Countries with the Highest Life Expectancy

Awesome these petite states!

Compare the data from any of them to a similarly urban and wealthy area of most larger industrialized countries and you'll get similar figures. People in Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, the Hamptons and Malibu are no less healthy than those in Monaco or San Marino.

Would any neutral observer tell us whether mine or Q5's comment sounds more like whining? I was merely making a sound observation. I'm not whining about anything. Wealthy, urban, industrialized areas of first world countries produce healthy, long-lived people. If your entire country is a wealthy, urban area... then your average life expectancy will be high. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

I gotta say I'm with you on this one kal.

Yeah, Q5's was way more whiny.

Q5 is right. Your using the USA as an example of a healthy country, which is a complete joke. The US is somewhere with an extremely dangerous attitude to health with you have one of the highest obesity figures in the world. How can you say that being a large country makes you healthy when you look at the US!

I'm not using the USA as an example of a healthy country (though, it is. A life expectancy of 79.68 currently beats out Denmark, Portugal, Qatar, Cyprus, Slovenia, Kuwait and the UAE), I was using wealthy urban areas inside the USA, as an exception to the rule (that the USA is not as healthy as these other countries), to prove a point. Pointing out that the people of Malibu enjoy a high life expectancy is no more asserting that the USA is generally healthy than pointing to Luxembourg's life expectancy would be saying that the EU is generally healthy.

LOL. Now we're going so far as to call pointing to objectively-verifiable facts as "whining and excuses". It was pretty evident going into this quiz, knowing absolutely nothing about healthcare systems or obesity figures, that countries in temperate climates with high standards of living would be high on the list, but postage-stamp-sized countries that are largely urban and very wealthy would be particularly high. It's just common sense. The smaller the sample size and the more time and money to spend on a healthy lifestyle, the better your chances of living a long life. Place a Monaco- or Singapore-sized border around the wealthiest areas of Portland, Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, or Minneapolis, and that area will far exceed the average US life expectancy (which is already pretty high). The same would be true of Tokyo, Seoul, Sydney, Milan, Paris, and hundreds of other cities around the world.

I honestly don't recall anything else he or she has ever said. But I also don't see how you arrived at your reading of his comment, Sami.

I agree with 'Sami' on this point 'Kal'.........Q5 was making a valid point and somewhere along Q5s comment it got up your nose, so, as you usually do, you retaliated. This is a light quiz really, everybody knows that Monaco for instance is full of rich retirees with expensive medical care etc. and although Monaco has the highest 'Life Expectancy' it is not really the healthiest place in the world to live (unless your already healthy, rich and 80 years old to start with).

and, as you usually do, you can't pass up an opportunity to needlessly insult me while acting superior, baby. I'm quite sure you didn't even bother thinking about it before jumping to the attack, but for my own amusement let's deconstruct the comment.
"So" (implying that what follows is a point I was trying to make. No other reason to start the comment this way)
"when you're a large country... we shouldn't count the parts that weigh you down" (large country = USA, strawmanning me by saying that I was suggesting you should only count the rich areas of the US. I absolutely was not. And at the same time taking a jab at the US.)
"yet do include them in other stats" (implying selective bias, but this is a continuation of the same strawman)
"always the same whining and excuses, wanting to cherrypick the good parts" (he's VERY obviously saying that I am trying to cherry pick data to show the US is more healthy. I did no such thing.)

and then "deal with it" (obnoxious conclusion, obviously directed at the person he is strawmanning)

Explain how what he said could be read as in agreement with me. The first comment I was replying to was saying that the small states on the list were awesome. I pointed out that if you look at similar-sized similarly-affluent-and-urbanized areas of any developed country, that you would get similar results. Q5 comes along and says "large countries get weighed down- DEAL WITH IT!!"
comment chain:
1. petite countries = awesome
2. large countries have areas that are just as awesome
3. large countries suck. stop whining and making excuses. deal with it.

I'm assuming good faith on the part of Sami. Probably she just scanned the comment and didn't follow what was being said. But I have to assume bad faith on the part of bad baby. You're just trying to insult me as you always do. You probably didn't even read the exchange. Q5 is obviously not agreeing with me.

I genuinely don't see how someone could interpret kal to be in the wrong here. It's obvious that Q5 just got salty because he assumed kal was trying to worm the USA onto the list. I doubt Q5 even tried to interpret the comment any other way, I think he just saw "Beverly Hills can be comparable to Monaco" and immediately thought "this person is trying to get USA into the quiz! I hate the USA! Time to type without thinking!" Even though kal was just making an observation.

that's the problem with doing averages on small populations. you are more likely to end up being on one extreme or the other simply because of a small sample size.

Drunken Gandalf is right, but Japan's incredible achievement in widespread longevity notwithstanding, smaller less populous states still dominate this list.

"Drunken Gandalf"?

@dunkinggandalf, I believe he is referring to only the smaller states here. He's not saying Italy, France and Japan have small populations, he's just saying that countries like Monaco are going to be ridiculously high on the list due to small populations, impressive wealth and decent health care which leads to later deaths.

By size, yes but Canada's population is only abut 36 million which when compared to Japan seems somewhat small.

I hate Monaco

same

I only missed ones in Asia.. all of them in Asia.

I missed a country on this quiz, therefore I hate it. (Joking, I got all of them)

If I get a terminal illness anytime in the next 65 or so years, I'm going to Monaco to bring their average down. Take THAT Monaco!

Just missed Singapore...

me too!

me three!

urg... i got 1:55

Would have never guessed Singapore.

Their healthcare is state of the art I thought it would be #1!

Could it have something to do with the fact that most of the poor people are itinerant workers imported from Malaysia and sent back on their days off?

That was my first guess!

Hey, me and my friend used to say that all the time! How wacky...

@Mithol, NEVER decide not to.........

Go Israel! :)

I agree with Februus, surprised that the Vatican City isn't on the list.

How can you have high life expectancy at birth if nobody is born there?

Nobody dies there, they are shipped out to Rome hospitals and lower the Italian figures.

this isn't how it works

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_CIA_World_Factbook_.282011_estimates.29 for the data.

Updated source: CIA World Factbook: Life expectancy at birth.

I thought United States was on this list.. this makes me sad.

no because its a completely different lifestyle to all these north european countries

Most of these other countries have a health care system.

Life expectancy in the USA is currently 78.37 years. The cut-off here looks like it was 80. The European Union's life expectancy is 78.82 years.

canada made it on the list!! why not the US?? :'(

Because Canadians spend so much time in "cryosleep."

^ or because of ignorant stereotypes, apparently. The % of the population living in extreme poverty in the USA and Canada is 0% and 0%, respectively.

That was very helpful, jyp. Americans have so far only succeeded in developing symbiosis with bacon.

Thank goodness I don't think that, then. Wouldn't want to be like you. The CIA data you cite uses different standards for every country. The data I was giving is consistent across the board. You have a point that poverty influences longevity. This has been proven pretty starkly. But, to believe that a mere 6% (15 vs 9) of the population living in this condition would have significant impact on the entire nation's longevity, especially when there are so many other factors that influence it, while at the same time making silly generalizations about health care systems you obviously know little about in either country, makes you... well, I'll be more generous than you and not imply doing such a thing makes you an idiot... but it certainly suggests you're trying a bit too hard to make a certain point.

Median income in the US is higher than Canada. Healthcare spending in the US is over $6k per patient vs $3k in Canada. There have been many studies about health outcomes, differences are small. Canada's outcomes might be better but they are "not consistent" according to a review of all such studies through 2007. To cut & paste from Wiki: the 2000 WHO's ratings of "overall health service performance", which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the US 37th globally. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service for individuals receiving treatment, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. However, life expectancy for Canadians was 80.34 years compared to 78.6 years for Americans.
There are lots of differences. Calling one system "good" and implying the other is "bad" is, misinformed? Biased? Probably not idiocy.

If the answer you came up with is someone other than those I'm responding to then you just disproved your hypothesis, coro.

My guess is our lack of exercise in the US is as at much to blame as our diet - too many of us driving when we could walk, sitting on our behinds playing video games or doing internet trivia...

Ugh these small countries are so annoying

I live in a small country.

Hahahah, forgot Canada. Such a smartie

70% that's alright.

I'm surprised Vatican City isn't on there.

Nobody is born there and nobody dies there.

Being from Ireland, I'm surprised Ireland is on the list.

Where's Luxembourg?

how do you not know where Luxembourg is???????? Anyway its in the lowlands near the Netherlands and Belgium.

getting them all except Italy... wow

got all of them other than switzerland.

Got all of them except Israel :(

Who said that gambling is bad for your life? Monaco is the 1st one!

Japan's population is so high that a tsunami or reactor mistake would hardly change its life expectancy. Their population is aging too, so most people who die in tsunamis or power plant mistakes would be in their seventies anyway..

This is quite a prejudice!! The radiation from Fukushima has literally 0 effect to the health for the entire population!! Radiation is only limited to a small area of Japan, but if you still insist that there should be a few effect for those living close by, research shows that there is a certain threshold of radiation that causes threat to health. Below that, it is basically nil. However, I would point out that the medical care system here works so that it would prolong one's life as long as possible. If you think of QOL, I don't think it is something to be all happy about.

ISRAEL!! What :D i missed it :(

I was randomly guessing countries in alphabetical order I would of never guessed Israel. Lol

So which was it, random or alphabetical?

There is a fantastic graduation speech by Adrian Tan to a group of students in Singapore, in which he says "Singapore has the third-longest life expectancy, behind only Monaco and Japan, and ahead of Iceland and San Marino. Do you know what these countries all have in common? Our football teams are hopeless. Fans are unlikely to be thrown in draining fits during a game. They are more likely to lulled into a gentle and restful nap." And that is the only reason I know the top five countries in this category.

Japan's women's football team is pretty good.

Nobody watches the Japan's women's team play, even if they are more famous then Japan's men's team.

Well I'm not as sexist as European football fans, so I watched them play. My grandmother and I saw their upset victory over the American team in the World Cup final. One of the only football games I've ever sat through in my life.

That game was so great. I was sad to see the U.S. lose, but it was a lot of fun to watch, and the Japanese women had a great story of their own.

Hmmm, USA has a crap team, yet it hasn't helped our life expectancy.

Our team isn't really "crap" though. Americans just dismiss anything we aren't the best at. The U.S. men's team consistently makes the World Cup, and has advanced to the knockout round several times in recent memory. Certainly, we're not close to competing with the likes of Germany, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Italy, etc., but our team isn't terrible. We're a second-tier team. And our women's team is probably the best in the world.

probably? probably?? The US women's soccer team is the most dominant football squad in the history of the game, period. Just since 1996, they've won FOUR Olympic gold medals and one silver. No men's football team has managed to do that and they've been playing men's football at the Olympics since 1900. Let that sink in. They've managed to get more medals in less than 20 years than ANY men's team has gotten in 120. They've also won the World Cup three times since the first Women's World Cup in 1991, and have NEVER not finished in the top 3. Again, something that no men's team has ever done.

And, considering that soccer is like the 20th most popular sport in the USA and nobody gives a crap, the men's team is outstanding. I mean in 2009 they beat Spain, the No. 1 team in the world. In 1998 they beat Brazil, also ranked No. 1 in the world. In 2010 their draw against England allowed them to win their group. They're not terrible. But they should be. Which makes them remarkable.

I know the U.S. has a different lifestyle and all, but it is a shame we can't seem to get on the list with all the modern medicines we have. Also, as a side note, I wonder where Finland ranks. I don't think it would be that far away because Sweden and Norway are on here.

Finland: 80.77. USA: 79.68.

Have you checked the price of those modern medicines? I am on two tier-three drugs for an auto-immune disorder which cost me $241 out-of-pocket each until I reach my yearly deductible - after that they cost $64 per prescription. It's not easy for retirees and others who are on those modern drugs. (That's after paying the monthly charges of $134 for required Medicare Part B, $188 for required supplemental insurance, and $33 for the drug plan.) If it weren't for modern medical science I wouldn't be alive today, so I'm grateful for that, but it is expensive just to stay alive in America. What angers me is that those same drugs can be purchased in other countries for much less.

Nothing from the Americas... So dissapointing.

The list of countries that could ever hope to make it is exactly two entries long. Unless you believe Michael Moore. :D

Interesting that there seems to be no correlation with the quiz on GDP

huh? There's a pretty damn high correlation. What are you talking about?

Do you mean total GDP and not GDP per capita?

Why would I be disappointed? I'm absolutely not wrong about the fact that it is incredibly silly to measure a whole nation's overall GDP in terms of PPP... but PPP DOES make sense used in other ways, for example, in measuring the ability of people within a country to obtain healthcare.... THEN it actually makes a lot of sense to look at PPP per capita.

I never asserted PPP was useless or meaningless. It has its uses. For measuring things like poverty, or minimum wages, which of course correlates to the ability of people to purchase healthcare or basic necessities like shelter and baseline nutrition. It is misused when trying to apply it to the total size of a country's economy, though.

Current rank sees Japan at 1s, then Switzerland, then Singapore, Australia, Spain, Iceland, Italy and Israel... This seems a bit old. Also, in most cases micronations rank high because the old people from other nations go there to live

Description says 20 countries when there are 21!

Blame it on the kiwis!

This quiz got me to level 66. It was nearly six months ago that I got to level 65. So I might be quite old when I get a few more levels higher!

I'm sure the quizmaster will soon reset a whole lot of quizzes that will destroy your hard work and bring your level back down.

Yep. He did.

how the hell is israel higher than countries like sweden and luxembourg

Exactly my thinking!

Germans die from exhaustion because they must wörk wörk wörk all the time.

In all honesty, your explanation is better (and mine wasn't serious).

For the umpteenth time, the only one I missed was one I was sure I'd already typed. That hole in my brain is growing bigger.

I got Iceland because i thought the pic of the old man looked like he was from there :D

I think he's Japanese.

OK, I just immediately imagined him as from Iceland or Norway or somewhere there...not sure why, I've never been up there before...

QM has since changed the picture. Don't know where that guy is from. Monaco, maybe?

Spelt Liechtenstein wrong and didn't get Israel Please include other spellings from Liechtenstein as many people could get that wrong

Why on earth is Denmark not on this list?

Didn't guess Monaco, Andorra and Israel. I don't know how, but when I was trying the smallest countries of Europe I stopped and try others. :D