Life expectancy rising a lot faster for the well off.

[Texashiker]

Yes, the better educated tend to take better care of themselves. There's certainly a correlation between being well off and being well educated.

A couple of years ago I watched a public health webcast on communicating in a clinical setting.

In that webcast, studies showed a persons health is directly related to how well, and how much a person reads, which usually goes hand-in-hand with higher education.

If a doctor tells two people they have a condition:

The person that does not like to read, or does not read very well, will do very little research into the condition.

The person that likes to read, or reads well, is likely to read the information the doctor hands out, and the person is likely to go home and do research on the internet.

As for physically demanding jobs shorting someones life, no, I do not think that is it. Lower educated people usually fill the physical labor rolls. Lower educated people are less likely to read.

 

[CycloWizard]

There is good evidence based on world facts that the level of inequality is not only correlated with but is the cause of decreased life expectancy. Throughout the western world the USA is the worst for life expectancy and child survival. Partly its your different medical care but in a large part stress literally kills. There are a whole host of issues with high social stress caused by inequality and the amount the USA imposes on its less wealthy is worth a decade or so of life.

Its an interesting problem because for the most part the American dream of social mobility isn't true (its the least socially mobile country in the western world) but also the one that believes in it most. The current social structure of money has historically been very bad for the american people, with 10x the violence, much higher mental health problems and the lowest life expectancy. But I have no doubt that many people will defend that way of life, despite statistically it being the worst social structure found in the wealthy countries.

Your story sounds coherent but in the end it completely lacks a foundation. If such evidence exists, why not link to it rather than simply claim that it exists? If social mobility does not exist, then why are nearly all of the wealthiest Americans from new money?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The way to settle this is for someone to look at medicaid statistics in NY. Only the very wealthy have comparable coverage.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Raising social security would only be a tiny fix of the issue. Free healthcare and removing the corn subsidize and tax unhealthy products would.

Its rarely the rich people who are fat and diabetic.

 

[Exterous]

Throughout the western world the USA is the worst for life expectancy and child survival. Partly its your different medical care but in a large part stress literally kills. There are a whole host of issues with high social stress caused by inequality and the amount the USA imposes on its less wealthy is worth a decade or so of life.

Its an interesting problem because for the most part the American dream of social mobility isn't true (its the least socially mobile country in the western world) but also the one that believes in it most. The current social structure of money has historically been very bad for the american people, with 10x the violence, much higher mental health problems and the lowest life expectancy. But I have no doubt that many people will defend that way of life, despite statistically it being the worst social structure found in the wealthy countries.

Depending on what you consider to be western we are also the most decentralized population wise and the most heterogeneous. Both are very well known causes for a decrease in life expectancy. The US cannot achieve the same medical statistics of small, homogeneous European countries without massively higher financial outlay than is already being paid.

Also I am not completely sure what you are referring to as the 'social structure of money' but many enjoy a country where some 70-80% of millionaires are people who are 1st generation rich

This is not to say that there are not issues with our health system

 

[Jhhnn]

Depending on what you consider to be western we are also the most decentralized population wise and the most heterogeneous.

Source?

Both are very well known causes for a decrease in life expectancy. The US cannot achieve the same medical statistics of small, homogeneous European countries without massively higher financial outlay than is already being paid.

Take the whole of western europe, where total outlays in any terms you'd care to name are smaller & results better.

Also I am not completely sure what you are referring to as the 'social structure of money' but many enjoy a country where some 70-80% of millionaires are people who are 1st generation rich

This is not to say that there are not issues with our health system

You really didn't address the social mobility aspect at all, did you? It's not like Horatio Alger fairy tales are common in real life, certainly not in the US. Our social mobility is worse than socialist hellholes like France & Denmark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Exterous]

Source?

Well, any density map will get you started in the right direction - removing all but 4 contenders so I'll just let you google that on your own. Of the four that remain (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada) you will notice that their population when divided by land mass is higher but when divided by city is much lower. IE Canada has 75% of their population along the US boarder - removing much of the landmas sin calculation - 62% in just two provinces!

http://www41.statcan.gc.ca/2007/3867/ceb3867_000-eng.htm

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/canada-facts/

As for diversity it appears I was slightly off as Belgium and Canada to rank slightly higher than the US according to
http://telematica.politicas.unam.mx/biblioteca/archivos/040107017.pdf but all the other 'western' countries were ranked below the US

Take the whole of western europe, where total outlays in any terms you'd care to name are smaller & results better.

Ok. And...? I never said our system was perfect - in fact quite the opposite. (You did catch that part right?It was at the end of my post) I was merely pointing out that due to various characteristics (mainly population location and makeup) that the attainment of the same statistics that small European countries will likely require significantly more money (If you bothered to look at those population maps you will see that Europe is more densely populated than the US so using the 'whole of western europe' does not mitigate the circumstances I noted)

You really didn't address the social mobility aspect at all, did you? It's not like Horatio Alger fairy tales are common in real life, certainly not in the US. Our social mobility is worse than socialist hellholes like France & Denmark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

First - that does nothing to refute that the majority of millionaires in the US are first time millionaires. Second - I was not aware that I was required to respond to everything in his post. Third - this study is for actual attainment not availability or ease. Fourth - that study is for relative mobility which dis-proportionally hinges on education in the US*. As such - those with access to better education have a higher mobility. Since those in the lowest income brackets have horrid education scores in the US this weights the ranking against the US in comparison to other countries. However, the problems of the US educational system is not being discussed here. If you go by a absolute mobility study by the same institute that did the study your article was based on you will find that 81% achieved a higher mobility than their parents



*http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-chart/2011/11/17/gIQA4IFpUN_blog.html

 

[ShintaiDK]

socialist hellholes

Is the brainwashing from the mccarthyism times still active?

Just write socialist countries instead.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is the brainwashing from the mccarthyism times still active?

Just write socialist countries instead.

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic. He thinks we're just like your nation and that virtually everything is the fault of everyone but government. In reality we are alike in some ways and very much different in others. That's not surprising really since we are about as diverse a people as can be, and unless you've been here and traveled widely you'd find our country to be large almost beyond comprehension. Were not just different than europe, but as much among ourselves as a common language allows.

 

[kache]

The problem with raising the retirement age is that living longer does not equate to being productive longer. Some folks have the energy and good health to work well beyond the traditional retirement age. Others just live longer. The dead wood problem is bad enough now. Imagine the dead wood hanging around for another five-ten years. We'd all be like Prince Charles waiting for mum to kick off.

This. ^