Slashdot Mirror
US Life Expectancy May Have Peaked
Hugh Pickens writes "Live Science reports that although life expectancy in the United States has risen to an all-time high of 77.9 years in 2007 up from 77.7 in 2006, gains in life expectancy may be pretty much over, as some groups — particularly people in rural locations are already stagnating or slipping in contrast to all other industrialized nations. Hardest hit are regions in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, in Appalachia and also the southern part of the Midwest reaching into Texas. The culprits — largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services — are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity. What the new analysis reveals is the reality of two Americas, one on par with most of Europe and parts of Asia, and another no different than a third-world nation with the United States placing 41st on the 2008 CIA World Factbook list, behind Bosnia but still edging out Albania. 'Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing through 1999 those who were already disadvantaged did not benefit from the gains in life expectancy experienced by the advantaged, and some became even worse off,' says a report published in PLoS Medicine by a team led by Harvard's Majid Ezzati, adding that 'study results are troubling because an oft-stated aim of the US health system is the improvement of the health of "all people, and especially those at greater risk of health disparities.'"
They have stopped human aging from getting older before it blows up an economy with useless old people. Isn't this part of the US overhaul in health care - get rid of the old and sick because they are holding the herd back?
> Seems like it's going downhill in all the heavily Republican parts of the country. They're human garbage anyway.
Folks in red states might die a few years sooner but we are outbreeding you blue folk. If we had the time we could win the Freedom vs. Socialism battle purely on birth rates. But alas.
Hint: gays don't reproduce even if they play like they are married.
Democrat delenda est
No "health care system" is going to be able to overcome the human propensity to make unhealthy lifestyle choices unless it forces people to bear the costs of those choices themselves.
"Think of the children."
Really? You're going with that?
Now it's all coming together! The Health Care Reform will end up saving money by decreasing our life expectancy. The Death Panels are making sense now.
I don't know what you self-named conservatives sit around smoking as you dream up these ridiculous strawmen, but, if I may speak for all liberals and progressives, we never slandered your patriotism. It seems you are projecting your own tendencies upon us. It does not make you a traitor to oppose universal health care. It just reveals that you are an ignorant jackass.
There's always a lot of political hay to be made out of comparisons of this or that factor of American life to "3rd world country" quality. The unstated (or baldly stated) point being: why can't the world's wealthiest country take care of its underclass better? Why can't it be improved (and, in a pointed comment toward conservatives/Republicans who tend to oppose such 'improvements' wholesale), why are you so heartless?
This is, in my experience, particularly baffling to Europeans who live with a social support system generally unparalleled in the modern world.
Here's the secret: it's about CHOICE, and the consequences of your decisions.
Speaking generally, people in poverty are there because of some shitty life choice that they made along the way. Have a baby before age 18. Have a baby out of wedlock. Do drugs. Commit crime. Drop out of school. There are exceptions, but the HUGE majority of the chronic poor fall into one of these categories. And, born from the 'self-reliant' protestant ethic that founded the country, there used to be a cultural reluctance to help these 'free-riders' in any way.
(The only broad exception to this would be the poor little buggers BORN to parents who made similar crappy choices. They didn't really have any say in the matter, and their futures are pretty much doomed. Unfortunately, really the best situation for them would be to be taken AWAY from their stupid parent (generally there's only still one around) and put into a boarding school where they could get a good education without their biological role models; this is seen to be 'inhumane' in today's society, so instead we leave them to grow in a horrid environment, really just enabling the cycle to continue indefinitely.)
This is why the US has so many poor, and cares so little for them generally; starting with free public education through high school, it's been proven repeatedly that in the US you can become a success with simple hard work, determination, and self-discipline. You probably won't become rich, but you can work 2 jobs and build your child a better foundation from which THEY can climb, ultimately improving the lives of your grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. CHOOSING to live a life of narcissistic self-interest an immature egoism, why should I (the argument goes) help you with a damn thing?
-Styopa
I won't call you an idiot but you are certainly misinformed. Poverty and lack of health insurance are to a large extent (though of course not absolutely) a matter of choice. A genuine misfortune can happen to anyone and I feel sorry for those people but a large majority of people living below poverty line in the US are living that way because they failed to satisfy one of these 5 conditions:
1. Get some education, high school at least
2. Don't commit a crime and end up in jail
3. Don't use drugs (at least unless you can easily afford them)
4. Don't end up in a situation where you are raising children as a single parent
5. Get a job - any job will do, even fast food or other low paying job that anyone can get
There are exceptions of course, such as those who cannot get insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions which is one place where there might be a case for government to step in. But in general if you do those 5 things you are statistically overwhelmingly likely to have a standard of living above the poverty line and to have health insurance.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
This may sound heartless, but I'm trying to figure out where people feel they should be privileged to the best medical care in the world without having to pay for it or provide back to society an equal or greater benefit. Where is the incentive for people to succeed in life? If I didn't have to pay for health care, food, and shelter... I wouldn't have a job. There's no point in working in a boring job with no motivation to leave that job for something better. In order to do that, you have to better yourself, save money, and work toward that goal. If there are no more primal cares in life then there's no point listening to some other jackoff tell you how to do your job. Just quit and live off the government.
Living in a remote area has it's advantages and disadvantages. You have to wait longer for packages, might not get cable like everyone else, you might have to travel an hour or two for a good hospital or be able to hit a store at 2am, but the advantages range from peace and quiet, personal space, privacy, and many other things that most people might never have. So you make life decisions when you choose your surroundings. I hope this makes sense. I think too many people feel they deserve health care when they don't contribute as much as someone who works their tail off at three jobs to afford it themselves. They think that they can choose to live on the peak of a mountain and expect that a helicopter team be dispatched if they have a heart attack. What makes you more important than a person growing up in Downtown Megacity?
I also have to wonder where is it written that cancer (in an above poster's example) is the great plague of our world today? It's not a contagious problem even if it's fairly widespread so it's not like having it will bring forth the extinction of human kind. It will merely shorten the life expectancy of the person with this condition. They can't accept that diagnosis? It has to be someone other person's problem now? Where is it written that I have to give up my own incentive to take care of myself to help someone else? Honestly now...if I choose to save money, not buy an Escalade, Lexus, or Acura and drive around in a Miata, what makes a person that chooses to spend liberally more important than me that they can outright demand I pay for their lifestyle indirectly?
Mark my words, if I could not afford to pay for my medical treatment, I might ask close family for help but barring that, I would not ask a stranger to pay for my life. It's just not right. I would gladly accept death.
There ARE options in life, even if they are slowly being taken away. Too many people are in "Me" mode. They don't think about their children as long as they have something. Too many people have children that can't afford them, and too many people think someone else should pay for it. There are too many people that think their life is more important to Donald Trump's life because of some arbitrary reason.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Any life lost is tragic and affects multiple people, but I don't think anyone has the right to demand someone else pay for their life. It's downright egotistical if you ask me. How can one person demand special treatment simply because of their financial status in the world (whether it be higher or lower than average)?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
You haven't noticed the democrats out blaming insurance companies for virtually all our problems? They're too convenient a target. Just because I can recognize propaganda on one side doesn't mean I don't see it on the other side too. In fact, if you are on either the democrat or republican side, I am going to question your grasp of reality.
Did you actually have a point, or were you just out to insult someone today?
Qxe4
> Everything is more expensive in the ghetto because of crime rates, causing higher prices,
> local shortages, more dispair, fewer options, which feeds more crime, and so on. It's a
> self-sustaining cycle, heading downwards.
So why doesn't a 'community organizer' come along and do the one thing that would improve the situation? Organize the people to police their own area and cut the crime rate to managable levels, i.e. low enough the police aren't afraid to be on the streets after dark. Then when the area is safe, attract some businesses in and from there some industry. Then you have jobs and a hope for prosperity.
Never happens does it. Observe what community organizers actually do, for example what our God King did a few years ago. Does history record ONE act from his 'community organizing' days that had the principle result of helping the community instead of improving the political position of his chosen faction in the Chicago machine?
Thought experiment. Imagine we actually solved poverty. Who benefits politically? And there is your answer.
Democrat delenda est