Health care

Life expectancy in Mississippi (71.9) is shorter than in Bangladesh (72.4).

Native Americans have a life expectancy of 61 years.

How sad is it that in this country, if you are poor, you die sooner?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/health-care-life-expectancy-poverty.html

Discussing like expectancy is somewhat tricky, as it changes significantly over age, and it doesn't become lower, it becomes higher. As people live to be older the age they are expected to die increases.



Looking at this chart at birth, age zero, males have 74 years of remaining life expectancy, meaning the male at birth will live to an average of 74 years. However, at age 10 males have about 69 years of remaining life expectancy, meaning at age 10 males \who are still alive from birth will live to an average of 79 years, 5 years more than the average at birth.

Life expectancy at birth, which is what all the news is about, though a concerning number, doesn't tell the whole story, which is that too many people are dying at young ages. The survival rate in the first year of life, and for poor & minority males in the first 20 years of life is the real story behind life expectancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/life-expectancy-in-the-us-is-declining-at-a-rapid-rate-it-is-began-much-earlier-than-we-thought/ar-AA1f8GId

Thanks for explaining how life expectancy works every1 was confused

TL, DR

Sparty it is sad. Adequate healthcare (it would seem) shouldn’t be a hurdle in the USA. Unfortunately for the poor it is.

Making everyone eligible for Medicare including employer, businesses that employ less than 200 would expand coverage.

If your job has benefits with high co-pays and/or high employee participation fees, people take chances.

A major illness or delaying / ignoring treatment until the condition becomes permanent like hypertension or diabetes is problematic. Both those are major contributors to shortening life spans.

A cynic might say this is one way to address future burdens on Social Security.

GRR Spartan wrote:Making everyone eligible for Medicare including employer, businesses that employ less than 200 would expand coverage.

If your job has benefits with high co-pays and/or high employee participation fees, people take chances.

A major illness or delaying / ignoring treatment until the condition becomes permanent like hypertension or diabetes is problematic. Both those are major contributors to shortening life spans.

A cynic might say this is one way to address future burdens on Social Security.

There's too many people making their fortunes off of healthcare. Until it stops being a for profit enterprise nothing is going to change.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Making everyone eligible for Medicare including employer, businesses that employ less than 200 would expand coverage.

If your job has benefits with high co-pays and/or high employee participation fees, people take chances.

A major illness or delaying / ignoring treatment until the condition becomes permanent like hypertension or diabetes is problematic. Both those are major contributors to shortening life spans.

A cynic might say this is one way to address future burdens on Social Security.

There's too many people making their fortunes off of healthcare. Until it stops being a for profit enterprise nothing is going to change.

This right here. In two sentences.

Spartytruth wrote:Life expectancy in Mississippi (71.9) is shorter than in Bangladesh (72.4).

Native Americans have a life expectancy of 61 years.

How sad is it that in this country, if you are poor, you die sooner?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/health-care-life-expectancy-poverty.html

I'm sure the 'pro-life' christians will get right on this.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Spartytruth wrote:Life expectancy in Mississippi (71.9) is shorter than in Bangladesh (72.4).

Native Americans have a life expectancy of 61 years.

How sad is it that in this country, if you are poor, you die sooner?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/health-care-life-expectancy-poverty.html

I'm sure the 'pro-life' christians will get right on this.

When pro life ideology clashes with capitalist ideology, the adherents simply ignore the clash, ignore the problem and continue to root for both

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Thanks for explaining how life expectancy works every1 was confused

Well the number of babies dying due to substance abuse by their mothers during pregnancy and the number of children & young adults dying due to guns (top killer of this age group) relates to this.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I'm sure the 'pro-life' christians will get right on this.

When pro life ideology clashes with capitalist ideology, the adherents simply ignore the clash, ignore the problem and continue to root for both

I'd respect the "pro-life" christians a lot more if they'd just be honest.

"we're pro-birth.. after that, we hate you and you're on your own. Good luck. Thoughts and prayers".

Trapper Gus wrote:

Well the number of babies dying due to substance abuse by their mothers during pregnancy and the number of children & young adults dying due to guns (top killer of this age group) relates to this.

Hence the link to of healthcare to life expectancy is only tenuous.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Well the number of babies dying due to substance abuse by their mothers during pregnancy and the number of children & young adults dying due to guns (top killer of this age group) relates to this.

Hence the link to of healthcare to life expectancy is only tenuous.

This might be the dumbest thing that you ever posted.

Reading that article this stuck out to me:

More fundamentally, though, self-harming behaviors arise from a context. The genesis for this series was a crisis in behavioral health in my hometown in rural Oregon, where more than one-quarter of the children on my old No. 6 school bus are now dead from drugs, alcohol and suicide. Looking back, the central problem was the same as in many working-class communities across the country: the loss of good union jobs followed by despair and loneliness — and the arrival of meth and opioids.

This isn't so much an article about Health Care as one about how 40 years of Reaganomics have hurt this country.

Trapper Gus wrote:Reading that article this stuck out to me:

More fundamentally, though, self-harming behaviors arise from a context. The genesis for this series was a crisis in behavioral health in my hometown in rural Oregon, where more than one-quarter of the children on my old No. 6 school bus are now dead from drugs, alcohol and suicide. Looking back, the central problem was the same as in many working-class communities across the country: the loss of good union jobs followed by despair and loneliness — and the arrival of meth and opioids.

This isn't so much an article about Health Care as one about how 40 years of Reaganomics have hurt this country.

Sometimes I think that was the goal of it. Reagan's idea of paradise is a haven from communism where people fight and claw for a scrap of food while kow-towing to a few rich people. A scene right out of monte python.

Spartytruth wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Reading that article this stuck out to me:



This isn't so much an article about Health Care as one about how 40 years of Reaganomics have hurt this country.

Sometimes I think that was the goal of it. Reagan's idea of paradise is a haven from communism where people fight and claw for a scrap of food while kow-towing to a few rich people.  A scene right out of monte python.

Of course it was the goal.

On some level, trickle down sounds valid to a lay person because it takes money to start a business and pay employees, presumably the lay peoples.  But the reality is that a rich person is rich because they are PERSONALLY good with money.  You give a rich person 10,000 and they won't necessarily waste it on a fools endeavor, they either use it on a sure thing or save it until a sure thing arrives at their door step.  The problem is that 10k won't necessarily get used on a new business unless some conditions are met, they have a really good business idea that essentially is novel for the public or businesses.  The issue is, those ideas are rare compared to demand driven businesses.  Most businesses are successful by jumping into a up and coming or thriving market and competing (i.e. a sure thing as long as you know how to run a business)... If the people aren't spending money because they have been abused, then those opportunities will be few(the market is not a sure thing, generally).   So it is much better to support the lower and middle classes that will be spending money in that market as that is where most business is.  Not brand new ideas or brand new markets, that's rare and not what makes up the backbone of our economy.  In which case a rich person doesnt need a tax break to jump into that market because they already have the seed cash to jump in and profit in that thriving sure thing market.

Therefore, because supporting the middle and lower classes is the best way to grow and increase profitable businesses, and its easy to see how from an economics perspective that is what is best for all, yet the rich continue to push for reagonomics, it's an easy conclusion that the rich care more about keeping the middle and lower classes down than making more money (but also the middle/lower classes are making more) in a power share. Reagonomics keeps the distance/power between the rich and lower classes greater, even if they are making less money than they would with the other model. BTW I'm the smartest guy in the room

Spartytruth wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Hence the link to of healthcare to life expectancy is only tenuous.

This might be the dumbest thing that you ever posted.

Life expectancy is determined by many factors. National GDP seems to be the biggest one. Crime rates and genetics play a big factor. Pouring money into cancer care and heart disease/strokes will not affect the life expectancy in the US as much as somehow reducing gun deaths, as the former primarily affects old people and the latter young people.

[tw]1692240345097023623?t=79Z9gT91BRqJOf8IWJ2pnw&s=19[/tw]

aualum06 wrote:[tw]1692240345097023623?t=79Z9gT91BRqJOf8IWJ2pnw&s=19[/tw]

The Federal Judiciary, packed with RWNJ's is insane.

Trapper Gus wrote:

aualum06 wrote:[tw]1692240345097023623?t=79Z9gT91BRqJOf8IWJ2pnw&s=19[/tw]

The Federal Judiciary, packed with RWNJ's is insane.

It’s really frightening

Zurn wrote:

Spartytruth wrote:

This might be the dumbest thing that you ever posted.

Life expectancy is determined by many factors. National GDP seems to be the biggest one. Crime rates and genetics play a big factor. Pouring money into cancer care and heart disease/strokes will not affect the life expectancy in the US as much as somehow reducing gun deaths, as the former primarily affects old people and the latter young people.

We are not comparing by country. We are comparing by state.

Bangladesh has a GDP of roughly $460 million/year. with a pop. of 172 million. Cancer rate of 465 per 100,000.Nearly 31.5% of the population in Bangladesh lives below the poverty level. Cancer causes 10% of the deaths 524 deaths per 100000 people in 2018 and a maximum of 4102 deaths per 100000 people in 1971.

Mississippi does about $135 million with a pop. of 1.35 million.19.7% of the population in the state is at or below the poverty level. Cancer rate is 435 per 100,000.In 2022, crude death rate for Mississippi was 13.6 deaths per 100 000 population.

what this means - I have no idea