I have read this piece a few times. The first time I was mildly interested and it was on the front page of the times web site.
The second time, it was because I assumed I had skipped over the part where the author linked low income to lack of medical care.
The third time was when I searched for key words to see if I could figure out whether the author was purposely misdirecting the premise, or the editors had removed "controversial" (ie: conflicts with Republican talking points) material from the piece.
I can't tell.
Counting Birthdays
The Short End of the Longer Life
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Read it for yourself and see if you spot whether the elephant was surgically removed with a blue pencil, or was never there at all.
The elephant I am talking about is Universal Health Care. I would have settled for any mention of either of the Dem candidates bastardized "Universal Health Insurance" talking points.
Excerpt:
THROUGHOUT the 20th century, it was an American birthright that each generation would live longer than the last. Year after year, almost without exception, the anticipated life span of the average American rose inexorably, to 78 years in 2005 from 61 years in 1933, when comprehensive data first became available.
But new research shows that those reassuring nationwide gains mask a darker and more complex reality. A pair of reports out this month affirm that the rising tide of American health is not lifting all boats, and that there are widening gaps in life expectancy based on the interwoven variables of income, race, sex, education and geography.
The new research adds weight to the political construct popularized by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, that there are two Americas (if not more), measured not only by wealth but also by health, and that the poles are growing farther apart.
So far so good eh? John Edwards gets a shout out. He is even quoted to "balance" a comment from the CBO.
Peter R. Orszag, the budget office’s director, said that the decline in life expectancy among some Americans was "remarkable in an advanced industrial nation" and that he believed the growing gap related to income inequality. "We’ve had sluggish income growth at the bottom and rapid income growth at the top for the last three decades," he said.
Mr. Edwards said in an interview that the new findings on disparities demonstrate both the reach and consequences of income inequality. "The wealth and income disparity effectively infiltrates all parts of people’s lives," he said.
The article then concludes with a massive dump of elephant poo without ever naming the beast or acknowledging its existance.
"We know from hundreds of studies that income does have an impact on health, but it’s not a simple relationship," said Sam B. Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University who has studied the issue.
Dr. Ezzati, of the Harvard School of Public Health, asked: "How much of this is pure material well being, the ability to purchase high-quality food, the ability to have a particular lifestyle? And how much of it is the impact of income on risk behaviors like alcohol and tobacco and stress mechanisms that are more psychosocial? There’s a series of debates around that that are unresolved."
As for a prescription, Dr. Ezzati and his colleagues are realists. In a 2006 study, they concluded that "because policies aimed at reducing fundamental socioeconomic inequalities are currently practically absent in the U.S.," life expectancy disparities would have to be addressed through public health strategies directed at reducing the risk factors that cause chronic disease and injuries.
Dr. Ezzati noted that few industrialized countries have had declines of comparable duration. "This is a very unusual pattern," he said, "and the question we’re starting to ask is, ‘Is the fact that the bottom 20 percent is not getting better, and may be worse off, going to drive the health of the whole country?’
Can some one diagram this sentence and tell me WTF Dr Ezzati really meant?
Dr. Ezzati noted that few industrialized countries have had declines of comparable duration. "This is a very unusual pattern," he said, "and the question we’re starting to ask is, ‘Is the fact that the bottom 20 percent is not getting better, and may be worse off, going to drive the health of the whole country?’
Now Kevin Sack is a pulitzer prize winnerand that does not confer immunity to editors decisions, but it might make him adept at writing "between the lines" to make obvious what has been removed.
What do I think is missing?
Here is the only time the words "health" and "insurance" are used together. It is the "some say" section which supplies neither a useful link to that research, nor any indication of why I should think the members of junk insurance plans should be considered any different than those who have no insurance at all.
For example, a 2006 study found that low-income whites in the northern Plains could expect to live four years longer than low-income whites in Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley. Other research indicates that health insurance status, which can relate directly to income, may not be a significant determinant of longevity.
For realistic decriptions of the "elephant" see any of nyceve's posts in the last year.