Re: RE: Re: health & inequality
Stephen Bezruchka, M.D. wrote: >Today, at No. 1, Japan has a life expectancy on average three and a half >years longer than the United States'. Twice as many Japanese men as >American men smoke, yet the deaths attributable to smoking are half of >ours. Why? After the second world war, the hierarchical structure of Japan >was reorganized so all citizens shared more equally in the economy. Today >Japanese CEOs make 15 to 20 times what entry-level workers make, not the >almost 500-fold difference in this country. During their recent economic >crisis, CEOs and managers in Japan took cuts in pay rather than lay off >workers. That the structure of society is key to well-being becomes >evident when we look at Japanese who emigrate: their health declines to >the level of the inhabitants of the new country. this conflicts with the common view of Japan as an extremely hierarchical society (with probably-apocryphal stories of managers hinting that their subordinates commit suicide, where the latter take the hint). Perhaps the explanation is that in Japan (up to recent years, at least), the hierarchs acted on obligations to their subordinates, noblesse oblige. This differs from the US form of hierarchy, where (more and more) it's "every man & woman for themselves": "The reason you make only 1/500 of the top manager's salary is because you're stupid or don't work hard enough." This article appeared in NEWSWEEK? what's the world coming to? socialist or social-democratic ideas in NEWSWEEK? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: health & inequality
This may already have been posted but I recommend Leslie Doyle, The Political Economy of Health. It is mostly related to Britain but does focus on capitalism. marta Bill Burgess wrote: > > sorry, try > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/953/DC1 (BMJ 1999, 319) > If it doesn't work go to bmj.com (British Medical Journal) and look under > income inequality > > At 08:40 PM 01/03/2001 -0800, you wrote: > >This URL seems to be wrong. > > > > > The non-linear effect is examined by Wolfson et al. at > > > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/953/DC1AT. Their modeling > > > suggests it is not responsible for the observed relation between inequality > > > and health in the US. -- Marta Russell http://disweb.org/ Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract http://www.commoncouragepress.com/russell_ramps.html
Re: Re: Re: health & inequality
sorry, try http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/953/DC1 (BMJ 1999, 319) If it doesn't work go to bmj.com (British Medical Journal) and look under income inequality At 08:40 PM 01/03/2001 -0800, you wrote: >This URL seems to be wrong. > > > The non-linear effect is examined by Wolfson et al. at > > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/953/DC1AT. Their modeling > > suggests it is not responsible for the observed relation between inequality > > and health in the US.
Re: Re: health & inequality
This URL seems to be wrong. Bill Burgess wrote: > The non-linear effect is examined by Wolfson et al. at > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/953/DC1At. Their modeling > suggests it is not responsible for the observed relation between inequality > and health in the US. > > Bill > > 01:54 PM 01/03/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Doug, > > I have not dug (sic) into this lit although I have seen > >some of it. I think the argument that there is some > >kind of nonlinear effect at the personal level is very > >reasonable and certainly could be responsible for a > >lot of the apparently conflicting results. > > In this regard, I think that one would be more likely > >to find stronger connections with the percent of people > >in poverty rather than with inequality per se, with all of > >this having to take into account the nature of the medical > >care system if one is doing cross-country studies. > >Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: health & inequality
Copyright 2001 Newsweek >Newsweek > >February 26, 2001 > >US MY TURN > > > Is Our Society Making You Sick? > >By Stephen Bezruchka, M.D. > >Americans are obsessed with health. Just look at today's magazines, TV >shows, Web sites, self-help books--and where we put our dollars. As a country, we make up about 4 percent of the world's total population, yet we expend almost half of all the money spent on medical care. We should be pretty healthy. > >Yet I have always been amazed at how poorly the United States ranks in >health when compared with other countries. When I began medical school in 1970 we stood about 15th in what I call the Health Olympics, the ranking of countries by life expectancy or infant mortality. Twenty years later we were about 20th, and in recent years we have plunged even further to around 25th, behind almost all rich countries and a few poor ones. For the richest and most powerful country in the world's history, this is a disgrace. > >As a physician obsessed with understanding what makes groups of people >healthy, I'm dumbfounded that our low ranking doesn't raise more concern in the medical and public-health communities. Is it because experts in these fields don't want to question the role of medical care in producing health? Does our focus on diseases--including the search for risk factors, cures and specific preventive answers--stop Americans from looking at what would really keep us well? > >Research during this last decade has shown that the health of a group of >people is not affected substantially by individual behaviors such as smoking, diet and exercise, by genetics or by the use of health care. In countries where basic goods are readily available, people's life span depends on the hierarchical structure of their society; that is, the size of >the gap between rich and poor. > >How can hierarchy affect health? Consider the feelings that predominate in a >hierarchical situation: power, domination, coercion (if you are on top); resignation, resentment and submission (if you are on the bottom). Compare them with feelings in an egalitarian environment: support, friendship, cooperation and sociability. Studies with baboons in Kenya and macaque monkeys in captivity, both of which feature strong hierarchical relationships, show that high-ranking animals are healthier than those lower in the pecking order. Human population studies show additional findings. The death rate from >heart attacks among middle-aged men is four times greater in Lithuania than >in Sweden, which is much more egalitarian. > >We can learn something by looking at countries that do well in the Health >Olympics. In 1960 Japan stood 23d, but by 1977 it had overtaken all the others in the health race. > >Today, at No. 1, Japan has a life expectancy on average three and a half >years longer than the United States'. Twice as many Japanese men as American men smoke, yet the deaths attributable to smoking are half of ours. Why? After the second world war, the hierarchical structure of Japan was reorganized so all citizens shared more equally in the economy. Today Japanese CEOs make 15 to 20 times what entry-level workers make, not the almost 500-fold difference in this country. During their recent economic crisis, CEOs and managers in Japan took cuts in pay rather than lay off workers. That the structure of >society is key to well-being becomes evident when we look at Japanese who >emigrate: their health declines to the level of the inhabitants of the new country. > >Did this health-hierarchy relationship always exist--is it part of human >nature? > >Archeological records from burial mounds and skeletal remains indicate that >human populations were relatively healthy before the advent of agriculture. The >development of farming allowed food to be produced in quantities and stored, enabling someto live off the efforts of others--a hierarchy. With agriculture, health declined, nutrition worsened and workload increased. > >Why has the medical community, as well as the popular press, essentially >ignored these findings? I suspect that part of the explanation lies in Americans' "cradle to grave" relationship with the health-care industry, which represents one seventh of the U.S. economy. > >If equality is good medicine, then what can be done to improve Americans' >well-being? > >Our primary goal should be to reduce today's record gap between rich and >poor. > >Prescriptions for such "structural medicine" might include a tax on >consumption rather than income, or increased support for public transportation, schools and day care, all of which would reflect a change in how the population shares in the economy. We must put our eyes on a new prize: doing better in the Health Olympics. The best prescription for health is not one we will get from doctors. > >Bezruchka teaches at the University of Washington's School of Public Health. >
Re: health & inequality
The non-linear effect is examined by Wolfson et al. at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/953/DC1At. Their modeling suggests it is not responsible for the observed relation between inequality and health in the US. Bill 01:54 PM 01/03/01 -0500, you wrote: >Doug, > I have not dug (sic) into this lit although I have seen >some of it. I think the argument that there is some >kind of nonlinear effect at the personal level is very >reasonable and certainly could be responsible for a >lot of the apparently conflicting results. > In this regard, I think that one would be more likely >to find stronger connections with the percent of people >in poverty rather than with inequality per se, with all of >this having to take into account the nature of the medical >care system if one is doing cross-country studies. >Barkley Rosser
