Slashdot Mirror
US Life Expectancy Can Vary By 20 Years Depending On Where You Live (npr.org)
After analyzing records from every U.S. county between 1980 and 2014, Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, and his team found that life expectancy can vary by more than 20 years from county to county. "In counties with the longest lifespans, people tended to live about 87 years, while people in places with the shortest lifespans typically made it only about 67," reports NPR. From the report: The discrepancy is equivalent to the difference between the low-income parts of the developing world and countries with high incomes, Murray notes. For example, it's about the same gap as the difference between people living in Japan, which is among countries with the longest lifespans, and India, which has one of the shortest, Murray says. The U.S. counties with the longest life expectancy are places like Marin County, Calif., and Summit County, Colo. -- communities that are well-off and more highly educated. Counties with the shortest life expectancy tend to have communities that are poorer and less educated. The lowest is in Oglala Lakota County, S.D., which includes the Pine Ridge Native American reservation. Many of the other counties with the lowest life expectancy are clustered along the lower Mississippi River Valley as well as parts of West Virginia and Kentucky, according to the analysis. There's no sign of the gap closing. In fact, it's appears to be widening. Between 1980 and 2014, the gap between the highest and lowest lifespans increased by about two years. The reasons for the gap are complicated. But it looks like the counties with the lowest lifespans haven't made much progress fighting significant health problems such as smoking and obesity. The study has been published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
I'm sure the new republican health care plan will provide more comprehensive coverage at much lower costs thus solving americas poor living in third world conditions. /s
You can have progressive taxation and universal healthcare or increasing inequality and more illness, fear, death and guns. Your choice.
Those three things are often correlated, so causation may be falsely determined.
I.E. theoretically it could be (but isn't) that genetically the natives are subject to major diseases that reduce life expectancy.
Or, (almost as unlikely), that area could be infectred by a nasty disease.
Or most likely, it is a matter of money and education, both of which has been systematically denied to the members of the lower class that predominate in that area.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's a reasonable bet that the people with lower life expectancy are probably not voting progressive. They have less money, worse jobs and lower life expectancy. They don't see progressive solutions as being in their service. At best progressives will lecture them about how their jobs aren't coming back, they should learn to code, go to university, and move to the rich enclaves on the coasts. Not that conservatives are any better, but conservatives figure out that it's better to pretend to listen, rather than to lecture those with less money, worse jobs and lower life expectancy on how they are all privileged transphobic racists and deserve their lot because of it.
That's right, Mr. Wizard. The only alternative to the US is Venezuela.
Be sure not to compare US health to Europe, because your fairy tale about lowering rich people's taxes won't quite hold water, though.
I don't respond to AC's.
If you'd RTFA, you'd have the answer to your question!
Socioeconomic and race/ethnicity factors, behavioral and metabolic risk factors, and health care factors explained 60%, 74%, and 27% of county-level variation in life expectancy, respectively. Combined, these factors explained 74% of this variation. Most of the association between socioeconomic and race/ethnicity factors and life expectancy was mediated through behavioral and metabolic risk factors.
I don't respond to AC's.
Something doesn't seem right here. I live in Summit County, CO for 7 years and no one who lives in Summit County is actually from Summit County, or really even Colorado. Furthermore, even fewer are even year round residents. There's almost no one over the 65 there, the vast majority of the population are younger to early middle age ski bums. The same goes for Eagle County and to some degree Pitkin. Something about the ski bum population is skewing those results. (On a side note, a former Air Force general, Don Kutyna, who ran the US Space Command for a bit skied nearly every day and he was 70+ at the time. Over at Copper Mountain we had Frank Walters who was 80+ and skied hundreds of days a year.)
----- obSig
I live adjacent to the Oglala Lakota Reservation. It's a massive ghetto. I'm not surprised in the least that the expected lifespan is so short -- in fact, I'm kinda surprised it's that long. The poverty here is worse than most people realize exists in America. The hardest part is that there's literally no industry for these people to use as a means to climb out of poverty. They receive enough allowance from the government to stay alive -- and that's it.
I'm not a native (heck, my dad wasn't even born in this country), but I feel deeply for our fellow men & women on the res. The USA forced them to live there, forced them into the ghetto -- and now they're too impoverished to ever leave. There's no work, no hope -- the res is the most depressing place imaginable. The lifespan information should be used as an indicator of how badly communities need help.
So if you live in a city with higher income and job opportunities you live longer. Live in a poor rural area and you deserve to die. Nice system
Ironic is these bozos who live in these regions are the most adamant on making sure they do not have healthcare so they can get healthcare in their mind as them having it is communism so give it to others who are rich and it will trickle back???!
I don't get the thought process
http://saveie6.com/
I'm sure the new republican health care plan will provide more comprehensive coverage at much lower costs thus solving americas poor living in third world conditions. /s
For those who want a good visualization, here is the US map of the study results,
and here's the study, click on the "figures and tables" link in the overly complex mishmash of a web page for visualizations and caption explanations.
You need to learn to surrender with more grace. But I'll accept this much... Good luck!
Fine if you want to play that. Then GOP USA=Sudan & Somalia. They have no government at all and anarchy, warlords, and pirates are the result. Therefore that is the alternative to big government if you want to go deep end with analogies.
Both countries are a libertarian paradise.
http://saveie6.com/
Actually, the Chavez regimes policies amount to attempting to make Venezuela more like Germany, i.e. social democratic. In case you haven't heard, US political reporting is somewhat biased and poorly informed.
Not even close buddy. Germany favors free enterprise and is the most powerful and wealthiest country in Europe. Venezuala is more communistic and little non-subsidized enterprise has price ceilings.
http://saveie6.com/
"You had me disable AdBlock for this? It is not by Forbes â" they simply cite a survey by Commonwealth Fund â" an Illiberal organization currently headed by one Dr. Blumenthal, who has "chief health advisor to the Dukakis campaign" on his resume.
Seriously?"
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy for precisely this reason - because you don't like the fact that statistics show that developed European countries all do better than the US in terms of life expectancy you're instead attacking the person who did the study.
But that's not how statistics work - the numbers don't lie, take it from this guy, take it from any other, attacking this individual doesn't change the fact that life expectancy in Europe was higher.
I actually followed this thread because I was genuinely intrigued to see where you were going to take the life expectancy argument (because I was already aware it was higher in most European countries, and that you were hence on a losing bet by trying to make that argument). I'm disappointed to see that you've simply decided to deny reality though rather than accept the fact that you were wrong. That doesn't bode well for you as a human being.
What about the CIA?
https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...
Or are they too liberal for you too?
You can't ask someone not to hate you when you're being willfully ignorant, because that highlights you as someone that isn't willing to learn and that's more interested in lying to themselves than having an adult conversation where things like facts actually matter.
Germany doesn't favour free enterprise as a randlicker would recognise it. They have commie things like laws against unfair dismissal and there's even worker representation on company boards. I'm not sure if you're allowed to work 60 hours a week with no extra pay even if you want to.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Here.
Ignoring the countries that have special reasons for longer/shorter life spans, it would be better to live in Iceland or Switzerland than the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
LMGTFY
(Wikipedia page entitled "List of countries by life expectancy")
The US is behind every country in Western Europe and neatly bracketed by Chile and Cuba.
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
Do tell, what President Sanders would've done differently from El Presidente Chavez. I'm listening...
Do tell, what President Trump will do differently from Reichskanzler Hitler. I'm listening... See how stupid that sounded when you read it? That's how stupid your comment sounded to the rest of us.
Do you have statistics for longevity — and differences in longevity — among Europeans? I'm listening...
It's a about ten years in the UK:
http://www.acegeography.com/re...
Seems to be rather similar in Germany:
https://www.mpg.de/9324818/reg...
I'll let you google the rest... it's not particularly complicated just search on the topic: regional variations in life expectancy <name of country>
Racism card to come in 3...2...1
If people weren't so collectively stupid / selfish they might even see it as a stepping stone to something better again. Unfortunately people are too stupid / selfish and don't see the bigger picture.
The ACA made every poor, cheap and lazy person contribute something to the unlimited healthcare they got for free before. The Republicans plan takes away the mandatory buying of insurance and replaced it with either nothing or more free unlimited health care.
The ACA had flaws but it set a minimum standard of care, made everyone buy into it, to defray the cost.
the acha under Republicans increases costs by letting people choose not to have coverage, and decreases the ability to get care.
Two governor's are already taking the options that Republicans siad are posion pills that no sane person would take.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Or Australia. Actually it would be better to live in every country which has universal healthcare than in America even if life expectancy is lower. Because what's better dying comfortable and happy at 70 or dying while working 2 jobs to pay your medical bills and trying not to lose your house in the process at 75.
Fuck the USA health system. The best worst healthcare in the world.
I'm not sure if you're allowed to work 60 hours a week with no extra pay even if you want to.
You are not allow. The EU maximum is 48 hours per week on average over a certain period, typically 15-20 weeks. There are exclusions for certain jobs like military, live-in servants etc.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"the push to keep the ACA around would have made it clear that "progressives" want everyone to live regardless of personal wealth"
That may have been how it was sold to the poor electorate, but not how it worked out in reality.
Every single person I know that bought an ACA plan complained about the deductibles. Sure, the monthly premiums were within reach, but $6000 to $10000 per year in deductibles ensured that the policy was never used.
Sure, some things were covered by the ACA, but if you talked about any other health issues during your "healthy visit" those became billable expenses that hit your annual deductible.
For those that could afford the premiums, the ACA became medical disaster insurance. Many could not even afford the premiums and opted to take their chances on the penalty at tax time.
The ACA was doomed in a couple of ways - it was a financial disaster for insurers, and it did not really help poor people get continual basic care - the stuff that prevents expensive diseases later on.
Venezuela is literally the only example we have ever seen of any socialist policies in action. There aren't say, 32 developed countries thriving on universal healthcare, nope, never. Have you even seen Mad Max? Australia might have better healthcare now, compared to us (according to our president) but in just a few short years: Dieselpunk hellscape.
The ACA made every poor, cheap and lazy person contribute something to the unlimited healthcare they got for free before
The ACA had flaws but it set a minimum standard of care, made everyone buy into it, to defray the cost.
So why didn't insurance get cheaper? The argument was always that people who didn't have insurance were treated for free at the ER, which passed the cost onto everyone else. You'd think that wouldn't be the case now that everyone is covered, so why are premiums and deductibles now much higher?
http://time.com/money/4503325/...
I don't like the Republican health care plan either, but please don't act like the ACA solved the real problem; making health care cheaper.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The advent of learning systems – very smart, but not conscious – into manufacturing and service automation will (and is beginning to already) move the bar so far, so fast, that a paradigm shift in what "the working economy" actually is will occur within just a few years, leaving pretty much everyone – imported workers, native workers, educated workers, uneducated workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers – without paying jobs.
What "money" is will be changed by the government, along with who gets what, and why. They must change. Either that, or there will be a revolution and the government will fall, along with pretty much everything else.
Learning systems' application to production and service is not like previous technological / economic change. At all. These systems will enter every corner of the economy and underprice all expensive human jobs. The tip of the iceberg is already visible. The job/citizen connection will inevitably be sundered; the money/goods-services connection must change by then (or sooner) or we will see a very sudden disaster that no one wants.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.