Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

The Key To Good Health That No One Is Talking About: Money

By Brydie Ragan, YES! Magazine. Posted July 25, 2007.


The public generally believes that poor lifestyle choices, faulty genes and infectious agents are the major factors that give rise to illness. Here's the rest of the story.
Advertisement

Research now tells us that lower socio-economic status may be more harmful to health than risky personal habits...

I recently saw a billboard for an employment service that said, "If you think cigarette smoking is bad for your health, try a dead-end job." This warning may not just be an advertising quip: public health research now tells us that lower socio-economic status may be more harmful to health than risky personal habits, such as smoking or eating junk food.

In 1967, British epidemiologist Michael Marmot began to study the relationship between poverty and health. He showed that each step up or down the socio-economic ladder correlates with increasing or decreasing health.

Over time, research linking health and wealth became more nuanced. It turns out that "what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed, the better the health of that society," according to the editors of the April 20, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal. In that issue, American epidemiologist George Kaplan and his colleagues showed that the disparity of income in each of the individual U.S. states, rather than the average income per state, predicted the death rate.

"The People's Epidemiologists," an article in the March/April 2006 issue of Harvard Magazine, takes the analysis a step further. Fundamental social forces such as "poverty, discrimination, stressful jobs, marketing-driven global food companies, substandard housing, dangerous neighborhoods and so on" actually cause individuals to become ill, according to the studies cited in the article. Nancy Krieger, the epidemiologist featured in the article, has shown that poverty and other social determinants are as formidable as hostile microbes or personal habits when it comes to making us sick. This may seem obvious, but it is a revolutionary idea: the public generally believes that poor lifestyle choices, faulty genes, infectious agents, and poisons are the major factors that give rise to illness.

Krieger is one of many prominent researchers making connections between health and inequality. Michael Marmot recently explained in his book, The Status Syndrome, that the experience of inequality impacts health, making the perception of our place in the social hierarchy an important factor. According to Harvard's Ichiro Kawachi, the distribution of wealth in the United States has become an "important public health problem." The claims of Kawachi and his colleagues move public health firmly into the political arena, where some people don't think it belongs. But the links between socio-economic status and health are so compelling that public health researchers are beginning to suggest economic and political remedies.

Richard Wilkinson, an epidemiologist at the University of Nottingham, points out that we are not fated to live in stressful dominance hierarchies that make us sick -- we can choose to create more egalitarian societies. In his book, The Impact of Inequality, Wilkinson suggests that employee ownership may provide a path toward greater equality and consequently better health. The University of Washington's Stephen Bezruchka, another leading researcher on status and health, also reminds us that we can choose. He encourages us to participate in our democracy to effect change. In a 2003 lecture he said that "working together and organizing is our hope."

It is always true that we have choices, but some conditions embolden us to create the future while others invite powerlessness. When it comes to health care these days, Americans are reluctant to act because we are full of fear. We are afraid: afraid because we have no health care insurance, afraid of losing our health care insurance if we have it, or afraid that the insurance we have will not cover our health care expenses. But in the shadow of those fears is an even greater fear -- the fear of poverty -- which can either cause or be caused by illness.

In the United States we have all the resources we need to create a new picture: an abundance of talent, ideas, intelligence, and material wealth. We can decide to create a society that not only includes guaranteed health care but also replaces our crushing climate of fear with a creative culture of care. As Wilkinson and Bezruchka suggest, we can choose to work for better health by working for greater equality.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: class, health, health care, poverty, wealth, inequality

Brydie Ragan is an indefatigable advocate for guaranteed health care. She travels nationwide to present "Share the Health," a program that inspires Americans to envision health care for everyone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not quite
Posted by: Katja on Jul 25, 2007 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although it is true that in the US, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be in poor health, this is NOT because of being poor per se. Cuba, for example, is a very poor country. However, its population is in excellent health (as the WHO has repeatedly pointed out). Why? It certainly isn't the country's wealth. Instead, the government provides basic health care for everyone with a major emphasis of PREVENTATIVE care (regular checkups that catch problems EARLY while most are easily treatable). And what makes most Swedes or Japanese so healthy is that everyone has medical insurance and access to health care, regardless of how much or how little they earn. Point is, if we want to close the gap in mortality between rich and poor, it is not terribly fruitful to dream of a more equal income distribution (that would of course be great ... but it isn't going to happen). Even if the poor suddenly had more money, it wouldn't do much good if they were STILL systematically excluded from receiving medical care (because of all those exclusionary clauses in most policies). Key here is that government MUST tackle health care reform and create a system that provides basic care (yearly checkups, dental cleanings, immunizations) for everyone from conception to death. As the case of Cuba has shown, there are clever ways of doing this without it costing a fortune.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not quite Posted by: daniel347x
» Read the article. Posted by: heid
» Classist Bullshit Posted by: pdxstudent
4.5
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 25, 2007 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In our culture, blaming individual behavior is the name of the game...The Regime would have us believe that inequality is good for our health, because it encourages you to pull yourself up and get to work becoming the next Billionaire Next Door.

It's probably hard to isolate stress from other health factors when you're poor, because you're probably exposed to more toxins at work and where you live, which probably causes you more stress.

I shop at the no-name, BYO-bags grocery store. The fresh vegetables are pretty cheap, but a lot of carts are filled with manufactured crap.

I've had a few burger-flipping and ditch-digging jobs. Breaks are for eating, smoking, and reading the paper, so people tend to eat and smoke.

As you may notice, I don't have a clear opinion on this today, but this article is good because it makes you think about freedom, determinism, and the useless "health tips" they feed you on the evening news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wilkinson also points out that most societies have been gift-giving hunter-gatherer societies
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 25, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not hierarchies of dominance. In other words, in the 100,000 years of human existance, it has been more common for people to cooperate with each other than to compete against each other.

Competition is made to seem natural because social predators have been writing the rules to benefit themselves. In so-called "primative" societies, a social predator would probably be disposed of as a threat to the group.

We, on the other hand, allow social predators to reward themselves and their allies. Time to do away with professional politicians? We would be far better off picking our representatives out of telephone directories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» about those predators . . . Posted by: hagwind
» I'm guessing, Suzon, that... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Stressed out!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jul 25, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article!

Stress is the root of almost all illnesses so it's no surprise that economic status weighs in with respect to that!

But while no doubt the results of economic status is a factor, there is also a strong case for those "wealthy" individuals, living to the max to "keep up", and stressing where the next Mercedes payment is coming from suffers from the same stress related illnesses.

The poor do get the shaft as their environment is more harmful and their knowledge of how to work within the healthcare system, essential to get any kind of proper care, is limited.

We don't only need a revamped healthcare system that covers everyone, we need one that gurantees timely and quality care, where the good docs dont work outside the system, as they do now - that is a big problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is old news in public health circles
Posted by: Shakti on Jul 25, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to be a researcher at a university and one of my projects was looking at disparities in health (circa 1995). There is a lot of data showing that SES is directly correlated with morbidity and mortality and that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the worse the health statistics nationally. There is no doubt about this. The data are very precise. One British study even found that persons in families with two cars were healthier than in families with only one. SES is that strong an effect.

My own view of the link between SES and health is that it is both obvious stuff, such as access to healthcare and information, AND the stress associated with being on the lower rungs of a society dominated by principles of social Darwinism. The kind of dog-eat-dog, devil-take-the-hindmost mentality that characterizes the rat race, especially in the U.S., is very, very harmful to people's sense of belonging and security in the world. We evolved to live in tribes and clans, with an extended network of relatives and friends there to help us every single day. Our central nervous systems were not designed for isolated living and individual competition. The social structure we have created differs radically from the ones in which we evolved.

See what you've done? You got me started on my dissertation topic. Healing the Social Body: A Holistic Approach to Public Health Policy. Available on Amazon (but expensive.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then, make it less expensive Posted by: afrothetics2
Rose Newburg
Posted by: esornew on Jul 25, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was Methusila (900+ years), Mother Teresa (90+ years) in upper society? Today's "jet set", millionaires, and "pill poppers" healthy? No, my friend, as long as we rely on money, prestige or social class, there will be no good health or longivity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ose Newburg Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: ose Newburg Posted by: bornxeyed
JOB SECURITY = CONTENTMENT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 25, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people had a 'job for life' everything was better. Low divorce rate, little violence and abuse, low crime, better education, fewer messed up kids, etc. People certainly lived with less but they were not in fear of losing it. That's the difference. The corporate ladder is not for everyone. Factory jobs made this country great and provided well for families. It was even OK to get sick. People had leisure time and weekends were R&R. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JOB SECURITY = CONTENTMENT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 25, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people had a 'job for life' everything was better. Low divorce rate, little violence and abuse, low crime, better education, fewer messed up kids, etc. People certainly lived with less but they were not in fear of losing it. That's the difference. The corporate ladder is not for everyone. Factory jobs made this country great and provided well for families. It was even OK to get sick. People had leisure time and weekends were R&R. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

listen to Stephen Bezruchka
Posted by: barnettb on Jul 25, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes! the wage GAP is a huge factor. it's not about being poor, it's about the size of the disaparity between rich and poor. there are a couple of informative and fact-driven lectures by stephen bezruchka on this topic on "alternative radio."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is inequality correlated with farm policies that produce lots of cheap, bad food?
Posted by: janvdb on Jul 25, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the correlation of inequality and bad health is partially spurious. Maybe inequality is correlated with stupid farm and food policy, as in the US.

Most of what makes Americans unhealthy is not our health care system or neighbor envy, but our farm system.

Europe's CAP is grossly expensive and damages the Third World, but at least it shells out money to preserve the land and to put high-quality, full-vitamin, small-portion, somewhat pricey, healthy food in front of the consumer. Our farm policy is grossly expensive and damages the Third World, too, but then it places mountains of cheap, corn-syrup-laced, low-vitamin, bleached-out, starchy, hydrogenated-vegetable-oil-laden, fatty factory food in front of the consumer.

Consumers are pretty stupid. They will eat what the government makes available and cheap.

Our farm policy is making us sick.

Of course, inequality of income is associated with job insecurity, overwork (which leads to eating fast foods), lack of health insurance and bad bosses who treat employees like the desperate wageslaves they are. And all those things make us sick.

I acknowledge that simple inequality of income can create health problems, but a lot of our health problems are also due to our misguided farm policies, which reward bulk, corporate production of corn syrup, etc and penalize local organic farmers and other high-end producers.

Americans eat bad food because our government rewards bad food. Farm policy is just as important as health care in making us sick.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Reason Lower Economic Status Damages Health is . . .
Posted by: BillDouglas on Jul 25, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Reason Lower Economic Status Damages Health is because according to a 20 year study by Kaiser Permenente, STRESS causes between 70 to 85% of all illness sending people to their doctors.

Poor people have more stress. By creating a less stressed society, and there are many ways to do that: tax incentives to promote tele-commuting from home rather than facing daily traffic; guaranteed day care for parents; guaranteed health care; stress management classes in work, school, healthcare . . . and most importantly changing a system where everyone works harder and harder so that the top 1% of the nation can get richer and richer.

Stress is at the core of almost all health problems. By dealing collectively to lower EVERYONE's stress, not just our own stress . . . we'll all see the benefits.

In the early 1990's the Transcendental Meditation Foundation in collaboration with universities and the Washington DC Police Dept., brought in high level meditators from around the country to gather in DC one summer . . . to meditate.

They predicted it would shift the consciousness of the city and lower violent crime by 20% based on data from smaller scale studies. The DC police Chief said, yeah right, if a blizzard hits DC this summer.

Guess what. Not only did they meet their prediction but surpassed it. The more meditators they brought in, the lower the Homicide, Rape, and Assault rate went.

Stress is at the core of not only personal health problems, but also of many social and international problems. Highly stressed people are more volitale whether they live next door or in another country.

Its in our global best interest to create a less stressed more equitable world. It'll not only make life better, it'll save tremendous amounts of police, court, military, and health care spending. Which will free up more money to solve more problems. It becomes a spiral of wonderful things that just gets out of control. I could use more of that, and I think you could too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Useless
Posted by: Ambrose Pare on Jul 25, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Useless junk research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Useless Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Useless Posted by: sterlingdave54
» RE: Useless Posted by: dnaylor
I would bet Stress is inversely proportional to SES
Posted by: shanaza on Jul 25, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and stress is proportional to the liklihood of illness. Isn't that it, roughly?

Some stress is good - the type that motivates you; other stress (esp. chronic) is bad - the type over which you have little or no control. I know my incidents of illness dropped once I left corporate life and started my own business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do they care?
Posted by: helgerry on Jul 25, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what makes you think that the ruling elites really care about the health of the lower classes? As long as poor public healthcare doesn't impact them personally (and it does NOT, since they have access to the best of everything), they will strongly argue against any link between wealth distribution and the state of health of the general population.

In America, the term "egalitarian society" is automatically associated with socialism... Let's not even talk about the fact that it would certainly mean higher taxes for the rich. Oh no!! In that regard, the scandinavian countries could serve as a model of society for America, but the elites here wouldn't let it happen.

But we can take it even further and say that there is most likely a link between the overall consciousness level of a population and its general wealth distribution. The higher the consciousness level the more egalitarian the society... And it has nothing to do with socialism or communism since it cannot be an imposed or forced egalitarianism (so Cuba is out!): the members of such a society must see for themselves that it's in their best interests that the country's wealth is well distributed among the population...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The stress of being poor
Posted by: manderson on Jul 25, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People lower down the socioeconomic ladder tend to be in jobs utilizing heavy physical labor and/or mindless repetitive tasks. I do not believe that the generally reptilian mindset of Corporate America since the Reagan "Revolution" cares a whit about their fate, as long as there is a ready supply of more of them to be used up and thrown away. In order to change this (and a few other things), we need to change the way money works, or there will be no meaningful progress towards a more stable (and healthier) society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So how come
Posted by: edith on Jul 25, 2007 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for thousands of years Chinese and Japanese peasants lived on brown rice and vegetables and did not suffer from heart disease and cancer as the more "fat" oriented Western populations did. Indeed, well into the 20th century when most people in the US and Europe were relatively wealthy compared with Japan and China's populations, heart disease and cancer felled meat-stuffed Westerners at a higher per capita rate than their Chinese and Japanese cousins. Now, as the "Far East" nations become more "Western", meat consumption is up, and so is heart disease and cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Many Other Variables Posted by: Gravitas
Gobbledeegook!
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jul 25, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, when times get tough, I eat Ramen noodles. Is it such a surprise that limited funds create limits to the amount of nutrition you can take in? Why should it be a surprise that lower socio-economic status leads to poorer health?

The only exception to that rule is when a culture values things that don't cost money. Obviously that's not the US, which I think is a big part of the reason why poor people in the US are less healthy than poor people in other 1st world nations. We're too materialistic, and we all know that doesn't have anything to do with happiness. It is no surprise to me that the most materialistic nation in the world is also the one that consumes the most anti-depressants. And of course the author doesn't really talk about any of that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creating opportunities
Posted by: anothername on Jul 25, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've noted before, and will note again, no doubt, that we as a nation can dramatically increase health by building more sidewalks, bike routes, and public transit for all residents. Who has the longest commutes? The people trying for that middle class or that American dream. Sitting in a car for hours each day does little to improve health. Living in a communitiy where people buy older cars with less efficient catalytic converters will increase air pollution. Living closer together means more likelihood to hear neighbors' fights,music, and television - and noise pollution creates stress. Then, go for a walk on a vast expanse of lawn that has chemical pesticide and other irritants sprayed on it, let it seep into skin because there is no sidewalk so must walk on ths grass or be hit by a car. Ooops, let's just stop walking. That's okay, we can go to a gym, increase our fuel consumption and give up land for the gym, then because it costs money, the poorer residents cannot afford it. I also think we are rushing to WiFi coverage in the name of economic development and not considering what all those crossing paths of data streams are doing to us.

I'm rambling now. My point, though, is that we need solid infrastructure investment to make our daily lives eaiser and healthier, whether we have the money to hire cleaning crews, to have a nanny, to go to a gym, or heck, even the option to put out recycling. (Try recycling in some apartment buildings, even when single-family homes do it easily. That builds up stress quickly, or the renter stops carring and buys into the stereotype that only homeowners care about neighborhoods, which then leads the renter to be ignored in local politics, which then leads to more stress, which then leads the tenent to care even less...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Creating opportunities Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Creating opportunities Posted by: anothername
» RE: Creating opportunities Posted by: VZEQICVA
Here are 3 better keys to better health.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 25, 2007 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Stop watching TV.

2. Stop eating out more often.

3. Stop relying on "fast food", band-aid, aggressive "solutions" to everything

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Causation or correlation?
Posted by: Annarisse on Jul 25, 2007 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The key to understanding most sociological research is simple: correlation does not equal causality.

I have no doubt there is a correlation between low SES and ill health. That much has been proved conclusively. I'm not sure, however, that these studies have proved causation. Some of the factors that lead to a low socio-economic level are also contributing factors in general ill health. For example, a lower level of education often leads to reduced earning power and therefore poverty. It also contributes to the inability to take good care of oneself. A lack of critical thinking skills and access to information about health are both contributing factors to making poor lifestyle choices.

I doubt stress can account for the entire picture, or even most of it. Poor people certainly do have a lot of stress, but so do those higher up the income ladder - yet those higher up have longer life expectancies and better health overall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Article
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 25, 2007 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this was an excellent article!!!! The media focuses almost exclusively on a few lifestyle issues, such as obesity which is profitable to the power-elite. It is a blame the victim mentality which minimizes all other factors. For example, The American Council on Science and Health points the finger at fatness while debunking the harmful effects of chemicals. Except they are funded by major chemical companies. But I even think it is more than that. I think there is a deep seated belief among the power-elite that we exist for their benefit. Just as the master of the house would be outraged if a servant harmed their health in a way that would affect their work, but think nothing of working that person to the ground for their own benefit, I honestly believe they feel entitled to have final say in how we live our lives. We are managed just like cattle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money can buy you happiness but only relative to your peer's income
Posted by: spencerh on Jul 25, 2007 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blurb:

"Firebaugh argues that, in evaluating their own incomes, individuals compare themselves to their peers of the same age. Therefore a person's reported level of happiness depends on how his or her income compares to others in the same age group. Using comparison groups on the basis of age, the researchers find evidence of both relative and absolute effects, but relative income is more important than absolute income in determining the happiness of individuals in the United States."

Article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent article...
Posted by: mjabele on Jul 25, 2007 9:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and I like the fact that it "politicizes" health as a function of SES to some extent.

The majority of patients I see in my own practice are poor, and certainly stress is a rampant factor in their lives. Most of this relates to insecurity of some kind - lack of a job, or the threat of losing a job and being unable to find a new one, or inadequate income (even if employed) to pay rent / heat / food bills, or losing health insurance coverage. Depression screens are positive in more than half the patients we see on any given day, and many of these folks are under psychiatric care. The influence of stress is even "contaminating" to some degree, in the sense that even relatively "well-equilibrated" individuals can become stressed as a result of seeing their spouses or children engage in behaviors like drug abuse or crime. Entire families can become disrupted this way in my experience.

I'd add that many of these people have few outlets for their stress - overeating, smoking, risky sexual behavior, and drug use are often the cheapest and most readily accessible options. Before criticizing them for this, one should think how one would react oneself if placed into a similar situation. I didn't smoke till I was 33 years old - at which point the US Army abruptly deposited me for 12 uninterrupted months on a hilltop in the Balkans without access to family, girlfriend, phone, computer, TV, or alcohol, with an essentially 7-day-a-week job with every third or fourth night on call. There was literally nothing to do, except run in mindless 2-mile circles on the hilltop for exercise. I lasted about 4 months before the cigarettes had me in their lethal grasp.

I wish I could do more to relieve my patients' stress, but I refer most of their problems to our social workers - who, I suspect, must have pretty stressful jobs themselves. I write letters to try to help some of my patients with their bills, give them medication samples when their health insurance runs out or won't cover, and sometimes prescribe an antidepressant or short-term anxiolytic medication. Not much, in other words. Obviously the real solutions lie elsewhere, in the economic and political spheres.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those long-lived top dogs...
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jul 26, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... it's probably not true that the rich and high-status people are particularly healthy, they're burnt out defending their jobs and lifestyles, running desperately to stay in place. Sapolsky's research on Serengeti baboons indicated, if I recall accurately, that both the bottom of the heap and the top of the pile were seriously stressed. It was those in the middle, certain of their status and unworried about having to defend it, who were most comfortable. This fits with what I understand of places like Denmark, where, I'm told, it would be uncomfortable to earn much more than your friends and colleagues, so there's relatively little difference between top, middle and bottom levels. Inequality leads to health problems for the rich and the poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

real key!
Posted by: donl51 on Jul 27, 2007 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the key to good health in america,is tell our gov.to take care of paying for it,the taxes ,directing,and thats it,keep their noses out of health!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dying for Health Care
Posted by: jende on Jul 30, 2007 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ultimate boycott. Maybe this will be the only way to get the care we deserve and need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ressless
Posted by: ressless on Jul 30, 2007 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Duh! Nobody who's ever been poor will be surprised by these findings. Inadequate health care (not medical insurance, health CARE) is just the beginning -- just try to find a dentist who will work pro bono, or even one who will take payments. Living in a high-crime neighborhood makes one more likely to be a victim of a violent crime; more likely to go to prison (no money = no rights; prison's real hard on a person's health.)

But wait, one thing that poor people have to look forward to, if they live long enough, is being dependent on Medicare -- health insurance for the elderly that doesn't cover long-term care, dentures, eyeglasses or hearing aids -- coverage for prescriptions only recently went from nonexistant to woefully inadequate.

Maybe being poor isn't a crime in this country, but it makes a pretty good imitation of one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where are the numbers?
Posted by: jlt on Jul 31, 2007 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I read an article like this one I wish that there was a bunch of links at the end pointing to the research papers that back up the story. Even if most of the readers aren't interested, some of us would like to see the statistics.

Les

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]