life expectancy. The higher the value, the higher the medical care poor people recieve. It's ****ing obvious to even the dumbest that rich people are always going to recieve the best care no matter where they live. India has what, a 66 LE? That's only a 14f years away from italy, and I'm sure the difference between LE of poor and rich is probably somewhere around 40-50 years, so 14 years is nothing. Where would you want to live as a poor person tho?

It's the poor people with bad health care that bring the number down. And we haven't even started talking about poor people with bad med care and high crime rates.

In general it is a huge disadvantage to be poor. Here's a surprising study.

ok i have what is probably a stupid question. but couldnt our lower life expectancy be attributed to the fact the us is a more dangerous place?
more natural disasters hurricanes tornados earthquakes and so on than other countries.
more violent crime (just a guess)
more ppl driving per capita more accidents
so on and so on.

The US is one of the least dangerous places in the world, in almost every possible way.

Most of those things are so rare that they don't have much of an impact. The only thing common enough would be accidents, which are the #5 cause of death in the US. How many accidents we have compared to other countries though, I'm not sure. That is a good question.

For reference, here's what is killing us (2009 stats from the CDC):

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Texas 27% uninsured
Massachusetts 4% uninsured
California 21% uninsured

Life Expectancy

Texas 78.3
Massachusetts 80.1
California 80.4 3rd highest behind MN and HI

your point is?