Yeah, I bet you hear a lot of arguments like this in Australia, and Chile, and Argentina, and the Union of South Africa. Go with whatever works.

This is a misleading headline in that it represents the averaging of two separate areas of a measured pool of participants. If you would divide America into two groups, the richest 30 percent and the remaining 70 percent which would be the poorest, you find that for whatever reason, the lower 70 percent has been watching their life expectancy drop for the past 5 years while the richest 30 percent has seen their life expectancy increase and stay up with the western European averages as well. Because there are so many more of the "getting worse here boss" people, the OVERALL average shows a decline for the past two years. If you are in the top 30 percent or have money or great insurance, you don't have to worry about headlines that include the lower 70 percent, you will do all right. If you are in the lower 70 percent, sorry to tell you that your life expectancy has actually gone down more than what they reported, because they included the other 30 percent in the averaging. Can we get something besides healthcare only for the wealthy and their approved "associates"?

My guess is that there is a payment of some kind to the tube site based on your watching history so when subdivisions are allowed, they claim both as separate time formats. They found a way to get benefit twice for the same time frame of viewing.

Well, this is supposedly a market based economy, so some problems develop when the cheapest way might not be the safest way for the consumer. Worry? Try to remember than human existence is just a temporary gig for consciousness.