Dying Early
By Ocean on May 16, 2008 in Articles of Interest, Featured
A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Washington has shown that, while most of the United States have been living longer and longer, certain parts have been experiencing a decline in life expectancy. This phenomenon has been concentrated in counties in Appalachia and in the South. It has been particularly evident in the female segment of the population, with 19% of them experiencing a decline or stagnation in life expectancy.
Looking at the different causes of death it seems that this increase has stemmed mostly from diabetes and pulmonary diseases; in other words, from obesity, smoking and high blood pressure.
New studies are being performed into promoting healthier lifestyles and more discipline for personal health. While the more Libertarian among us might cringe at the thought of the government telling citizens how to behave, the fact that these habits have been confined to these geographical locations suggests that geographically targeted campaigns might produce beneficial results, at least in the short term.
Also, we must remember that these people, although being among the poorest in the United States, would not qualify as poor by any international standard, so it is not enough to claim that poor people are not as healthy as richer people. There might be other factors here that we do not know of because they have never been encountered before. What issues might the poorest people of the richest countries encounter that the poorest people of the poorest countries do not?
(9 votes, average: 8.56 out of 10)
Loading ...
I wonder if it’s possible that the dietary habits of poor Americans are actually worse off than those in developing countries. Any thoughts?
Anony-mouse | May 18, 2008 | Reply
I think that’s an unequivocal No. We should never confuse the Absolute Poverty of the world with the relative poverty in the United States. Remember that the U.S.’s poverty threshold is readjusted each year as a percentage base of population, meaning that even if everyone’s income doubles, the poverty rate remains the same.
In the United States poverty has a very different meaning from the rest of the world. The United States has access to running sanitized water, FDA approved food, a certain amount of free medication, free information (free newspapers with a literacy rate in the high 90’s), and (for the most part) public shelter.
The difference is evident by Census statistics. The poverty threshold in the United States is $10,488, and almost 80% of poor households have air conditioning, while over 90% have a color television.
That having been said, Poverty in the United States has other implications. Crime-ridden and drug-infested neighborhoods, rural poverty with little or no access to public facilities. Any comparison with developing countries may seem futile however, since crime and isolation is much worse elsewhere than the U.S.
The only fair form of commparison would be with other developed countries. Or, more precisely, what standards of living can be provided to the poorest people of the richest country on earth.
Ocean | May 20, 2008 | Reply
That may be so but I wasn’t really arguing the definition of poverty, but rather, how the dietary decisions of notably rural Americans would effect their life expectancy relative to other people in similar situations. Granted, a poverty stricken person of an LDC would probably be malnourished due to a lack of food rather than the quality of the food. In other words, I’m basically comparing beans and rice to McD’s.
Anony-mouse | May 21, 2008 | Reply
This can open up a whole new thread about how much cheaper are pre-prepared microwavable meals really, to buying single ingredients and cooking from scratch. The argument exists that the latter is actually cheaper: the first shopping trip may seem more expensive but then each ingredient last longer and gets used multiple times, resulting in cheaper spend at the end of the week/month.
If this is the case, why do people with less money to spend buy the more expensive option?
Rebecca | May 23, 2008 | Reply
You’re right. That would be a new thread. And Anony is right too in specifying the “dietary decisions”. Remember that the burgers Americans are eating too much of are all FDA approved generally healthy foods which, like anything else, will cause harm if taken in overabundance. The Rice and beans, not to mention the water, of many other countries may or may not be edible and potable.
So the problems are very different ones. In poorer countries it is access to healthy food and water, while in richer countries it is a choice of food. These are basically two different subjects altogether. The former requires improving access, income and accountability, while the second may be merely a lack of targeted information.
Ocean | May 25, 2008 | Reply