Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 278 posts

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#181

Post by ashildr »

josho wrote: post #119
jillesvangurp wrote: post #81

I can think of a few other causes like sickness being a potentially bankrupting event so people don't go to a doctor when they should or too late. This apparently is a risk, even if you have insurance because you are at the mercy of insurers not tossing you out over such whimsical reasons as pre-existing conditions or other bureaucratic tricks they use to kill their customers rather than getting them cured. There are…

> people don't go to a doctor when they should or too late I saw this when travelling in the US for work. (I am Canadian). Striking up conversations in restaurants I met staff that worked while sick because they couldn't afford to take sick days, or worked with chronic conditions because they couldn't afford a visit to a doctor. Even worse are the major chronic diseases from our lifestyle (hypertension, diabetes, etc…

> the US healthcare system is broken.

s/healthcare//

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#182

Post by briandear »

ams6110 wrote: post #162
rsync wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... which poor folks use to purchase corn syrup and cheap grain foods ..." This is true. It is truly insane that public food benefits can be used to buy soft drinks, sugar cereals and candy: "Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items"[1] [1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

To be fair, it's much easier to separate "food" from "not food" than to have to qualify whether any particular product is "good" or "junk" food. Can you imagine the additional bureaucracy needed to classify (and enforce) the use of food stamps on a more granular level?

They seem to do just fine with the WIC program. Make food stamps just like WIC.

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#183

Post by sokoloff »

abootstrapper wrote: post #173
ams6110 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, if you're making miniumum wage, don't have kids. If you do, you (or at least your kids) likely qualify for Medicaid, so you do get treatment. Often preferentially. I have been to providers who have a 6-8 week lead time on appointments for new private insurance patients, but Medicaid patients get in almost immediately.

So part of your solution to healthcare is poor people not having kids? How do intend we accomplish that?

Not GP, but I read that more as "if you can't afford something, don't do that thing" coupled with "kids are not an exception to the previous recommendation".

It's not a matter of forcing that decision on people, but rather having the same expectation of personal choice and responsibility for that choice that we have for other health matters (exercise, diet, smoking, alcohol use).

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#184

Post by jeffreyrogers »

mbroncano wrote: post #157
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a reference to shooting deaths? If so, you should be aware that there are ~100 mass shooting deaths a year despite the sensational coverage they get in the media. America does have many more gun deaths than other countries, but the majority of those deaths are suicides and a majority of the homicides are in high crime areas. This is a problem that we can address, but mass shootings, though tragic and terrifyi…

The intentional murder rate in the US is around an order of magnitude bigger than in most countries in Western Europe, Australia or Canada. If you think that’s not an issue, I guess I must disagree.

I do think that's an issue, and I said it's one we can address. It's separate from the issue of mass shootings in schools, which is what I was commenting about.

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#185

Post by lurquer »

Measuring life expectancy from birth is more a measure of infant mortality.

The data on life expectancy from 5 years old is remarkably consistent... mid to upper 70's.

It's even more consistent when one looks at life expectancy from 21 years.

I do not have links to the charts showing this. But, last time I checked, I was quite surprised at how a sensational story about life-expectancy from birth loses much of its significance when one disregards the deaths that occur in the first 5 years of life.

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#186

Post by cryptonerd2212 »

Frondo wrote: post #135
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's sad. But consider: what would you call someone who injected strangers with noxious drugs and enjoyed their torment? An animal? Is it so big a leap to think the same, when they're doing it to themselves?

No, no person is a animal and it's misguided and inappropriate to make the comparison. People who behave cruelly aren't animals, they're people who behave cruelly and we should seek to minimize/stop their cruelty and ability to inflict it. Drug users, willing or no, also aren't animals. Drug users who want to stop should be given all the tools necessary to kick their habits. Drug users who don't want to stop should b…

Technically, we are animals.

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#187

Post by jeffal »

jtuente wrote: post #141
adventured wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem in the overdose spike is that fentanyl is killing very large numbers of people that otherwise might not have died of overdoses from heroin a decade or more ago. The US is being blasted from outside by huge quantities of fentanyl, primarily by China. It's bordering on an act of war (Opium War style). The notion that China can't stop the fentanyl pouring out of their country toward the US is ridicul…

I haven't read anything yet on the source of the fentanyl, do you have a worthwhile link?

https://globalnews.ca/news/4658157/fentanyl-vancouver-real-e...

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#188

Post by brandonmenc »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #81

I can think of a few other causes like sickness being a potentially bankrupting event so people don't go to a doctor when they should or too late. This apparently is a risk, even if you have insurance because you are at the mercy of insurers not tossing you out over such whimsical reasons as pre-existing conditions or other bureaucratic tricks they use to kill their customers rather than getting them cured. There are…

> shameless advertising on products where products that contain obscene amounts of corn syrup are advertised as "fat free"

And there are "low carb" products that contain an obscene amount of fat.

If people can't count calories, that's their tough luck. It's not rocket science.

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#189

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

lubesGordi wrote: post #88
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big change relatively recently is that suicides in rural areas are now far higher than urban. Have you been to a rural area in the US recently? Most have been completely hollowed out - there is no hope in a lot of these places. The despair there is real.

Can you be more specific than just 'rural'? I've been through middle Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas and those areas seem mostly fine to me. Is it because rural farming is still ok but other rural like appalachia or rural Montana isn't doing well? Specifically where is hollowed out?

Basically a lot of the "rust belt" areas like Ohio, Kentucky, large swaths of Pennsylvania, parts of Virginia, etc., and also rural areas of southern states that were always below average or poor are now downright destitute.

Re: U.S. Life Expectancy Falls Further

#190

Post by kbutler »

jellicle wrote: post #180
rsync wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... which poor folks use to purchase corn syrup and cheap grain foods ..." This is true. It is truly insane that public food benefits can be used to buy soft drinks, sugar cereals and candy: "Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items"[1] [1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

The amount of money we just gave Jeff Bezos for putting a headquarters near his new house would fund the entire US food stamp program for a week or two, or if you prefer depth instead of breadth, would fund food stamps for hundreds of thousands of people for the rest of their lives.

And with the returns from that money "we just gave" Bezos, we can fund many times that. And if "we" don't get that return? Bezos doesn't get that money.

The winning localities and companies offered $2 billion in rebates to amazon over 10 years, conditional upon job and revenue targets that guarantee the localities and companies are getting multiple times the rebate amount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2

Marketwatch put the local economic contribution at up to $17 billion per year (not per 10 years like the $2 billion). https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-hq2-could-bring-lo...

Sounds like an amazing ROI.

My only question is, how can I give Bezos money for that kind of guaranteed return?

Post reply on HN