Occasionally a story is written that defines the times. Such a story appeared in the New York Times today:
One of the researchers, Gopal K. Singh, a demographer at the Department of Health and Human Services, said "the growing inequalities in life expectancy" mirrored trends in infant mortality and in death from heart disease and certain cancers...
Dr. Singh said last week that federal officials had found "widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy" at birth and at every age level. ..
In 1980-82, Dr. Singh said, people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years), and it continues to grow, he said
What are the reasons for the widening gap?
Better detection methods for cancer and heart disease are more readily available to the affluent
Smoking is less common among the affluent
The poor are likely to live in dangerous areas, engage in "risky behavior" and eat unhealthy diets
Lower income people are less likely to have health insurance
I thought this was a pretty amazing story. I am uncomfortable with how the Times described some of the factors causing this inequality. For example, the link between diet and poverty is pretty well understood. Nevertheless, a more damning indictment of our health system I could not imagine.
The right always argues that socialized medicine will lead us to "ration health care." Of course, what they don't tell you, and what this article makes clear, is that markets are rationing health care just fine on their own. No, I have never thought that conservatives mind health care rationing so long as they get their health care.
To my surprise a review of the liberal blogs found nothing on the article. Maybe I am wrong and this isn't such a big story. But maybe, just maybe, we are so busy beating ourselves bloody over Obama versus Hillary that we are beginning to forget why we fight to begin with.
