Progressives (Liberals)

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4303700002?__twitter_impression=true

'A distinctly American phenomenon': Our workforce is dying faster than any other wealthy country, study shows

JORGE L. ORTIZ | USA TODAY | 12:13 pm EST November 26, 2019

The life expectancy in the United States, 78.6 years as of 2017, is well off the average in Japan (84.1), France (82.4), Canada (81.9) and other high-income countries.

Midlife mortality from drug overdoses increased by 386.5% from 1999 to 2017, according to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

What can we do? “The prescription for the country is we’ve got to help these people. And if we don’t, we’re literally going to pay with our lives.’’

A study shows that more Americans are dying from drug and alcohol abuse and suicides than at any point in roughly the past 20 years. Veuer's Justin Kircher has more.

The engine that powers the world’s most potent economy is dying at a worrisome pace, a “distinctly American phenomenon’’ with no easily discernible cause or simple solution.

Those are some of the conclusions from a comprehensive new study by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University showing that mortality rates for U.S. adults ages 25-64 continue to increase, driving down the general population’s life expectancy for at least three consecutive years.

The report, “Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017,’’ was published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study paints a bleak picture of a workforce plagued by drug overdoses, suicides and organ-system diseases while grappling with economic stresses.

“This looks like an excellent paper – just what we needed to help unravel the overall decline in life expectancy in the U.S.,’’ said Eileen Crimmins, an associate dean at the University of Southern California who’s an expert on the link between health and socioeconomic factors.

In a trend that cuts across racial and ethnic boundaries, the U.S. has the worst midlife mortality rate among 17 high-income countries despite leading the world in per-capita spending on health care.

And while life expectancy in those other industrialized nations continues to inch up, it has been going in the opposite direction in America, decreasing from a peak of 78.9 years in 2014 to 78.6 in 2017, the last year covered by the report.

By comparison, according to the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker, the average longevity in similar countries is 82.2 years. Japan’s is 84.1, France’s 82.4 and Canada’s 81.9. They left the U.S. behind in the 1980s and increased the distance as the rate of progress in this country diminished and eventually halted in 2011.

Steven Woolf, director emeritus of the VCU Center on Society and Health and the study’s lead author, said the reasons for the decline go well beyond the lack of universal health care in the U.S. – in contrast with those other nations – although that’s a factor.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I should say most billionaires. Surly there might be one or two who can be compassionate.

Of course.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I actually found that DNC funding has been severely problematic for much longer.

Did you? And your link to such data is... where? And for context, when was this different? Ever? And for further context, how might this differ from the RNC? How might it differ from or be similar to other such political entities elsewhere? And what does "problematic" mean in your sentence?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

You really don’t know **** about Bernie. The primary reason he wouldn’t run as an independent candidate is because he sees the lay of the land and knows third party will either spoil for the Ds or Rs.
He hates spoilers.

And to get back to the relevant question here... is Bernie, if the nominee, going to reject all funding and other assistance from the DNC in the election runup? Or will he refuse their aid given that it will include corrupted and unsavory dollars and involve corrupted and unsavory individuals. This is the sort of question where you ought to provide a "yes" or "no" answer. We're all waiting.

1 Reply

@blatham,

If you didn’t look at the ones I’ve already cited, why on earth do you think I’d bring more?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

A spokesperson for Momentum, the grassroots Labour campaign group, said: “This is part of a growing relationship between Bernie, DSA activists and Momentum and Labour members abroad that has included exchanges between the nurses’ unions of the US and the UK to campaign on public health in the US.

Momentum certainly is not progressive but a political organisation sometimes very similar to Militant. with still a lot of non-Labour members allegedly in the organisation.

But though I think, the support from Sanders' campaign to be a positives sign, I think as well that Labour needs the support of the more traditional Labour voters and especially the support of the Leave members to get a majority.
And that seems ... well, more than difficult.

If Labour would join the Progressive Alliance .... but that's nearly impossible.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

The DNC has so far taken in $116 million before the November midterm elections — $9 million less than it had taken in at this point in 2014 and more than $30 million less than it had taken in at this point in 2010, the last two midterm cycles.

By contrast, the Republican National Committee has nearly doubled the DNC’s haul this cycle, bringing in a total of $227 million. And of the six major federal committees of both parties, the DNC has by far the most debt ($6.7 million) and the least amount in its bank account ($7.8 million).

There's nothing negative regarding developing other sources of funding aside from the DNC. That's entirely a positive step. A multiplicity of inter-linked and cooperating (for the most part) entities is a feature of GOP funding as well.

On the other hand, the campaign which you are part of to derogate and disempower the DNC is working damage on fundraising for an integral part of the infrastructure that puts Dems in office. It's worse than stupid.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Do you answer questions for other people? That sort of knocks another chunk out of your credibility.

Only Bernie can answer that question.

I suspect Bernie Sanders would press the DNC not to accept money from corporations.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

That sounds sort of similar to the US needing to get some type of alliance between progressives and liberal-minded Centrists who may finally open their eyes to what’s happening.

1 Reply

@blatham,

I’m disempowering billionaires who throw money at corrupt politicians through their corporations to make life increasingly unsustainable for regular Americans.

Our life expectancy is now almost 10 years below other industrialized countries.

WHY IS THIS OK WITH YOU?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

'A distinctly American phenomenon': Our workforce is dying faster than any other wealthy country, study shows

Pretty significant. But hardly a simple matter.

Quote:

The engine that powers the world’s most potent economy is dying at a worrisome pace, a “distinctly American phenomenon’’ with no easily discernible cause or simple solution.

These broad phenomena, like the decrease in crime rates across almost all major American cities from the mid 90s, don't succumb to simple explanations or resolutions as in these data above. Hoping they might is delusional.

America is a very weird place. It has a unique culture (or mosaic of cultures - see Colin Woodard's research) and a unique history. For some broad set of reasons, the US has often been stridently reluctant to adopt social democratic policies that have been highly successful in other western nations. The epitome of this reluctance and strident resistance is partly explainable in the details that Jane Mayer has documented in "Dark Money".

Everyone who sits on the left (if they are even minimally educated) believe that America's citizens would be far better served with a national ethos that eschews the sort of ideology that William Barr has recently voiced or that people like Trump manifest - that the world and nation are essentially a jungle wherein the powerful are the only legitimate rulers and that democracy is a failed ideology. On this, we're all mostly in accord.

How we get there is where all the tough questions reside. But throwing slime, innuendo and attacks within the left community serves only the purposes of the bad guys.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I'm pretty sure that part of the reason for B. Clinton's successful presidency was that he'd been charge of the DLC and had steered them towards the New Democrat "Third Way" which, in turn, got Wall Street and the banks to start contributing to the party, matching the Republicans' ability to raise money from corporations. It was a Faustian bargain, but only because it lasted too long — it worked well against Gingrich and the Contract On America the GOP was pushing at the time.

Quote:

On Nov. 13, 1995, the day that Clinton vetoed the Republican congressional budget resolution, leading to the first government shutdown, the president delivered a speech to the DLC convention and established the classic DLC “third way” frame.

“I think it is very important that you understand that this great debate in Washington is not, is not, about balancing the budget. It is about balancing our values as a people. ... Five months ago, I proposed a balanced budget that eliminates the deficit, cut hundreds of wasteful and outdated programs, but preserves Medicare and Medicaid, invests in education, technology, and research, protects the environment and defends and strengthens working families. And it maintains the ability of the United States to lead the world toward peace and freedom and democracy and prosperity. My budget reflects those values and fulfills our interests. The Republican congressional budget simply does not.”

About two weeks later, in his 1996 State of the Union speech, Clinton reiterated the New Democrat message and cemented his political victory over the defeated House Republicans, when he famously announced to the nation:

“The era of big government is over.”

This is why I hope Trump will move toward serious election reform in his next term. I can see him getting his party to back public financing and making his courts take another look at Citizens United. He might even start a national movement to register every qualified citizen knowing that, with his popularity, more voters simply means great numbers of people voting for him.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

If you didn’t look at the ones I’ve already cited

I did. I read them with care. They do not make the case you think or hope they do. Thus my responses.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Only Bernie can answer that question.

OK. Then let's rephrase the question.

If Sanders does accept the many sorts of assistance from the DNC including benefiting from millions of dollars in advertising and organization, would he then be part of the corruption you declaim? How would he be different from the DNC accepting money from corporate sources if he, just further along the chain?

Again, a yes or no answer would be honest. Another avoidance would not be.

1 Reply

@blatham,

You avoid.
I do not.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

You avoid.

I do not.

You just did.

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

No I didn’t.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

It was a Faustian bargain, but only because it lasted too long

Yes. This was such a weird point in time. Blair, of course, made a similar bargain (though in his case the bargain was perhaps mainly with Rupert Murdoch). What preceded - Reagan in the US, Thatcher in GB and Brian Mulroney - must be understood as critically relevant. But I admit I do not grasp the dynamics underlying these changes.

Quote:

This is why I hope Trump will move toward serious election reform in his next term. I can see him getting his party to back public financing and making his courts take another look at Citizens United. He might even start a national movement to register every qualified citizen knowing that, with his popularity, more voters simply means great numbers of people voting for him.

You are very commonly a treat to read, dear fellow.

0 Replies

@Lash,

My mistake that I used capital letters since Labour is of course of member party of "Progressive Alliance" - social democratic, progressive and socialist parties for freedom, justice and solidarity.

I referred to the progressive alliance in the UK, which is in opposition to right wing parties, chiefly the Conservative Party.
I really think they could form a new good government coalition for all UK, since SNP, Sinn Féin, and Plaid Cymru would be in this alliance besides the Greens and Liberal Democrats.

1 Reply

@Lash,

You were asked for a simple, very simple, yes or no response. You avoided by offering neither.

1 Reply

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know