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

U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#81

Post by [deleted] »

windowsrookie wrote: post #66
jimt1234 wrote: post #37

Obesity. I grew up in a "deep red" area of the Midwest. It wasn't always like this, but it seems obesity is the norm now. And obesity has many health consequences. It's probably more cultural than political, though.

I live in the Midwest. If you drive past the suburbs, the only restaurants available are fast food burger, fried chicken and pizza chains, with a subway thrown in (I don't consider subway healthy). Obviously it's not profitable to own a healthy restaurant out there, but why? Is it a lack of healthy eating education? Is it a "harder" life and junk food is a reward? Or is it cost? If it's cost, healthy home cooked food…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#82

Post by orwin »

timr wrote: post #19
commandlinefan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are the parties causative? Or is it the other way around? Commenters occasionally often point out the "red states" are the biggest recipients of welfare in spite of being the ones that vote most against it. To me, it seems that the most likely explanation for this is that the voters there see the negative effects of welfare and the ones who are voting for it are insulated most from the unintended consequences. It c…

Before looking for cause, you always look for plausible co-variates. Here, there are a ton: red counties tend to be rural. Rural places have huge problems with health care access, obesity, addiction, poverty, and many other issues that predict poor health outcome.

> Rural places have huge problems with health care access, obesity, addiction, poverty, and many other issues that predict poor health outcome.

So, yes, probably, but. I went in a rural area in West Virginia for some personal reasons. And i mean rural. One hours and a half from Charleston, and half an hour of the nearest town (population: 728). I think i met all the democrat voters there(four dozen or so :P). Mountain guides, kayak/raft guides, musicians(a lot), old hippies living off the land, a lily farmer, a lot of organic farmers too (And the first goat farmer who convinced me than US cheese is at least as good as french/italian goat cheese). Some of them without running water, almost half of them off grid. I think the "fatest" one was barely over my weight, so between 27 and 29 BMI. I also went to the organic farmer market in Hungtington (Clearly not republican leaning, as the sticker against mountain top mining, pro-unions and "Freedom Industries = Lexycon, protect our water" could show) and to a city music festival (were i met all those communist hippies again). Frankly, the overall health and shape of those people, i thought i was back in europe.

Poverty and health care access, yes. Addiction: not that much. Some are alcoholics, i think i met one meth user, but no one tried to sell to us, and their social life is way too full to have time for this shit. Obesity: clearly not. Less than in Paris.

Also, these people were clearly aware of the Elk river incident (it was four years after, still had banners and stickers warning about water quality) and did flush/replace their pipes, and could very well be the only ones who did.

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#83

Post by mensetmanusman »

esotericimpl wrote: post #8
robotblake wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of specific note I found this quote very alarming > There was no single cause of death driving this lethal wedge: The death rate due to all 10 of the most common causes of death has widened between Republican and Democratic areas.

This shouldn't be surprising 70% of the GDP output of the USA are from counties won by Biden. Wealthier people live longer than poor people. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-v... The current republican party provides a hate machine with no actual solutions other than tax cuts for the rich and culture war for the rubes. All that is left for the Red counties is anger and despair delivered nigh…

A large percentage of the 70% GDP is the <1% megacorps/billionaires though, so it’s a complicated picture. Cities have huge inequality.

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#84

Post by nightski »

corrral wrote: post #79
windowsrookie wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the Midwest. If you drive past the suburbs, the only restaurants available are fast food burger, fried chicken and pizza chains, with a subway thrown in (I don't consider subway healthy). Obviously it's not profitable to own a healthy restaurant out there, but why? Is it a lack of healthy eating education? Is it a "harder" life and junk food is a reward? Or is it cost? If it's cost, healthy home cooked food…

In broad swaths of the midwest, the outside isn't especially attractive, if it's not outright ugly. Minimal elevation change anywhere in sight, little visible rock outside road cuts, very few—and all unimpressive—waterfalls, slow, muddy, gross streams and rivers. And the landscape may well be like that for hundreds of miles in any direction. Then, on top of it, the weather's miserable 9 months out of the year. Oppres…

That sounds depressing! But it's not my experience at all in the Midwest. I love the seasons. Summer can get a little hot, but there is still a lot to do around here. Winter is very fun to from cross country skiing, to fat tire biking, bonfires, and snowmobiling. I go out regularly in anything as low as -30F to -40F as long as I am dressed properly. Then we get Fall/Spring which are very special.

Honestly I've been to SF a lot and I find California down right dreary and boring!

Many in our area are farmers and they are a lot tougher than your post suggests.

The truth is healthy food is insanely expensive. We spend over $1000+/mo for two people. I know families with kids that eat on less than half that by eating less healthy.

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#85

Post by crooked-v »

scantis wrote: post #71
1986 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll notice the totals are the same (673 + 2439 = 3112, 490 + 2622 = 3112), the changes are likely due to the counties' flipping in elections.

Okay so the counties flip, the democrats loose counties overall and gain 40 million ish people?

"County" by itself means very little when it comes to population. There are more people living in Los Angeles County alone than there are in some entire states.

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#86

Post by bsder »

bjourne wrote: post #60

A key takeaway from the study is that Americans are getting healthier. Figure 5 shows a big drop in heart disease which must be due to more exercise and better eating habits. Also: "In this national analysis, we found that Americans living in counties that voted Democratic during presidential elections from 2000 to 2016 experienced lower age adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) than residents of counties that voted for a…

> Figure 5 shows a big drop in heart disease which must be due to more exercise and better eating habits.

Doubtful. Widespread use of statins, I should think, are a better match for that data.

It seems like everybody I know above 55 are on statins.

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#87

Post by floxy »

Anyone have a good reference for how age-adjusted mortality rates are calculated? I guess the most striking thing is the ~50% difference in AAMR between Black and Hispanic populations (Figure 3 of the BMJ paper). Although I'm not really sure what the AAMR is. I wonder what the data looks like if it were presented as a life expectancy number (or maybe mean age of death and its standard deviation). Wouldn't that convey essentially the same thing?

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#88

Post by corrral »

nightski wrote: post #84
corrral wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In broad swaths of the midwest, the outside isn't especially attractive, if it's not outright ugly. Minimal elevation change anywhere in sight, little visible rock outside road cuts, very few—and all unimpressive—waterfalls, slow, muddy, gross streams and rivers. And the landscape may well be like that for hundreds of miles in any direction. Then, on top of it, the weather's miserable 9 months out of the year. Oppres…

That sounds depressing! But it's not my experience at all in the Midwest. I love the seasons. Summer can get a little hot, but there is still a lot to do around here. Winter is very fun to from cross country skiing, to fat tire biking, bonfires, and snowmobiling. I go out regularly in anything as low as -30F to -40F as long as I am dressed properly. Then we get Fall/Spring which are very special. Honestly I've been t…

> Many in our area are farmers and they are a lot tougher than your post suggests.

Heh, I come very directly from extremely country stock, so I'd never disparage their hardiness.

... However, even the farmers are rocking fancy trucks and climate-controlled combines & tractors with GPS guidance, these days :-)

AFAIK you still have to step out of your air conditioning to shoo loose cattle back in their pens, or mend a fence, though.

Re: U.S. death rates show how politics are affecting public health

#89

Post by jtbayly »

Retric wrote: post #27
mistrial9 wrote: post #4

Isn't this basic demagoguery 101 -- attach huge social outcomes to the victory or loss of one political party?

One party is hurting their own constituents by limiting access to healthcare at the state level. Verifying this actually has negative outcomes isn’t inherently political. Imagine if the research showed zero correlation, that would have been far more interesting. Understanding the outcomes of political choices isn’t inherently political. It’s completely reasonable for someone to say yes this saves lives but it’s still…

Really?

Only thing I can think of that is (sort of) a political decision to “limit health care” is refusing to expand Medicaid.

I know that didn’t happen across the board for Republican counties/states, though, so what in the world are you claiming?

Post reply on HN