SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
life expectancy
New Report Shows Working-Class Americans Live 7 Years Fewer Than Rich
"The massive income and wealth inequality that exists in America today is not just an economic issue, it is literally a matter of life and death," said Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Mar 07, 2025
People living in the top 1% of U.S. counties ranked by median household income live on average seven years longer than their counterparts in the bottom 50% of counties, according to a Friday report from Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent representing Vermont and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
"The massive income and wealth inequality that exists in America today is not just an economic issue, it is literally a matter of life and death," said Sanders in a Friday statement announcing the report.
What's more, the stress of living paycheck to paycheck "also leads to higher levels of anxiety, depression, cardiovascular disease and poor health," Sanders argued, in a nod to some of the survey responses included in the analysis.
The analysis echoes findings by other researchers that higher income is associated with greater longevity. According to a Congressional Research Service report from 2021, life expectancy has generally increased over time in the United States—with the exception of during Covid-19 pandemic—but "researchers have long documented that it is lower for individuals with lower socioeconomic status compared with individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Recent studies provide evidence that this gap has widened in recent decades."
The findings in Sanders' report relied on county-level data in the United States between 2015 and 2019, the five years prior to the pandemic. For that time period, Sanders' staff matched each U.S. county with both median household income data from the U.S. Census Bureau and average life expectancy data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, according to the report.
The life expectancy gap was greater when comparing higher-earning urban and suburban communities with lower-earning rural communities. "Urban and suburban counties with a median household income of $100,000 have an average life expectancy of 81.6 years, while small rural counties with a median household income of $30,000 have an average life expectancy of 71.7 years—a 10-year gap," according to the report.
A boost in earnings also translated into a boost in life expectancy. For example, "among rural counties, a $10,000 increase in median annual household income is associated with an additional 2.6 years of life expectancy," according to the report.
The analysis also includes qualitative data collected by Sanders, who asked working people via social media survey how stress impacts their lives. The outreach generated over 1,000 responses from people around the country.
According to the report, Caitlin from Colorado said: "Stress isn't just an inconvenience for me—it's a direct threat to my heart. Living with a congenital heart defect and multiple mechanical valves means that every surge of anxiety, every sleepless night worrying about bills, isn't just mentally exhausting—it physically wears on my heart."
"Living paycheck to paycheck while supporting a family stresses me out. We are always just one financial emergency from being homeless," said Patrick from Missouri.
One person also reported having to go without preventative healthcare because they are between jobs and can't afford the care without insurance.
The report offers a number of policy solutions to address the key findings of the analysis, including raising the minimum wage to at least $17 an hour, guaranteeing paid family and medical leave, and passing Medicare for All, which would enact a single-payer health insurance program.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Brutal Murder of Insurance CEO Sparks Wave of Dark Humor, Including Fictionalized Denial of Coverage Letter
"You don't have to sanction murder to see why so many Americans detest health insurance corporations who prioritize profit goals by routinely creating arbitrary reasons to deny patient needs," said one labor movement voice.
Dec 06, 2024
The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside of a Manhattan hotel Wednesday has sparked a wave of dark humor and fresh fury at the for-profit U.S. healthcare system.
The barbs at UnitedHealthcare—the country's largest private insurer—included a mock denial of coverage letter posted to the subreddit r/nursing in a thread on Thompson's murder.
"We regret to inform you that your request for coverage has been denied," the letter reads. "Our records indicate that you failed to obtain prior authorization before seeking care for the gunshot wound to your chest." The Daily Beast reported a spoof rejection letter was also posted to a since closed thread on r/medicine.
Police are in their third day searching for Thompson's killer, who shot the healthcare executive multiple times in front of a Hilton hotel in Midtown before fleeing the scene. The New York Police Department has released an image that shows a man authorities deem "a person of interest wanted for questioning" in connection to the Wednesday killing, per CNN. The image was captured at a hostel in Manhattan, according to CNN, citing law enforcement.
The words "deny," "defend," and "depose" were found written on the ammunition used by the gunman, three words that partially echo the title of the book Delay, Deny, Defend, which details how the insurance industry avoids paying claims.
In addition to dark humor, reactions to Thompson's assassination have brought to the fore the public's downright rage at the health insurance industry.
In the comment section of Common Dreams' coverage of the murder, one commenter wrote: "I guess if you steal people's labor and deny them healthcare in order to line your own pockets, you might occasionally expect retaliation." Another wrote: "For-profit healthcare is unethical and immoral."
"Thoughts and deductibles to the family," read one comment below a video of the shooting posted by CNN, according to The New York Times. "Unfortunately my condolences are out-of-network."
One woman whose mother with Stage 4 breast cancer was forced to battle insurance to get new treatments approved told New York magazine that she experienced "a little surge of Schadenfreude," when she heard of Thompson's death.
"UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson was just 50 years old at the time of his murder, which is a lot more tragic when you know that his life expectancy as a member of the Top 1% was 88, or 15 years longer than the life expectancy of the average American male," wrote journalist and editor Moe Tkacik on X. Later, in a piece for The American Prospect, Tkacik framed the situation like this: "Only about 50 million customers of America's reigning medical monopoly might have a motive to exact revenge upon the UnitedHealthcare CEO."
Others said that the reaction to the murder was an indication that the Democratic Party ought to embrace economic populism and end its close association with corporate power.
"The mass reaction to the healthcare CEO's murder is a reminder that there is a constant deadly class war being waged against working-class Americans. If Dems ditched their billionaires and fully joined the side of the working class in that struggle they would easily win FDR-style majorities," said the political commentator Krystal Ball.
Charles Idelson, former communications strategist for National Nurses United, said that "you don't have to sanction murder to see why so many Americans detest health insurance corporations who prioritize profit goals by routinely creating arbitrary reasons to deny patient needs."
"It's not unique to UnitedHealth," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What a Study of Oligarchs' Second Acts Heralds for Trump 2.0
They’re usually worse off during their subsequent terms in office. So are the rest of us.
Nov 13, 2024
On November 5, Donald Trump was elected as the 47th U.S. president. Trump is an oligarch—an economic or political actor who secures and reproduces power and wealth, then transforms one into the other. And now he is in the small minority of oligarchs across history who have had second acts—having lost power or wealth, they find a way back. What can we learn from those experiences that might inform our understanding of Trump’s second term?
To answer that question, we looked at the track records of three other business oligarchs like Trump who have served as heads of state or government since World War II. Business oligarchs begin their journey by accumulating wealth, then move to power.
In our book The Oligarch’s Grip: Fusing Wealth and Power, we wrote about Chilean president Sebastian Piñera. He served two non-consecutive terms in office (2010-14 and 2018-22). His second act was decidedly worse than his first. During his first term in office, per capita income in constant dollars grew by 14%, while life expectancy expanded by 0.9 years. Sure, there were controversies, such as the appointment of Pinochet-era figures as cabinet ministers and protests over the end of the school voucher system. But, in general, Chileans felt better off.
While we are hesitant to make any grand predictions for the Trump second term based on these cases, it does seem questionable that it will be any better than the first.
By contrast, Piñera’s second term was disastrous. Per capita income rose by only 2% and life expectancy contracted by 0.8 years. The Covid-19 pandemic played a role in these outcomes, but it wasn’t the only driver. Piñera’s poor handling of a second, larger set of student protests has also led to his relatively low ranking among modern Chilean heads of state. He died in a helicopter accident in 2024.
Trump has been compared to Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s three-time prime minister (1994-95, 2001-06, and 2008-11). We will focus on his second and third terms, which are longer. Per capita income expanded by 3.5% in that second term, and life expectancy grew by a remarkable 1.4 years. Ambitious goals aimed at constitutional and tax reform were thwarted, but, still, Italians felt better off, even if they narrowly backed a center-left coalition that removed Berlusconi from office.
His third term was dominated by the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the Great Recession of 2008-09, and the 2009-10 eurozone crisis. Italy’s economy was one of the most highly indebted in Europe, and higher interest rates led to a 6.8% GDP decline during 2008-09. Per capita income declined by 3.6% during this term, while life expectancy increased by 0.6 years. Having been ranked by Forbes as the 12th most powerful person in the world in 2009, Berlusconi resigned in 2011 as a deeply unpopular and polarizing figure.
A similar pattern of a poor second act emerges with Rafic Hariri, Lebanon’s prime minister for two terms (1992-98 and 2000-04). Per capita income grew by a substantial 44% during his first term, while life expectancy expanded in the post-civil war period by 2.2 years. But when Hariri returned to office for a second term, results were much less compelling: income up by 16% and life expectancy by 0.6 years. Political tensions led to his assassination in 2005. His son Saad served two terms as well and also left office under a cloud. A third oligarch prime minister, Naguib Mikati, is in his third term and, given the recent Israeli invasion, is unlikely to have a successful ending.
Does history offer any relief from this picture of disappointing second acts? Not really. For example, Marcus Licinius Crassus—one of the Roman Republic’s richest and most powerful men, served as consul twice (70 and 55 BCE), both times with often rival and sometimes ally Pompey. The first consulship led to the Triumvirate Alliance of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. The second consulship led to Crassus being named governor of the endlessly wealthy province of Syria, where he was defeated by the Parthians and died in 53 BCE.
These examples suggest some preliminary findings and cautions. First, oligarchs’ second acts generally end badly. Sometimes, external circumstances drive this result. Other times, it seems that oligarchs don’t show much evidence of learning from their first terms.
Second, many oligarchs never serve in decision-making roles as heads of state or government like Piñera, Berlusconi, or Hariri. Some have agenda-setting power through political contributions or media ownership. Others have ideological power, shaping the way we think and act. Based on our dataset at the Center for the Study of Oligarchs, we are unaware of any oligarchs who had and lost those types of power who were able to regain it. We also don’t know of any significant cases of oligarchs losing their wealth and then recovering it.
While we are hesitant to make any grand predictions for the Trump second term based on these cases, it does seem questionable that it will be any better than the first. During that first term, per capita in the U.S. rose by 2.9% and life expectancy fell by a jaw-dropping 1.7 years. That record helped earn Trump a ranking as the worst president in U.S history, according to the American Political Science Association survey.
It is difficult to imagine how Trump will be able to successfully fight the dismal history of oligarchs’ second acts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular