Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
So there’s
One of the healthiest things one can do is walk. And New Yorkers of all income levels walk a lot more than most folks. So based on that anecdotal evidence alone I’m not surprised that the disparity between income levels is smaller than elsewhere.
Why must everything be the result of some government program or policy?
Not on topic of the article, but may I question the new fashion of starting every utterance with the word “so” as does this article?
I hear it on TV news channels constantly. “So” has joined the mindless interjection, between observations, of the word “look,” which at least has the intention apparently to signal the listener that the speaker has more to say. But “so” is just annoying.
/ soapbox
I’m guilty. I’m a ‘so’-er. If ‘look’ can be understood as an indicator that the author has more to say, ‘so’ (at least for me) indicates I’m about to conclude.
My first (and continued) response is: “Ugh. Now some left-wing do-gooder will propose policy solutions to “fix” this health inequality.”
[Emphasis mine]
I almost wish the entire article could be reduced to this one word.
This is not a groundbreaking finding, but it’s a great confirmation of what was already well-known: the best way to ensure a healthy life in an industrial country is through one’s own behavior, not through access to this, that or the other thing. Kudos to the NYT for pointing this out fairly explicitly.
Oh, truuuuuust me, they’ve been talking about health inequality for a long time in nursing and medicine. That’s why there are such rich benefits if you’re willing to go practice in an “underserved” area.
Of course, they argue that these behaviors are indicative of low socioeconomic status and poor education, all of which would be fixed with money.
In my classes, every disease has “low socioeconomic status” as a risk for contracting the disease.
If certain conditions correlate with low income, I think it’s fair to note that at the scientific level.
However, the big take-home message of this article (and, to a lesser extent, of the underlying study itself) is the large fluctuations in life expectancy among the poor themselves. Those differences – and the fact that they don’t correlate with services provided – suggest that a lack of money/resources is not the causal factor.
That’s why I tip my hat (a little) to the NYT – they laid out the case for personal behavior in causing favorable health outcomes fairly clearly.
What is the ultimate left-wing policy fix for:
==> Government mandated euthanasia for all at age 75.
Guaranteed equal outcome for all.
… new or higher taxes on unhealthy things.
Because people cannot be allowed to make their own choices. And if they ARE going to choose things that lower their life expentencies, why not make them pay for it?
… before suggesting that the government intervene to alter people’s behavior and limit their choices.
Three reasons: cigarettes, drugs, excessive use of alcohol. Also, if you care to skew the curve with urban residents, let’s talk murder:
Chicago violence, homicides and shootings up in 2015
You forgot rock ‘n roll… ;-)
Wait… how does this explain my good health???