
Health Inequality in the US - Amorymeltzer
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/11/health-inequality.html
======
yummyfajitas
The tricky bit is that most of this is probably NOT due to access to health
care - most studies show minimal impact of variation in health care. E.g., the
Amish live a long time.

[http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:d...](http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0051560&representation=PDF)

[https://www.nber.org/oregon/](https://www.nber.org/oregon/)

If anyone has a real plan to make poorer people and southeasterners do some
cardio and eat unfried vegetables, it would be awesome to hear it.

~~~
nopinsight
Healthy food is substantially more expensive than junk food in the US, esp. at
the amount required to get full. No wonder the poor generally eats less well
than the well-off.

If the government subsidizes veggies and less sweet fruits, more consumption
is likely esp among the poor and lower-middle class (even though habit change
could take time). The savings in the healthcare system and social safety nets
could more than pay back the full amount spent on these subsidies.

As a bonus: de-subsidize agricultural products used to produce non-complex
carbs, soda, and sweets, e.g. corn and wheat. Subsidies contribute to cheaper
prices, excessive consumption, and worse health. To do that directly might be
politically difficult, taxing the end products more could be a plausible
compromise.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Healthy food is more expensive _per calorie_. If you are overeating (i.e., if
you can pinch more than an inch) you can reduce calories and increase quality
without spending anything extra. Most poor folks can pinch far more than an
inch.

Living healthy is neither difficult nor expensive. Last night I made a stew of
tomatoes, collard greens and beans: total cost maybe $5-6 for 2-3 meals. In a
short while I'm walking to a public park for a workout - unlike poor people I
can afford to use the pullup bar ($0), the parallel bars ($0), the basketball
court ($0) and a jump rope ($7).

(Google ATUS stats on TV watching before claiming poor folks don't have time
to do the same thing.)

The problem is willingness, not ability. Some people just don't like
vegetables or pushups and don't find the health gains worthwhile. If you want
to improve their health, you need to coerce them into changing their
lifestyle.

That said, I'm all in favor of reducing agricultural subsidies. I just don't
think it's going to have a significant effect on health.

~~~
nopinsight
I'd say that energy, rather than time, could be a limiting factor when you're
poor. Working minimum wage jobs is often repetitive, soul-crushing, and/or
physically demanding. By the time you leave work, you might want to buy
finished products (e.g. fast food) instead of spending time shopping for and
cooking healthy food.

Middle-class jobs more often feel meaningful or at least allow for more self-
determination during tasks which might be helpful for replenishing lost
energy.

I agree though that habits and familiarity with the diet one grows up with
contribute a greal deal. Many poorer parents may not be able to break their
own habits, esp when economic incentives push them otherwise. Kids imitate the
way their parents eat. That is why some nudging, through economic incentives,
PR, or other means, is necessary to break the inter-generational vicious
cycle.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If the job is physically demanding, you should be getting plenty of exercise.
When I was tearing down houses, I definitely didn't need an additional workout
[1]. Cook a healthy meal - not particularly physically taxing - and you should
be good!

Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are
working. Most are not, and very few of the remainder work full time.

I think part of the problem might be our modern culture of victimhood; it's
become socially acceptable to make excuses for being fat, weak, unhealthy and
lazy, so why bother trying to change it?

[1] I'd amend this a bit; I didn't need an additional workout to maintain a
base level of fitness. Specific goals - quad/ham separation, 6 pack, surviving
5 rounds in the ring - do of course require additional training.

~~~
iak8god
> Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are
> working. Most are not, and very few of the remainder work full time.

Would you mind supporting this factual claim with evidence? Here's the most
detailed examination of this I could quickly find
[http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-
majority-o...](http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-majority-of-
poor-people-who-can-work-do/)

* 35.2 percent of the poor (18 - 64) are NOT ELIGIBLE to work (retired, going to school, or disabled)

* 64.8 percent of working-age poor ARE CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE to work

* 62.6 percent of eligible workers are working

* 44.3 percent of eligible workers are working full-time

* 37.4 percent of working age poor eligible for employment are not working (this includes 3.3 million unemployed poor people currently seeking a employment)

~~~
Artistry121
This supports exactly what yf just said.

Only 64.8*62.6 = ~40% of the poor are working at all. And only 29% have full
time work.

EDIT: And in comparison with other cultures and times throughout history being
weak and out of shape has never been more in fashion than in America. There
are entire stores dedicated to fashion for obese men and women and songs
specifically designed to appeal to their sense of worth.

~~~
iak8god
In a discussion about what kind of time consuming and physically demanding
things the poor _ought_ to be doing with their copious free time, it's hardly
fair to consider those who are ineligible to work because of disability, etc.
And if the point is to cast the poor as a bunch of lazy layabouts, it doesn't
make much sense either to include those who are currently poor, unemployed,
AND seeking employment.

~~~
Artistry121
The point isn't to cast them as anything. It's to use data to solve problems.

Some people live comfortably and healthily on less than minimum wage - some
don't. Some very wealthy people live unhealthily and save less than the poor.

And it is fair to consider all people who may be unhealthy because they would
suffer as well. Does my friend on disability for autism and Asperger's not
deserve consideration?

Your tone and argument goes far beyond the scope of what has been said. The
fact is that even among non-working poor health is still an issue - meaning
that the reason for the lack of health is unlikely to be the necessity of
work.

------
shaftoe
This entire article seems to carry the premise that lifestyle decisions are a
thing to adjust with social policy, as if people are children of the
bureaucracy.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
And you think current lifestyle decisions _aren 't_ a function of social
policy? Or rather, antisocial policy?

~~~
danharaj
lifestyle decisions are a function of immediate material conditions.

