Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation
WASHINGTON - New government research has found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.
Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and this, in turn, has caused a widening gap.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.
The gaps have been increasing despite efforts by the federal government to reduce them. One of the top goals of “Healthy People 2010,” an official statement of national health objectives issued in 2000, is to “eliminate health disparities among different segments of the population,” including higher- and lower-income groups and people of different racial and ethnic background.
Dr. Singh said last week that federal officials had found “widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy” at birth and at every age level.
He and another researcher, Mohammad Siahpush, a professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, developed an index to measure social and economic conditions in every county, using census data on education, income, poverty, housing and other factors. Counties were then classified into 10 groups of equal population size.
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.
After 20 years, the lowest socioeconomic group lagged further behind the most affluent, Dr. Singh said, noting that “life expectancy was higher for the most affluent in 1980 than for the most deprived group in 2000.”
“If you look at the extremes in 2000,” Dr. Singh said, “men in the most deprived counties had 10 years’ shorter life expectancy than women in the most affluent counties (71.5 years versus 81.3 years).” The difference between poor black men and affluent white women was more than 14 years (66.9 years vs. 81.1 years).
The Democratic candidates for president, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, have championed legislation to reduce such disparities, as have some Republicans, like Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said: “We have heard a lot about growing income inequality. There has been much less attention paid to growing inequality in life expectancy, which is really quite dramatic.”
Life expectancy is the average number of years of life remaining for people who have attained a given age.
While researchers do not agree on an explanation for the widening gap, they have suggested many reasons, including these:
¶Doctors can detect and treat many forms of cancer and heart disease because of advances in medical science and technology. People who are affluent and better educated are more likely to take advantage of these discoveries.
¶Smoking has declined more rapidly among people with greater education and income.
¶Lower-income people are more likely to live in unsafe neighborhoods, to engage in risky or unhealthy behavior and to eat unhealthy food.
¶Lower-income people are less likely to have health insurance, so they are less likely to receive checkups, screenings, diagnostic tests, prescription drugs and other types of care.
Even among people who have insurance, many studies have documented racial disparities.
In a recent report, the Department of Veterans Affairs found that black patients “tend to receive less aggressive medical care than whites” at its hospitals and clinics, in part because doctors provide them with less information and see them as “less appropriate candidates” for some types of surgery.
Some health economists contend that the disparities between rich and poor inevitably widen as doctors make gains in treating the major causes of death.
Nancy Krieger, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, rejected that idea. Professor Krieger investigated changes in the rate of premature mortality (dying before the age of 65) and infant death from 1960 to 2002. She found that inequities shrank from 1966 to 1980, but then widened.
“The recent trend of growing disparities in health status is not inevitable,” she said. “From 1966 to 1980, socioeconomic disparities declined in tandem with a decline in mortality rates.”
The creation of Medicaid and Medicare, community health centers, the “war on poverty” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 all probably contributed to the earlier narrowing of health disparities, Professor Krieger said.
Robert E. Moffit, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said one reason for the growing disparities might be “a very significant gap in health literacy” - what people know about diet, exercise and healthy lifestyles. Middle-class and upper-income people have greater access to the huge amounts of health information on the Internet, Mr. Moffit said.
Thomas P. Miller, a health economist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed.
“People with more education tend to have a longer time horizon,” Mr. Miller said. “They are more likely to look at the long-term consequences of their health behavior. They are more assertive in seeking out treatments and more likely to adhere to treatment advice from physicians.”
A recent study by Ellen R. Meara, a health economist at Harvard Medical School, found that in the 1980s and 1990s, “virtually all gains in life expectancy occurred among highly educated groups.”
Trends in smoking explain a large part of the widening gap, she said in an article this month in the journal Health Affairs.
Under federal law, officials must publish an annual report tracking health disparities. In the fifth annual report, issued this month, the Bush administration said, “Over all, disparities in quality and access for minority groups and poor populations have not been reduced” since the first report, in 2003.
The rate of new AIDS cases is still 10 times as high among blacks as among whites, it said, and the proportion of black children hospitalized for asthma is almost four times the rate for white children.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last month that heart attack survivors with higher levels of education and income were much more likely to receive cardiac rehabilitation care, which lowers the risk of future heart problems. Likewise, it said, the odds of receiving tests for colon cancer increase with a person’s education and income.
© 2008 The New York Times
The average infant mortality of Cuba is slightly lower, or significantly lower, depending on the source, than that of the US. But the infant mortality rate of Cuba is that of poor people. The US poor people mortality rate is higher than the average. Take a mortality rate of 7.2 per 1000 live births (US). The poor have a mortality rate twice that of the rich. Their mortality rate is above 10. Cuba is 6.8. So Cuban poor (all people) have about one half the IMR of the US poor. The poor of the US have Third world status health, the people of Cuba (poor) have US status health, and compares with industrialized nations without being one. That is unique. The US is a thirld world country with a large rich population.
The biggest reason for the disparity is lack of health insurance. But also, not even mentioned in this article, low-wage US workers often work debilitatingly long hours and get no sick leave - aside from simply getting fired - even if they do have rudimentary insurance.
The dissembling, “it’s their own fault” rationales given by apologists-for-oligharchy Moffit and Miller sound exactly like something right out of the court of Lois XVI on the eve of the fall of the Bastille. May the poor to whom they express their callous contempt someday visit on them the same fate.
I hope all Canadians get an opportunity to read this article an stop bellyaching about their health system, and boost it’s funding.
The US is showing the world how even a nations with enormous resources and wealth can end up with a third-world living standard for man of it’s citizens, it’s easy, just give the capitalists everything they want.
One needs to factor in, not only access to medical care, but also life habits. A correlation does not necissarily imply cause. I am sure that obesity and smoking are also higher for the poor. Is this caused by lack of money or does a lifestyle that cannot avoid immediate gratifiaction reduce income. I come from a household that had a poor income. I had an older brother that died pennyless at 28 from alcohol and drugs, a younger brother who is a high income businessman, and the youngest - my sister, is obese and on welfare, and very sick from the extra 150 lbs she needs to lose. I am middle-class. We all started out economically poor, but I am sure that my younger brother and I will live quite a bit longer than my poor brother and sister. This is a striking correlation that has little to do with access to medical care. I am not saying this is the whole story, and I strongly support access to reasonable healthcare for everyone. However, I do not want to be denied excellent healthcare after I have worked my whole life to save in case I need it, so that I can support others that squander their money and health. People deserve better if they put in some effort themselves.
“However, I do not want to be denied excellent healthcare after I have worked my whole life to save in case I need it, so that I can support others that squander their money and health. People deserve better if they put in some effort themselves.”
Wow, another false choice posited by compassionless selfish self aggrandizing republican grinch. Notice how his personal success is from his efforts only with no credit given to the community of people around him; therefore no compassion for others is forthcoming from him. Notice how nice and tidy greed can be packaged with a little self justifying rationalization. Notice the implication that Progressives are lazy and need to put in more effort themselves. Ignore him, it’s just another Sunday sermon from a trickster devil.
What a surprise! People are forced to work two or three slave wage jobs just to exist and their health fails. Wow, what an academic insight!
Doom n Gloom - My choice for our next presendent is Obama. However, there is a reason that we have such good medicine and doctors in the world. It is because some are willing to spend a lot on healthcare. I am selfish. Do you have a house or a car? If so, why don’t you give it to someone more needy? Capitalism recognizes that people will work harder if they know that they can get better for their family. We have seen the success of pure socalist governments. The increadibly greedy simply find ways to corrupt the system, and the rest get lazy, because there is no reward for hard work. The eastern european countries are stuggling with this right now. I am for universal healthcare, but it must be affordable. To make it affordable it will not be the best money can buy. I am not for a system that prevents health providers from competing in a free market. This type of system will only lower the healthcare for everyone. Capitalism works because the vast majority of people are greedy to some extent. They work to improve things for their family first, and then for everyone else. Systems that ignore this are destined to fail.
Miller and some others here are blaming the victim. Capitalism only works for those who have a lot of capital. We need to get the profit motive out of health care. We need a Single Payer System that is not controlled by Wall Street. Do you really want some Wall Street bean counter making your medical decisions? I am voting for Ralph Nader because his health care plan will prevent the deaths of 18,000 every year.
Lois XVI
Hi Lizard : Is that an intended pun , Lois of let them cake or an unintended , typographical mis-spelling ; either way itès good and I like your poke-in-the-eye American-Cuban IMR , ironical data . We know why.
The fact that Mr. Obvious - the apologist for brutish, dog-eat-dog capitalism - supports Obama certainly supports what I’ve been trying to argue regarding Obama.
But Mr. Obvious is reversing cause and effect, greed is in no way, an innate human trait. Greed arises in a system that is deliberately rigged to reward it. And capitalism most definitely does NOT reward “hard work” the people who work hardest in US society are it’s poorest. it’s richest don’t work for their money at all, but rather leech off the sweat of the worker through userous “investments”. Mr. Obvious, please do some traveling and offer your views to someone in France or Sweden, or even say, India. We really need them to realize what mosnsters US ideology breeds.
Correction: “Louis XVI” I wrote that not lizard.
Moffit and Miller, of the conservative Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute respectively, are apparently unaware that educational levels are also a function of income. Their explanations exhibit a rather astonishing failure to recognize correlations between variables. Educational levels and poverty are not orthogonal vectors. Too bad. Try again. You can come up with something more persuasive than this.
r jackowski -
You wrote “Capitalism only works for those who have a lot of capital.”
Bull - My wife and I started with nothing and put ourselves through school. We saved every penny to buy our farm. Why? Because working and saving in a capitalistic society can get you ahead. I am tired of seeing satelite dishes and large screen TVs in the houses of those in forclosure, and hearing how they are victims. They are victims of gluttany. We live well but do not have the fancy things that I see in “poor” households. We save to help our children through school. The secret is simple - delay gratification.
P.S. The bogus comparisons used in the original article are obvious to anyone with a brain. The big gaps in lifespan between women and men are irrelavent to income and are used to deceive the reader by purposefully confounding them with the main topic (income). Take profit out of medicine and you can also take success out of healthcare. And no, I do not work for or gain any profit from any healthcare provider etc.
The BILLIONS of dollars in PROFIT in the healthcare industry are by no means, resulting in “success”. Why, I repeat WHY, should anyone make BILLIONS of dollars off of people getting ill/hurt? Because we can?? We are a pathetic bunch of animals if this is our reasoning. Pathetic.
It ’s the system that looked at my friends cancer and looked at his MediCal insurance and said lets wait and see if it grows in 6 months. In 7 months he was dead. USA veteran. RIP. I miss you.
WhatToDo - Don’t buy their medicines and they will go out of business. We have miracle drugs because the brightest researchers work at these companies looking for the next breakthrough. If you don’t like their products, then don’t buy them! Companies are in business to make money. If non-profit organizations made better medications, then these companies would no longer exist. I suggest that you start such a non-profit organization instead of trying to destroy the organizations that have been responsible for finding our current medications. After food and shelter, what else is worth more than your health? Do you want to be prevented from spending a lot of your money on a drug that might save your spouses life? Do want these drugs to exist?
We have seen the success of pure socalist governments.
What you really meant to say was we have seen the failure of pure socialist systems like eastern-european countries and I agree .
Now as Horace Greeley once said , Go west , young man . In our case go west in Europe to Italy , France , Belgium , Holland , Finland , Sweden , Norway , Germany , Austria … and find that every one of these countries function not under (in your words ) a pure socialist government but a socialist-capitalist hybrid.
As an example , French citizens laugh sympathetically at your ideology with their responce to your aversion to tax-supported , single-payer health care , Sure we are drowning in taxes but that is OK because ALL of us have equal access to health care and ALL of us are literate both linguisticly and mathematically.
Donèt think for a moment that the capitalist side of the comedy-tragedy mask in Finland for example is any less robust than in USA . Check out average-citizen wages , per-capita GNP , per-capita military expenditure , IMRs , you know , all those things that make the pursuit of life,liberty,happiness… much easier and then tell us that the rise of pure capitalism in USA is any less a failure than your despised pure socialism
Put on your glasses and learn to discriminate between the baby and the bath-water before throwing them both out
Bad analogy , I know , but you know what I mean
In a society that demands hyper- personal responsibility and champions institutional abdication of responsibility and abuse of power, let me put things in proper perspeective.
Poorer people often have poorer food - the economic stimulus package didn’t include food stamp or unemployment benefit recipients. Food stamps do not provide sufficient resources for optimum nutrition. Also, poorer people have, as a group, poorer education, higher stress, less capacity to weather sudden economic burdens and live in more environmentallly hazardous areas, including more polluted. Did I also mention, more likely to be caught up in the criminal “justice” system?
Our medical procurement industry wastes so much money to deny health care compared to other countries. And we get a worse product.
Why is it that the concept of efficiency is never brought into play when societal, not market economic goals are discussed?
Health research in the US is warped by major industries and the politicians they fund. Just a few days ago there was a press release stating the FDA used 2 discredited industry “studies” when there were 1000 peer-reviewed studies that contradicted the industry ones.
The government spends our taxes on an extraordinarily corrupt, inefficient “health care” system, buying drugs, equipment and paying medical bills. To claim that the health care of this country should remain controlled by the private sector ignores the health data comparing the US to other modern countries in life span, quality of health and health disparity. Note I said controlled, not owned.
And from a more enlighted “selfish” point of view, if we have a healthier society, we’d have a more productive society. One with less occurences of chronic and life threatening health conditions. One with less kids and adults with asthma, one with less instances of auto-immune and man-made diseases such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. And one whose resources make our society better.
All that would need to happen to those who support the status quo to change their tune would be for themselves or someone in their family to have a serious illness. Half of all bankrupcies in the country can be traced to it. Talk to any bankruptcy attorney who gives a damn about people. I do.
How many people who have been injured by the current system would have not been harmed or would have been able to recover one’s health with a “healthy ” health care system? As one who has gone through the mill of Workers Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, welfare, SSI/SSDI and other systems, I know I would have been able to be healthier today. I know I’d be more productive both economically and personally.
For every person who is needlessly made sicker and less productive, our country is the poorer. Literally and figuratively.
Why don’t you look at real socialist countries - like Scandinavia - before making blanket comparisons? Eastern Europe was NEVER socialist - the predators at the top lived quite well. Just like in the US today.
The patent laws give incentives to drug companies to make slight changes in formulas in order to make more profit. There have been few ‘break-throughs’ in medicine in recent years that do much for the average citizen - except empty their wallets. Predatory capitalism (fascism) has never worked and never will - man is a social animal, and functions best when incentives encourage community solidarity and support.
I support tax-payer funded kitchens, shelters and healthcare. They should be available to everyone without exception (no spending most of the money on determining who is eligible). They should not be fancy, but they should provide healthy food, safe accommodations and clean, good healthcare; but if we want to continue to see the current rate of development of new beneficial drugs, then I believe that a free market will be needed. If you do not think that personal success and support for your family is an inate human behavior, then you need to do a little research. Even our primate cousins show these traits. Take away incentive and you can kiss productivity goodby. Since when has a government program been more efficient than a competitive private enterprise?
amybrat - If you do not think that the patented medications are better, then don’t buy them! When your kid gets sick, tell your doctor to only use medications that are off patent.
One can’t help wondering why alternative health care, with none of the multitude of dangerous possible side effects that allopathic “blesses” you with, is not even mentioned. Dear Readers, you may be interested in checking the great nonprofit website, Orthomolecular.org; see what you think, after looking at the degrees their staff members hold and checking out some of their articles.
As for this money game, a frank dear doctor friend once told me that in choosing a profession, one must choose either to “make a lot of money” or to dedicate one’s life to service—the latter making enough to live sufficiently well.
Financial insecurity is extremely stressful, especially if it is ongoing. Stress makes you vulnerable to illness. The working poor do not have nice vacations or nannies, cannot afford the convenience of eating out at a good restaurant, to help them cope, so maybe they cope by smoking or drinking. Maybe TV is the only entertainment they can afford.
Even within the same family there are large discrepancies in well-being, ability, etc. This is why people need to care about each other. BTW, out our way, wealthy kids are dying from taking drugs. This is not even unusual! Also, the girls are more likely to experience deprivation if they have children and end up having to raise them alone.
I love the way people with money like to tout their lifestyle as a virtue. (For that matter, poor people have a smaller impact on the environment.) My friends get massages! to deal with the stress of spending all that money!
It costs more to shop at, say, Whole Foods. You can eat well on less money IF you have the time to shop and prepare all of your meals. Who has the time?
I have the feeling that the powers-that-be would like us working stiffs to keep producing until we just die relatively young and therefore never collect social security or use Medicare.
Our society is very unhealthy. Even the wealthy do not escape. But, they do have more resources for coping.
Jeevee - Natural remedies are powerful and the source of many mainsteam medications. But do not assert that they do not have side effects. Nature produces some of the most potent medications and poisons. Healthcare providers are just now realizing this and considering the herbal medications when looking at drug interactions. One such interaction almost killed my father in-law after his heart surgery to correct a congenital heart defect. Natural medications generally contain mixtures of compounds that differ from batch to batch and which are frought with side effects.
Doom and Doom and Obvious. It is true that obvious is being very American. It is true that it is a wrong attitude. But obvious is a basically good guy who has been brought up in a culture that thinks this way. I am sure he will understand eventually.
Mr.Obvious: You are wrong about capitalism. It has nothing to do with people making more money if they work harder, that would be the philosophy of early, pre-russian communism. Capitalism means that the means of production are privately owned. Wether hard work gives you a better living depends on the attitude of the owners and competition for workers, wether the owners are private, or the government. Both systems are corruptible and both can deliever a better life if there is no exploitation or corruption. Take a look at Cuba’s government, it has an interesting attitude.
lizard - I have lived poor America. I have sympathy for the young and those caught up in domestic violence, but I also know the other side. As “areader” said above, stress can be a big factor and can create a cycle of failure. Temptation is ever present in our society, and if you can not resist, you will overspend and succumb to addiction. Its not easy, but it is not a trap unless you are weak. My biggest concern is with the young and education. Voucher systems and charter schools may help the strong from becoming victims of their communities by seperating those who have a chance from those who will only serve to disrupt them.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
“Since when has a government program been more efficient than a competitive private enterprise?”
Medicare, for starters.
A much greater percentage of Medicare revenues go directly to beneficiaries than the gross revenues of a private insurance company do. So, Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance.
Indeed, one of the challenges of single-payer is that it is so much cheaper to run that it will hurt the local economies of communities where big insurance companies are located. The per capita health care expenditures of nationalized health care countries are less than half of US health care expenditures - and their poeple are healthier by every measure.
Because there is no profit involved, governments can do many things cheaper and while paying it’s employees better.
Here in Pittsburgh, the publicly owned city water works delivers cheaper and much better quality water than the privatized systems in surrounding communities. When Pittsburgh owned it’s own Asphalt plant, and did it’s street repaving in-house, it cost less than private contractors. Indeed, the city plant produced asphalt so efficiently that it depressed Asphalt prices in the whole region. The superior performance and low cost of publicly owned electric utilities in Cleveland and Los Angeles is well known.
And at any rate. What do you mean by “efficient”? The purpose of a private business sis to maximize profit, which starts with maximizing revenues, and you maximize revenues by conjuring up, through hundreds-billion dollar advertising and PR industry, new markets for ever increasing amounts of good that no one really needs - while NOT producing simple, frugal, resource efficient goods people really need. These goods use more natural resources and the whole path to profit for a private resource producer - Coal , Oil, metals - is to encourage waste on teh part of it’s consumers.
If free markets are so efficient, why, under these “markets” has fossil fuel usage in the US, since 1980 increased by far greater amounts than accountable by it’s population growth. Wouldn’t “efficiency” produce decreases in fossil fuel usage? Why can’t I even find, at any price, a car with the fuel economy that cheap cars in 1980 got?
The neoliberal “free markets are more efficient” myth has has a good 25 year run. It’s time to throw it in the trash can.
“…Bull - My wife and I started with nothing and put ourselves through school. We saved every penny to buy our farm. Why? Because working and saving in a capitalistic society can get you ahead….”, so says Mr. Obvious. I could not disagree more with a statement like that. You can sing the praises of Capitalism all you want but that does not change the facts. Sure, some in the US work hard and get ahead. Usually there is some luck and timing on their side. Maybe you went to school at a time that higher ed was being subsidized. I know plenty of damn intelligent, hard working people who never got ahead financially.
You are talking to the wrong person when you come in with stereotyping, mean-spirited comments about the causes of poverty. I started working when I was 10. Usually worked more than 80 hours per week. Do not have a big screen TV. Have not had a vacation for many years and just spent my 71st birthday cleaning mud out of a flooded basement.
There are many reasons for poverty. The leading cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. In my case there is an additional issue. Read about it by googling my name and “The Deposition”.
USAn - Based on your assessment everything should be done by and belong to the goverment. Then we can live just as well as the former USSR or China.
Mr. Obvious has to pinch pennies and work very hard to be able to afford school for his children and medical insurance and bills. In other places that are not as rich as the country of Mr.Obvious he would have free education and health care, AND a farm. Obviously Mr.Obvious would be better off in Canada, for example. But he likes it his way, because that way he doesn’t have to participate in social projects of benefit to all. This is typically American, entrench yourself on your piece of land and defend yourself from the world . This is a provincial and antisocial approach that explains why the US is wealthy and poor at the same time. That is why everyone is armed, in case they have to fight off the world.It is pathetic, really.
Here’s a link to help educate Mr. Obvious. One example out of many about how the “government” can destroy the finances of ordinary people.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski01252006/
r jackowski - Sounds like you did not get where you thought you should be. But it looks like you are older than the lifespan of most Americans just a short time ago and you have a house. Did you build it yourself like people used to do? What effort did you make to get training that would make you valuable to anyone? What did you learn to do that a high-school graduate could not do better? Maybe you should be glad that you do not live in Mexico where unskilled labor lives in a cardboard box. Sounds like you are a professional victim.
Mr Obvious…
The big Pharma companies’ constant rant ”we need the patents and all that profit to further research”.. is the biggest lie out there.
it is FACT.. big Pharma spends way way more every day on flogging the crap they make than on any ”research”…
here take this pill it will give you relief from you aches.. oh by the way your liver will blow up and you may get a stroke and oh ..don’t worry.. they have ”pills” to fix that when it happens
So go on believing the crap THEY tell you .. save away for the dayyou will need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the ”treatments” that would have been unnecessary had you had basic affordable health care in the first place
The corporate school system pretty much feeds you to the corporate machine!
Very few people question this and go for all the glitter; some succeed and most are working poor.
The working poor includes MOST people!
johnycanuck - In a free country, we can sell what we produce if it is deemed safe by government regulators. If you don’t think thier products are worth it, then don’t buy them. This is your choice. The pharma companies are betting that when you get sick, you attitude will change. If not, they will go out of business. Its not really that difficult of a concept. Your position is that they should not have the freedom to set the price for what they sell. Should I be able to tell you that I want your product or service cheaper, so you must give it to me for that price?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the disparity in life expectancies: If you are well off and have gold plated health insurance and can afford the best care money can buy, why, your chances of a longer life expectancy are fairly good. But if you are uninsured or, like more and more of us nowadays, underinsured, and can’t afford as good medical care as others, then your chances of living a longer life are considerably lessened.
The problem now is that along with the uninsured, there are many more of us whose co-pays and deductibles make it harder and harder to seek out medical care, and thus, we fall into that category known as “underinsured”. I cannot afford supplementary insurance - goodness knows, I’ve surfed on line looking for it - but none of it is anything I can ever hope to afford.
My current employer provided health insurance won’t pay for diagnostic testing, so I forgo most of what I need. I can’t afford X-Rays, MRI’s or any other diagnostic procedure, so I forgo those as well. Blood work, anything else used as a diagnostic tool comes out of my own pocket. So what ends up happening at work is that most of us wait until we’re so sick that we have to see a doctor and by then, more expensive procedures are needed. It all seems so counterproductive not to pay for diagnostic testing when that can catch problems early enough to be easily and less expensively treatable.
We used to have what I considered “gold plated” health insurance, but we had to dump it because of its high premiums, in favor of a cheaper package that puts the onus of paying for most medical care on the back of the patient, leaving me to wonder, why is it that I pay 20% of the cost of my premiums out of my paycheck when it hardly covers anything anymore? And even that 20% gets higher and higher every year, but no other insurance carriers will take us because of our demographic: Our average age is 45+ and we have over 50% of our employees who are considered morbidly obese. No one’s gonna touch us with that kind of statistic.
We do have a wellness program, but it seems that the only employees partaking of it are those who are already fitness conscious and don’t have a weight problem to begin with, so the ones who really need it aren’t taking advantage of it. I still see the same heavyweights on the elevator and in the staff room daily, chowing down fattening snacks and sucking down cans of pop.
If you ask me, those who are doing what they can to keep their weight at healthy levels and have good numbers where cholesterol, blood sugar and BP are concerned should pay lower premiums and have more comprehensive health care coverage than those who don’t seem to be taking care of themselves. Why should I have to pay for people who are slowly killing themselves by staying overweight, eating badly and having high cholesterol, BP and blood sugar numbers? Wouldn’t lower premiums and better health insurance be an incentive to do something about it? Maybe this is what we need to be doing to curb our national obesity epidemic - use a carrot and stick approach to entice people into losing weight and getting their numbers under control.
I don’t know what else can be done aside from comprehensive, universal cradle-to-grave health care, but that’s never going to happen, so we need to try something else to lower health care costs, and Job 1 is to curb our national obesity epidemic, and we need to start NOW. That will put a real dent in health care costs, believe me, and may eventually lead to that much coveted universal health care we all dream of having someday.
In a perfect world, there would be a balance of capitolism and socialism, because everyone is different, and while there are those of us with the right genes, or whatever it is that makes us this way, we can and do take care of ourselves regardless of how little we might start out with; and there are those aren’t lucky enough to have whatever it takes, and no matter how they try, just can’t seem to manage.
I don’t advocate hand-outs, but rather hands-up. Like education or job-training while getting living aid for a designated amount of time; health care for everyone equally, and so on.
Do you really believe the actual researchers need all that profit to do research.. they get a wage and would be researching anyway ..cause that’s what they do.. they don’t see a cent above there wages so what a crock that it would suddenly dry up (research) if no profit was made
Yes, the cost of marketing comprises a huge chunk of the price we pay. And, as for research, a great deal of the serious research is done by the government and in universities. The major part of drug company research goes into creating copycat drugs, essentially the same as a drug already on the market, but with some very minor distinction that makes it patentable for them.
Imagine a shaman having another shaman put in chains for stealing his intellectual property.
But, now we’re talking pre-greedism!
SallyUUKent - Ditto on rewarding those that keep their weight at reasonable levels. Some insurance companies actually do penalize obese customers as well as smokers. This seems reasonable to me. Why should I pay for gluttany? I also believe that sometimes a stick motivates folks to do what is best for them. Paying for taking risks makes sense to me.
rumiluv - So buy the old drug if its just as good. If you think the new drugs are just trendy copycats of older, cheaper drugs, then buy the old ones. What makes you buy the new ones? If they are no better, then the companies will go broke for such a stupid activity. Maybe, they stay in business, because the new version is better? Of course this cannot be; how could pharma companies actually be producing better and better drugs. Why do we care what these useless drugs cost? Duh - you want the best for less.
Mr. Obvious are you a real person or are you just hanging out here today as a provocateur?
I rarely see such mean-spirited and prejudicial comments on the sites I visit.
For one thing, as Barbara Erenright says, there is no such thing as unskilled work.
Another thing, why do you assume that those who are struggling economically have no education and are stupid. Some of the most intelligent people have been self-educated. And some of those struggling with capitalism DO have college educations.
It is people who hold your global view who are responsible for the deaths of the 18,000 who die every year in the US because of the lack of health care. That is like having a 9/11 every 60 days. Are you more dangerous than a terrorist?
Most of it is Snake Oil in my opinion.
Health is a state of mind found in keeping your body active.
The Corporate Life can make you sick!
r jackowski - Being unskilled or without motivation is not a crime. Just do not expect handouts and rewards. This is not a moral judgement on your decisions. I just don’t want to pay for you to live as well as those that seek training and work hard. You are mean to yourself if living the lifestyle of those that are trained and ambitious is important to you.
Mr Obvious demands recognition for working and saving his money, and refuses to share it with those who failed to do the same. Doom n Gloom gives him the “third degree” for failing to give some credit to the community around him.
Doom n Gloom should offer more detailed explanation of the community’s role because, at least in the US, this information is highly suppressed. It’s likely that Mr Obvious relies on privilege to some degree so the system he buys into is likely to be unfair. Also, a group of Mr Obvious’ peers, lacking information, will tend to give undue credit to economic individualism such that a culture of greed may develop and further suppress the truth.
People’s dependence on a corrupt establishment feeds the corruption so we should support individualism to suppress that kind of corruption, but individualism that fails to recognize the positive contribution of the community is also a drag.
In the end it seem that the optimum personal/public policy scrutinizes everything in terms of goodness or value. Is an entity, a concept, or method promoting greatest value (most benefits and least liabilities) to all people and the biosphere? This approach is likely to result in ideological heterogeneity, e.g. combinations of socialist/capitalism, liberty with the constraint of responsibility, etc.
NMBill says, “The corporate school system pretty much feeds you to the corporate machine!…” I’ll second that.
Who do you think works harder and longer the day labor building a bridge or the corporate CEO funding it?
“Mr. Obvious” is frozen spittle in Dante’s 9th circle of treacherous fraud, thus absolute zero for empathy or recognition of humanity in other people, as proven in the Banal comments directed to r. jackowski, comments which define its attitude towards anybody, those neighbors God commands us (some would say) to love. No use in speaking or responding to “Mr. Obvious”, at least in this forum; it just keeps belching back.
Capitalism is a scourge which mainly advantages the wealthy and turns the rest of us into captive producers and consumers.
In America we have a combination of capitalism and right-wing politics working together for their mutual benefit. The result is rampant imperialism which will destroy our world and us!
How come people are so blind?
www.dangerouscreation.com
As I said above, I support Obama and social programs. However, I do not give the recipients a “free lunch”. If you want prosperity and freedom, you need to fight for it. This is how it has always been, and always will.
It sounds like many posters think other countries are “better”. Why not go there? Or don’t they want you? I’ll write you a recommendation.
Mr. obvious(ly never left the USA): I would rather live just about ANYWHERE in the world than the US. In fact, I did live in France (under the socialist Mitterand) for several years and I cannot even describe for you the difference it makes knowing that you (and your family, and your friends) will all have their basic needs met no matter what happens. But is not that easy to immigrate to other countries - especially if you are not independently wealthy. Just like here, they don’t want foreigners competing with locals for limited jobs. I am trying very hard to figure out how to do it.
And US TAXPAYERS pay for virtually all medically significant drug research (okay, not Viagra or the 57th slightly modified version of an allergy medicine so they can keep the patent from expiring thus preventing any generic brands coming on to market)through the National Institutes of Health. They then allow drug companies to market it and profit off it for virtually nothing in return. Given that they did not pay for the research, their big “investment” is in marketing it to us (which, by the way, is tax deductible). So, why should we have to pay to have drugs we foot the bill to develop be advertised to us? I have heard so many horror stories of friends and their families who were (through no fault of their own) suffering from chronic illnesses and finally found a drug that would help them, but it cost more than $2,000 a treatment which was completely beyond their means. This is the only developed country where people die from the greed of others.
“It sounds like many posters think other countries are “better”. Why not go there? Or don’t they want you? I’ll write you a recommendation.”
Mr. Obvious,
Chill. This “love it or leave it” approach has been shown to be a failure, as we are now witnessing.
If you’ve read the posts here, you can see clearly that our health care insurance system is breaking apart. It is simply not sustainable and is becoming out of reach for more Americans on a daily basis. From what you’ve written, it appears as if you are not rich. Then why would you defend a system that will sooner or later (probably sooner) leave you and your family without insurance along with many others? It appears, as I’ve seen before, that many Americans routinely support systems that do not support them. This seems to be pretty uniquely American. It’s as if we Americans really don’t like ourselves.
The fact is that the Canadian health insurance system provides medical coverage for all people. It is adequate, and often, very good coverage. And, Canadians have a higher life expectancy than US Americans. Clearly, their system is not perfect, but it works for all people. Our system, OTOH, is great, when you can afford it. That more and more of us cannot afford it should send us a message. Why can we not read that message?
Please don’t go the “all or nothing” route - “Yer either with us, or yer agin us!” It just doesn’t work and the civilized world knows that. There are as many hybrid health-care systems as there are nations. Some are more free market and some are more government administered, but most contain some of each, including the US. It’s time for US Americans to start growing a set and trying something new. We are not the only ones with answers and we need to start listening and learning from others.
Oh, one more thing: I need to take a medication to sustain my life. That medication is off-patent. I’m alive. Not a thing wrong with the vast majority of generic medicines.
funeocons - Where do you get this stuff. The NIH does not give drug patents away. Almost all drugs are discovered in the Pharma companies labs. Patents are held in the names of the inventors, so check their affiliation. The research budgets of pharma companies are public record. Look it up. If you really believe this stuff, no wonder you are confused. Seems like those charitable countries you worship end their charity at the borders. Seems pretty analogous to wanting one’s family to have the best care that one can afford - Just drawing a different line. These countries would probably be glad to have you if you had something to offer except a drain on their society.
iammyself - If you review my posts, I am in favor of reasonable national healthcare (Obama supporter). However, I am not in favor of restricting a free market pharma industry. I am sure you are aware of the number of people that come to the US when they need top care. This includes Canadians. I don’t want to see government regulation that curtails medical research.
Five and Dimed to Death!
I wonder what the life ‘expendancy’ is for people who must bear America’s exported jobs.
Both Atlas and Cheney/Bush would shrug off this cost.
“Mr. Obvious are you a real person or are you just hanging out here today as a provocateur?”
Cha-ching.
If we’re going to banter endlessly about the value of working hard, of not getting hand-outs, then let us step back and get some perspective. For many years now, a number of very influential groups, defence contractors being at the head of the line, have bilked this country out of trillions of dollars. Corporations spend a fraction of their profits to delay, interfere, counteract, and subvert legislation intended to level the playing field for everyone.
If, for example, we just stopped this idiotic war, created, as Thomas Paine would say, for the purpose of raising taxes (or in this case, increasing debt to cripple domestic programs) there would be so much money available for justifiable investments, like health and education, that we would be living in a very different country. We would see positive changes rippling through every sector of our communities and our country.
I have observed that this myth of the “person who started with nothing and achieved their life’s dream” to be exactly that. A myth. It is a fairy tale. Life in the US just doesn’t work out that way.
I think mr obvious is obviously reaching very far indeed for any justification for his selfishness. He is not alone. Many people in this country go around telling people they are to blame for their own misfortunes.
To all those who have been at the pointy end of the stick, who have struggled without reward, you have my empathy, and my respect. I struggle as well with my own problems, many not of my own making, so I know how it feels. But I have faith in the goodness of people, not brainwashed zombies, but real people, to come together and work towards their common dreams. That is why I am here to begin with…
culicomorpha - Dreaming doesn’t make things so. Its only the start. Roll up your sleeves and stop waiting for a hand out. You clearly have money for a computer and a connection. You must have it pretty good if you can afford this luxury.
Mr. Obvious,
You are immune to logic because it makes you feel so good to believe you have what others don’t because you deserve it. I am convinced you would be safer from financial ruin due to illness if we had a single-payer national health plan.
I am equally convinced you would be happier if you wanted good things for others as well as yourself—and if you stopped judging who is and who is not worthy according to your own perfectionistic standards.
I get the distinct impression you take pleasure in your own sister’s pain.
In your “fight for freedom and prosperity” how many other people were stepped on?
ok Mr.Obvious: Let us see if you are open minded. First, the discoveries made by pharmaceutical companies are based on fundamentale research done by universities at the expense of tax payers so you can tone that down. Second, if they are free to charge whatever they want, then the consumers are also free to purchase under certain conditions. If all purchasers unite (universal drug insurance) the companies will find it in their interest to lower their prices in order to have a guaranteed income. That is why drugs are cheaper in Canada. You, sir, have to pay more not because you live in a free country, but a free for all, dog eat dog country where the government colludes with the companies to screw you for a cut of the wealth. It isn’t capitalism, or freedom, Canada is capitalist and freer than the US but pays less because it is organized. The people have a government that doesn’t think like you or your government do, because the people are more reasonable than yours. The loser is you. Clear? Or not yet?
Mr Obvious, I have no need of a hand out, nor with people like you being so prevalent, would I expect one. I am quite aware of how brutal this country has become. It’s every person for themselves, right?
But I am not so quick to judge other people who are less fortunate than I. I have walked in other shoes than I walk in now, and I have learned first-hand how I have been lied to all my life about the “American way of life.”
But as for dreams, I disagree. Dreams are everything. They are the foundation of our actions. If you cannot dream it, you cannot make it so. Everything begins with the dream.
And BTW, I have rolled up my sleeves, and am acting to make this world a better place. I suggest you do the same, and stop trying to assuage your conscience by blaming the less fortunate for dying earlier than their time. Try to step outside of your zone of comfort and walk for a while in someone else’s shoes and try to understand. It won’t kill you, you know.
P.S. I notice you didn’t address the main point of my post - that trillions are spent for war while folks like you spend inordinate efforts to blame those less fortunate. It’s rather pathetic to sidestep structural inequality while bashing the victims of that inequality.
You’re all right. Capitalism is like a game of musical chairs, with permanent thrones for the well born. The chairs are easier to get for the ruthless, the hard working and the educated.
However, I know many unemployed college graduates. I know hard working people who make mininum wage. I see the US treasury and US natural resources being looted by the capitalists, while we on the bottom fight among ourselves.
When all that makes humans survive are turned into commodities, and there isn’t enough money for all to buy them, then some will die.
It is true that those who die first may have human failings and shortcomings that make them unsympathetic to those with capitalist values. Or they may be totally obnoxious. I have noted that the homeless can be really nasty people. Why? When homes are too expensive for everyone to have one, then those who can’t afford them must find other accommodations. Those with social skills move in with family or friends. Those with no social skills, or those with bad habits, (like alcoholics and drug addicts) don’t last long in other people’s households.
But there was a time in America when even the most obnoxious people could afford housing. We had rooming houses and SROs and cheap rent in many places.
In other words, the system produces failures. And many blame the failures.
lizard - Its very clear, you live in Canada and like it. I live in the US and like it.
culicomorpha - I lived your “fairy tale” as did many of my co-workers. Actually several of my co-workers were far worse off than me since they came from other countries, but they are still living the American dream. They got training and worked hard.
As I said, I support an affordable national health plan, and yes without this stinking war, we would have money better spent. That is why I favor Obama. If the government is going to over-spend, they my as well spend it on something that will do good.
You are entitled to you opinion, and I will have mine. If you expected more from yourselves and others, you may be surprised what we could do. Keep looking for someone to blaim, and nothing will improve.
And, getting back to health. America is zoned for obesity. The last 50 years, tax money was spent on building roads and sprawl, while public transportation was ripped out or left starved for funds.
50,000 people a year die in car crashes. From birth to age 44, the number one cause of death is car crashes. After that, it’s heart disease. What keeps your heart healthy? Exercise and proper food. So we have drive through stands selling deep fried stuff.
No one lets their kids out to play because they might get run over. Kids can’t walk to school or the park anymore. Then the scolds pronounce them obese from lack of willpower and announce that they should indulge in meaningless exercise to lose weight. That’s ridiculous. Set up our zoning and living situations to where you walk to get someplace, instead of driving to a gym and walking on a treadmill. How stupid is that?
People in New York have fewer cars and better health that people in the suburbs.
Mr.Obvious: maybe you like it because of patriotism or because you don’t know better. Have you ever lived anywhere else?
culicomorpha - As I said above “dreams are a start”, but are not enough. I did not critisize dreaming. I just said that dreams must be followed by action and hard work.
greenerthanthou - If you look above, I also advocated government funded housing - rooming houses. Simple clean accommodations. However, those that trash the place should have even this need taken away. If someone cannot co-exist with other people in a civil manner (and they are not mentally ill), then perhaps they need to fend for themselves.
greenerthanthou - We live on a farm and excersize is not a problem. Our kids are fit. Physical fitness is part of the education they get at home. Everything worthwhile takes effort. If you expect thing to be easy, you get in trouble. If we teach people to just expect good things to happen, no wonder we get what we have. Life is not easy, and if it was, it would not be nearly as enjoyable. If you expect to have to work for things, you enjoy the challenge of every day and look forward to the challenge of tomorrow. It a mind-set.
I think Mr.Obvious deserves to be debated. If he cannot be debated then how can we hope to change his mind, and if we don’t change people’s minds, how can we make things better? At a certain level he makes very good sense. At a deeper level his thinking falls apart, but he isn’t at that level yet. How can he reach that level without being confronted and debated? For example, how does it feel to know that no matter how rich you are, poor people, the losers, so to speak, are taken care of with free medical care? Doesn’t that improve your quality of life? How does it feel to have a population of intelligent, well educated people all around you? Wouldn’t that be nice? How about not being surrounded by people angry at the incredible disparity of incomes within a corrupt system? Would that not be good. how about living in a country where not so many people are criminals and/or in prison? How about living amongs liberated women? Isn’t that a plus?
lizard, I think mr obvious is caught in a mythopoetic narrative that makes for a nice comforting story, but which has a number of glaring deficiencies that he is unfortunately, unwilling to accept. Like I said, he is not alone in this country. Blaming the victims has become the national pastime. We blame gays, we blame the obese, we blame atheists, we blame smokers, we blame everyone for whatever happens to them. It is a very effective method to shift blame from the powerful to the powerless so that we never get around to addressing the structural problems, the root causes of real problems. Like inequality, like racism, like prejudice of all sorts. It has been going on all my lifetime, but has become especially virulent under Bush.
I don’t think rational debate or discussion is going to make any difference. For many people, they are wedded to their beliefs, and considering that they may be wrong is simply not an option. My perception is that things will continue along this path until the pain is all but impossible to ignore, even for people living on remote farms. It is not very far away now.
Lizard - Please do not make me out to be a racist, sexist or homophobe. I just think that along with national healthcare, there needs to be incentive to contribute to society. I do not equate race, sex and sexual preference with obesity or smoking. The latter two are choices that will certainly cause health problems. I have a problem with not penalizing bad habits, and am uncomfortable subsidizing them. If someone is unwilling to stop hurting themselves, maybe the thought of more expensive healthcare will motivate them.
mr obvious, you have a funny way of defining people hurting themselves. I observe that very many farmers use massive amounts of pesticides on their crops. Their kids and they themselves often get cancer, poison the food supply, and poison the rivers where these chemicals run-off. By your logic, we should be “punishing” farmers who engage in these activities because they clearly introduce harm. To claim that pesticides have a benefit is the same as a smoker claiming that smoking has a benefit. Both are true, but both fail to see the costs of engaging in their particular vice. I don’t mind you pointing out one form of harm, what I object to is the selective choice of defining “bad habits.”
culicomorpha - Please do not equate use of agricultural pesticides with smoking or obesity. Pesticides can be used with negligable risk. When used according to the label and with proper safety equipment, they cause no appreciable risk to humans or the environment. This is the responsibilty of the EPA to confirm before registering them. In addition these products improve yields and quality of agricultural products by reducing contaminents like carcinogenic mycotoxins and up-regulated metabolites. I am not sure what beneficial claims you want to make for smoking and obesity. When a habit causes sickness at epidemic proportions, I call that a bad habit.
Pesticides, most of them anyway, cannot be used with “negligible” risk, despite your claim to the contrary. They *may* increase yields, although the jury is still out on that. The evidence supporting significant risk is substantial, but there are always people who benefit from the use of these poisons to support their use. Probably yourself, if I had to guess.
Further, evidence has been mounting that pesticides may in fact be causing the obesity problem directly, as they alter the cellular metabolism. A new term has been coined: “obesogens” to reflect that metabolism is chemically altered.
So I think your definitions of “bad habit” are open to serious questioning, particularly since at least smokers harm mainly themselves, whereas pesticide users harm the farmer, the applicator, the people who consume the food, the fish and other animals downstream, and the environment itself. We survived the so-called “carcinogenic mycotoxins for tens of thousands of years before pesticides, so I think this claim is similar to the “terrorist threat”… another scare tactic to get people to accept policies and actions which are decidedly not in their best interest.
For example:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p1071-1078gunier/gunier-full.html
Several studies have suggested an association between childhood cancer and pesticide exposure. California leads the nation in agricultural pesticide use. A mandatory reporting system for all agricultural pesticide use in the state provides information on the active ingredient, amount used, and location. We calculated pesticide use density to quantify agricultural pesticide use in California block groups for a childhood cancer study. Pesticides with similar toxicologic properties (probable carcinogens, possible carcinogens, genotoxic compounds, and developmental or reproductive toxicants) were grouped together for this analysis. To prioritize pesticides, we weighted pesticide use by the carcinogenic and exposure potential of each compound. The top-ranking individual pesticides were propargite, methyl bromide, and trifluralin. We used a geographic information system to calculate pesticide use density in pounds per square mile of total land area for all United States census-block groups in the state. Most block groups (77%) averaged less than 1 pound per square mile of use for 1991-1994 for pesticides classified as probable human carcinogens. However, at the high end of use density (> 90th percentile) , there were 493 block groups with more than 569 pounds per square mile. Approximately 170,000 children under 15 years of age were living in these block groups in 1990. The distribution of agricultural pesticide use and number of potentially exposed children suggests that pesticide use density would be of value for a study of childhood cancer.
“Please do not equate use of agricultural pesticides with smoking or obesity. Pesticides can be used with negligable risk. When used according to the label and with proper safety equipment, they cause no appreciable risk to humans or the environment. This is the responsibilty of the EPA to confirm before registering them.”
Take a look at this segment of NOW, in which they cover phthalates and how the EPA allows them while Europe does not. Near the 9 minute mark of the segment, there is a piece about the fact that the US EPA hasn’t banned a single chemical for use in this country in 17 years! http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/412/index.html
So, Mr. Obvious, I see where you’re coming from now. I’m sorry, but the statement that I quoted above pegs you in one of two squares: 1. As a shill for the drug and chemical industry, or 2. As someone who is dangerously gullible.
In either case, I think the best thing for me to do is to ignore you.
And this:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/147/6/s50.pdf
Over the last two decades, the incidence of obesity and asso-
ciated metabolic syndrome diseases has risen dramatically,
becoming a global health crisis. Increased caloric intake and
decreased physical activity are believed to represent the root
causes of this dramatic rise. However, recent findings high-
light the possible involvement of environmental obesogens,
xenobiotic chemicals that can disrupt the normal develop-
mental and homeostatic controls over adipogenesis and en-
ergy balance. Environmental estrogens, i.e. chemicals with
estrogenic potential, have been reported to perturb adipo-
genic mechanisms using in vitro model systems, but other
classes of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are now coming
under scrutiny as well.
culicomorpha - I am a scientist so I base my opinions on facts. Hunches and accusations don’t count. So when I say that smoking and obesity cause disease, it is not controversial for scientists. When you point to hunches and accusations for pesticides, and question their contribution to yield, you are denying the evidence. Your so called survival for 10,000 years with mycotoxins was for a far lower survival rates and age of death. The negative effects of mycotoxins is well documented. Your “possible-connection” studies are just that - possible - just like alien visits. Pesticides are very unpopular in the press, but the science you suggest is lacking. If you have such evidence, I suggest that you present it to the EPA for immediate consideration, since carcinogens cannot be used as agricultural pesticides. By the may progargite has been banned for decades and methylbromide for quite some time but neither for carcenogenisity. Also you must understand the diference between correlation and cause. Smoking and poorness are correlated. Does poorness cause smoking or does smoking cause poorness? Your smoke and mirrors may work on some but not with me. And sure, obesity is caused by some insidious chemical not overeating on fatty foods and lack of excercise… Fat people cannot possibly be responsible for themselves. There must be someone else to blame. Lots of scrutiny but no evidence.
Wake up everyone! Mr. Obvious is just that, obvious. Stop wasting your time and passion on a troll! He’d definitely one of the best I’ve ever read but an instigator none the less. People of his ilk are not susceptible to logic, reason or plain facts. His only wish is to disrupt. Ignore him!
You may be a scientist (although you implied you were a farmer), but you would prefer to use uncertainty, and a lack of evidence as evidence of a lack of an effect? You cannot demonstrate that such and such a chemical does not have an effect, so instead you rely on the EPA? The EPA itself does very little research, relying instead upon manufacturer’s data, which is provided voluntarily.
The EPA is a captive agency, staffed mostly by industry executives at the highest levels. They grandfathered-in 62,000 chemicals in 1977, when TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act was instituted, and never required testing demonstrating safety for any of those chemicals.
Then, in 1996, Congress mandated the EPA to begin testing chemicals for their endocrine disrupting properties, or ability to modify the reproductive and signaling systems of humans and other animals. They were to complete this testing in 2000. Now, it is 2008. The EPA just this year released a list of chemicals they proposed to test. There were 68 pesticides and 4 phthalates on the list. There are about 100,000 chemicals in commerce today. 3000 of these are produced in excess of 1 million pounds per year. None of them have adequate health data, and none of them, as I have pointed out, have been evaluated for their ability to cause endocrine disruption. This is a huge gap. An immense chasm of uncertainty. There are many people who are trying to get the EPA to move, but it will take a massive public push, which I am trying to help create.
Perhaps not ironically, Rachel Carson herself was attacked vociferously by people who claimed to be “scientists.” They made all sorts of outrageous claims about what they knew and what they understood, but most people are beginning to understand now that there are two classes of scientists: those who represent the establishment and the status-quo, and those who are genuinely concerned about health and welfare. Your comments fall into the former category.
If you want to educate yourself, you should do so, but making the claim that if the EPA says it’s safe, therefore it’s safe, is not helping to make your argument.
The life expectancy of the rich is bound to decrease if they drive the rest of us to something like a French Revolution.
This is a ridiculous discussion. Our country has for many years now been a compromise of capitaliosm and socialism and was working reasonably well taking care of most people`s needs for jobs, medical care, and education until the present administation screwed everything up.
It is not the fault of poor, rich, working, educated,or any other group of people that we have the disaster we are facing. Mr Obvious is correct in stating that many people have contributed to their poverty by refusing to realize that a small amount of money saved or invested in stock or real estate can grow exponentially in 10-20-30-40 years. Hard work doeas not mean just back breaking labor, but self education on how to get ahead in this system.
It is pitiful to watch many young people throwing their future away because they cannot deny themselves things that are not necessities and could help them take care of themselves later in life. Their parents and grandparents got along well on a fraction of what our society now deems necessary. I have seen many younger people that aeem to need a $30,000 SUV, a boat, every possible extravagance for home and yard, etc. that they cannot possibly afford.
Our social problems cannot be blamed on any one thing but are the fault of all of us. It is vitally important, however to put some tax burden back on the richest members of our country, who have enjoyed a free ride for seven years and have taken far more than they deserve from the wealth of the country. Without that, we will fail as a decent society.
“Mr Obvious is correct in stating that many people have contributed to their poverty by refusing to realize that a small amount of money saved or invested in stock or real estate can grow exponentially in 10-20-30-40 years.”
Or it can be lost overnight.
Bear Sterns certainly wasn’t a very good investment. More are coming.
The rich, especially the top 1%, have had a large advantage for far longer than 7 years. It is not Bush, it is the elites who control the nation’s wealth. Income inequality has been diverging between the wealthy and the poor for over thirty years. It is just that under Bush it is getting obvious because they already picked all the low-hanging fruit. i.e. they already stole all the easy money, and now they’re going after people who might put up a fight, like retirees, and pensioners.
I agree that social problems cannot be blamed on any one thing, but for matters related to health, economic inequality explains a lot: “Economic figures show that in 2005, the wealthiest 0.1 percent of the country’s population had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the lower economic half of the country.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_w
That is, 300,000 people make almost as much as 150,000,000 people. That’s a recipe for disaster no matter which way you slice it. Speaking of it as a social problem is a euphemism. It is really class warfare.
I don’t know where you live Kernel, but I don’t know any kids with a boat, or a SUV, or anything remotely close to what you describe. Most of them can barely afford a place to live, much less health care.
Today is another day that I didn’t buy anything, including Mr. Obvious.
culicomorpha - I am both a scientis and a small farmer (actually my wife is the main farmer right now, and I help out. You alledge that the pesticide companies provide data on a voluntarily basis. You are either mistaken or purposefully lying. There are a plethora of tests required by the EPA and no pesticide can be registered without them. These include extensive toxicological and ecological testing. Can you really be this clueless or are you purposefully deceiving? Rachel Carson is widely respected as writing a work of fiction that motivated a closer look at the ecological effects of pesticides, but no one seriously considers Silent Spring to be a work of science. It was beneficial because it improved awareness, not for its factual information. We eat tens of thousands of chemicals every day. Most are “natural” compounds and many have known toxicological properties. Check out the endocrine properties of soybean or grapefruit if you want to scare yourself. These compounds are present at toxicologically relavent concentrations.
I think Bush stinks, and I am hopeful that Obama will spearhead reasonable social programs, not bail-outs.
Mr. Obvious has a right to his opinion. And reminds me of my dad who is a die-hard, right-wing Rush fan. Ironically, my dad is ill and taking dozens of meds, and is beginning to complain about the cost of it all. When he does I say to him: “Aren’t you always telling me me that profit is not a dirty word?” And he kinda looks at me dumbfounded. That’s the way it is everywhere. People keep pissing in the pool, then complain about the taste of the water.
Many of us, I believe, are beginning to consider emigrating, but know it would be enormously difficult, especially if we have families and/or limited means. Nevertheless, if the US continues to keep the same kind of madmen (and women) in charge, and the economy continues to tank, more and more of us will be doing just that–while we still can.
However, I doubt anyone relishes the prospect of exiting their country under adverse conditions. Even for the rich, what good is it to live in a country where you have to fence yourself off from the other people, and have bodyguards escort you everywhere you go?
chessgames56,
I’m sorry to hear that your dad is ill and hope he recovers his good health.
Your father’s situation is all too familiar in that those who once decried spreading the wealth a little then go on ask for a break when hard times befall them. It’s all too typical of current American culture. Most Americans weren’t like this just a couple of generations ago. Oh, we still had our right wing reactionaries telling the rest of us to get off our asses and work hard (while they supported practices that helped keep many down), but by and large, most Americans realized that the better we all do, the better we all are. Not strictly socialism, but a little of it. It used to be known as lending a hand and building community.
Thanks to non-stop propaganda (ever listen to AM talk radio for a whole day?), many Americans believe that we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to help ourselves and piss on those who can’t or even won’t. In a civilized nation, everyone deserves a modicum of health and safety. In a civilized nation.
Your question about the rich living in gated communities with bodyguards is a valid one. Such is the disease that too much wealth creates. The thing they don’t seem to want to see is that if the disparity gets too great (as it is), and if they continue down this path of fleecing the masses for more personal aggrandizement, no gates or bodyguards will be able to protect them. Throughout history, many palaces have been ransacked and burned and many guards defeated when the masses want their pound of flesh. I don’t look forward to ever seeing that, but neither do I want to continue down the road to social ruin.
chessgames56 - My father always says “keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out”. I prefer to give my charity to poor children in third-word countries that do not have the tremendious opportunities offered in the US. We need to improve our policies, but we still have it pretty good if we work hard, both physically and mentally.
I believe that many of the societal ills stem from forced charity through the government that undermines local community support and families. Individuals no longer look to family and community for primary “insurance” for misfortune, and thus are far less likely to help out other community members when they have tragedy. People feel that they already gave to the taxman. This is a slippery slope.
So true, Iam, though in my father’s case is one of those right-wing reactionaries, and makes no apologies about. And, yes, it is ironic indeed.
Mr. Obvious, forced-charity is an oxymoron, and really no charity at all. And no doubt you believe that ’socialism’ is a curse, though probably support military spending. Better to build bombs than use taxpayers money to help taxpayers, right? This is no doubt part of riverman’s “High Logics” as well.
I do not have any problem with those who have a heart of stone, only the pretense that they are compassionate and giving.
And I’m not for abdicating self-responsibility either, only that we even the playing field, and am for a sane, fair, and compassionate society, not the rapacious capitalistic one we have now, which is seemingly based upon a very destructive kind of social Darwinism.
Also, see that there is kind of vanity behind the “I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, and so can you!” attitude–though a perch that one can easily be knocked off of.
Well, I was born and raised in a 3rd world country, but as part of the wealthy elite.
And all of that has not prevented me from understanding that inequality is wrong, that consumerism is a disease, that health care is a basic human right, and that a democratic socialist system is way better than unregulated predatory capitalism.
chessgames56 - I hope that our next presendent is Obama and we both get what we want. If you’ve read my posts, you know that I agree with national healthcare, but I would like to see it come with some accountability. Physical fitness and not smoking don’t cost money - they take self responsibility. It seems fair to expect those who cannot manage on their own to lose some freedom if they want to benefit from the public good. Motivation for regaining their independence may drive some to think a little more long term. The wealthy elite often sleep better at night when they throw a bone to the poor, but the poor need a hand-up not a hand-out.
Greed is the only reason I go to work every day - to make money to provide for myself and my future. If I had no incentive to go to work, I wouldn’t. Can anyone seriously argue the same is not true for 99% of people on this planet?
If you remove incentives in the health care system, quality would go down or slow down in improvements. I’m for some kind of universal healthcare, but hopefully one that includes incentives for doctors and researchers to give good care and continue to increase the effectiveness of care medical over time, as the charts currently show.
I think that greed is a loaded word. Ambition to succeed sounds so much nicer. We pick our words to make our points. GoGreen88 makes a valid point. How many people would keep showing up for work without compensation? Is it wrong to work hard for your family to have a better life? This does not mean that you want others to have a worse life, only that you want to improve the condition for your family. Incentive is what motivates us. It is a human emotion. When we feel that our families and friends are doing well we expand our circle. The better we do, the better we want others to do. This is not tough to understand or controversial among behavioral scientists. We will excel when we are offered rewards. When we are rewarded we share these rewards. What is needed is opportunity.
There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon: it is called the Republican Party.
mirf59 - I reconize the rhetoric. How about something useful. I am not a republican but please recognize that Clinton is no better than Bush… We need a change!
Mr. Obvious, I’m glad that you support government housing for the poor. But those incapable of living with others need special help. At the risk of you calling me a bleeding heart liberal, I believe that there are too many piss poor parents raising children in this country, and those kids never have a chance to be decent hardworking people. Therefore, society needs to help them out when they are out of their parent’s house.
There are a lot of teenagers who think that having a baby will get them out of their parent’s house. There are women who should never reproduce who won’t have an abortion, who think that simply producing a baby is their sole responsibility to it. (After years of “pro-life” propaganda, that’s what we get. People slap their toddlers around and pass them off on whoever will take them for a weekend, a week, or even a month. And you think that these kids can build lasting relationships with others?
As for greed, that is one of the seven sins, now forgotten. We have also forgotten that the point of work is to make useful things, not to collect a paycheck. We are so far removed from useful work that we think corporations give us jobs, not that we provide labor for them.
Yes, people make bad choices. Mortgaging your house to go on vacation is appalling to me, but my bank encourages it. If some fall for it, are they really the only ones to blame? When you have a president who responds to tragedy by saying, “Go to the mall” are you surprised that people are materialistic? I know that you’re not a Bush supporter, I’m simply pointing out that people are products of their society, and that billions are spent to make us buy things we don’t need.
As for obesity, I’m thin and so is my partner, and we have 2 thin children and one obese one. I don’t know why, but I know it’s not diet or exercise, because she was fed the same and exercised the same as everyone else. I’m not the only thin person with an obese child that I know. There has to be another reason. I don’t allow junk food in my house and she was breastfed. No formula or baby food. So I do wonder if something in the environment caused this.
greenerthanthou - People have different levels of metabolism (genetics) but physics laws are not violated. If you burn the same number of calories (heat units) as you consume, then you gain no weight. Work (the physics meaning) consumes calories. A certain amount of work consumes the same number of calories no matter who or what you are (this is a physics law). Certain people are more efficeint than others, they waste less energy on on maintainance. Anyone, even your obese child can maintain a normal weight if they eat the same number of calories that they burn. This is just genetic variabilty. Under conditions of famine, this child would be better adapted than most. Under conditions of plenty, a strict diet and excercise are needed. You sound smart, so help your child by instilling discipline now and save your child a life of misery. At some point we are who we are, regardless of our experience. Some rise above our circumstances and some fail in spite of great up-bringing and advantage. Teach your children well. Blaiming some misterious culprit will make you a victim. Don’t fall into the trap. There are always special circumstances. It takes grit to overcome these circumstances and succeed. Believe it or not, I am compationate and understand the reasons for failure. However, telling victims that it is OK to fail does them a dis-service. When we expect great things, people rise to the challenge.
It seems that ‘Mr Obvious’ is being singled out for attack here. I don’t know if he deserves it; he’s simply trying to point out the value of hard work.
I don’t disagree with him. But I’m very very tired - maybe too tired to disagree. I work 2 full-time jobs, as a single mom, to support my family and to pay off my enormous student loans (I couldn’t find a job in my field when I got out of school). I sleep about 3 hours a night during the week (blissfully, I do have weekends!) and it is starting to take it’s toll on my health. I am having trouble with my right eye and have other mysterious symptoms that now require further testing (I’m going to the hospital tomorrow). To add to the distasteful mix, the insurance companies don’t want to pay for treatments on conditions such as my eye (even though my employers and I pay large sums every month to keep the policy); they send back letters stamped “experimental” and deny me. In spite of all the hard work I do, I don’t feel that I will ever get ahead. My 401K that I’ve been trying to use to sock away money (since few jobs now offer pensions) keeps plummeting in value, interest rates on the credit that kept me alive as a student have ballooned to 30% (apparently they raised the limit here in Wisconsin a while back - why?). I wish I could charge 30% interest on the money I lend to the bank through my savings and checking accounts. But I don’t have the kind of capital-clout it takes to do that. And the way things are going - barely keeping my head above water with all the rates on everything increasing - credit, gasoline, food prices, health insurance costs, home heating - the prospect keeps getting dimmer that I’ll even be able to open my own business (I’d like to start an art school), let alone become a vast financial institution that extract whatever it wants from people!
The rewards from my hard work? I’m hoping to see them in the next life.
Collinsa - What did you study in school? Also a little advice - Take the money out of your 401K, pay the fines, and pay off the credit card bill. Then destroy the credit card. My wife and I each carry credit cards (after many years, we finally sucummed to the convienience), but have never, never borrowed money on one - we don’t use it unlesswe can pay it off every month. This is a trap, and if you do not have the will-power to fight the urge to borrow money on the card, then destroy it. It is impossible for most to dig out while in debt. If you cannot afford it now, then you are gambling on being able to afford it later. Gambling is for cash you can afford to lose. I admire your work ethic, but you need to combine it with fiscal responsibility. I am sure that I will receive a hailstorm of hate mail for this response, but I am offering it as help. Single parents have it especially tough and we often make stupid mistakes on our choice of mates when we are young. I do know that I was lucky to have found my wife as a stupid kid. It is much easier when you work as a team. It also helps to put off having children. We waited ten years to be sure we could take care of them as we wanted to.
Well, sometimes things just don’t happen according to the “best laid plans”. It would have been nice to pick the perfect mate (not the one who eventually neglected and abused me and then ripped me off for $20,000). It would have been nice not to have to been laid off and divorced, and have to switch careers. It would have been nice if the school system hadn’t cut it’s budget for teachers at the time I graduated with a teaching certificate. It would have been nice, I suppose, never to have had my kids (by the way,I waited until I was thirty to have my kids).
My debt doesn’t come from the present, it comes from the past. I deal with that. I practice fiscal responsibility. I pay down as much as I can every month on my debt. I don’t sell off the 401K (although I have considered it) because I have been repeatedly counseled not to by financial experts - and yes, I have to consider retirement, so I don’t become a burden on my children. I buy next to nothing for myself personally. Our vacations barely exist. My kids don’t get new clothes until they really need them. I bought the cheapest car I could find when my old one finally gave out.
I feel that, although you say you want to help (and don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate what you’re saying), you don’t really understand what people are struggling with these days. Particularly people who have to make it on their own. I think that’s why you are facing such strident opposition on this blog. You act ‘holier than thou’. You mentioned, at one point, “luck” and I think you ought to reflect a bit more on that. Life is often as much luck and connections as it is hard work. Some of the hardest working people I know are struggling as much, if not more, than I am. Some of the most intelligent people I know are struggling if not much or more. And college-educated people….
When I was young, I moralized too, thought I knew what everyone should do with their lives, thought I knew how people should parent, etc., etc.
I don’t do that anymore.
collinsa - Teacher saleries are quite low, and it may have been unwise to borrow for this type of training unless you are skilled in math or science. Your major difficulty seems to stem from paying off your ex-husband’s debt and you college loans. My younger brother had a similar situation when his second wife ran up a credit card before the devorce ($25,000) and he got stuck with the bill. He also had a business parner run off with $250,000 leaving his business in deep dept. Fortunately his high-school education and can-do attitude allowed him to dig out of debt, raise both his children from his first marrage and his children’s half brother from his first’s wife’s second marrage - that is no blood relation to him (he was a prety bad judge of character - sounds like a soap opera). I will say that his third wife is big reason for his success. She has her head on straight and they have been married for ten years now. She also had to pay off a $20,000 dept left to her from her alcholic first husband, which she did bef