Religion Makes You Live Longer By Making You Behave?

(Image adapted from Energizr on Flickr)

Back in 2000, psychologist Michael E. McCullough and colleagues published a meta-analysis of several dozen studies indicating a strong correlation between religiosity and lower mortality. For the pious, this seemed to be proof that God had their backs and that their belief was paying off. To the rational minority, this data was a curiosity that begged deeper analysis. What other aspects of these individuals’ lives were also correlating with longevity? Could it be something other than their belief in God that was responsible?

MCullough did not rest on his laurels,. Rather, he did another meta-analysis in 2009 with his colleague Brian Willoughby, this time looking at hundreds of research papers, revealing that religious people are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors, like regularly visiting the doctor or dentist, and they are less likely to smoke, drink, take recreational drugs and engage in risky sex, Michael Shermer reported in this month’s Scientific American. This healthier behavior is clearly the more likely explanation for the longer life span.

Shermer, who writes the monthly Skeptic column for SciAm, went on to suggest that religion reinforces positive behaviors and rewards self-control by providing a tight social network and by promising Heaven and other delayed rewards. However, he suggests that we are all capable of this without belief in God or participation in organized religion. Meditation, for example, can help people exercise greater self-control and change bad habits. Parents and teachers try to reinforce impulse control and delayed gratification for children so that they will focus longer on the task at hand and refrain from disruptive behaviors.

Of course this notion of living a healthier lifestyle seems implausible in light of the high profile examples of religious leaders engaging in promiscuous sex and drunkenness and the Catholic Church’s ban on condoms. It also seems unlikely in light of the fact that the Bible Belt is the most obese region of the country and has among the highest smoking rates.

Nevertheless, let’s assume the data is valid, that most pious people do engage in healthier behaviors like visiting the doctor more regularly.  Does this mean that their religious affiliations are the cause of this health consciousness? Isn’t it possible that religious people are more likely to have health and dental insurance? It would be interesting to examine the data to see if pious people do in fact have better health plans or, for that matter, higher paying jobs. While the latter seems unlikely—we all hear about how religious the poor are—it is possible that the average wealth of religious people is actually higher than it is for the nonreligious, even including the religious poor.

Regardless of one’s religiosity, the biggest influence on one’s health and longevity is wealth and social status (see here, here and here). Being poor and/or black dramatically increases the odds of having a stressful, low-paid highly demanding job, food and housing insecurity, and lack of access to healthcare and leisure time. It also dramatically increases the chances of developing diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hypertension and an early death.

The debate about whether religiosity or faith improves one’s health is a red herring. If we really cared about improving health outcomes for all, we would focus on ways to improve the wealth and social status of all. Universal health care, for example, would significantly reduce the rate of preventable deaths in the U.S.

What Would Christie Do? And His Disciples?

What would Christie Do, as in Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey? Exactly as he threatened: Slash wages, benefits and health care for public workers. The problem was that, unlike in Wisconsin, he needed the support of Democrats in the state legislature, something that many liberals and union activists thought was impossible. Yet on Thursday, the New Jersey State Assembly, with Democratic support, approved a massive gutting of benefits for over 750,000 government workers and retirees, according to a Democracy Now report. The legislation will dramatically increase workers’ contributions for health insurance and pensions, thus cutting significantly into their take-home pay. It will also raise the age of retirement, freeze cost-of-living increases for pension checks, and restrict unions’ collective bargaining rights. Thousands rallied at the statehouse in Trenton to protest the cuts, many with signs specifically criticizing Democratic lawmakers.

Right wing education reform cheerleader RiShawn Biddle sees the Jersey vote as a nail in the coffin of the AFT and NEA, arguing that despite the millions of dollars the unions pour into the coffers of Democratic candidates, many Democrats no longer find the “kowtowing” to teachers worth the money. That may be true, but the take home lesson for teachers ought to be that all that campaign financing is an enormous waste of their dues and a pretty lame tactic, too. As I’ve said repeatedly in this blog, politicians are fickle and untrustworthy. They have far more in common with other members of the ruling class than they do with public sector workers and the majority of the working class and middle class clients. Giving them money in hopes that they will win and then vote in favor of working people and that there will be enough of these votes to pass legislation favorable to working people, is pretty indirect and dependent on the stars all being aligned just so. It makes a lot more sense to ask for exactly what you want and then put direct pressure on those with the power to grant it through strikes and other forms of direct action, rather than the passive and indirect method of trying to get “friends” elected who may or may not do your bidding once in office.

California Nightmare: 44th in Children’s Health, 47th in Education

The Nightmare, 1781, by Henry Fuessli

Sunshine. Warm weather. Beaches and palm trees. And one of the worst places to live if you want a decent education and health care for your kids.

A recent Commonwealth Fund survey compared children’s health across the U.S. California ranked 44^th; Massachusetts ranked 1^st. The survey examined 20 indicators, including insurance coverage, affordability of care and access to treatment. The main reason California ranked so poorly is its high uninsured rate for children (about 11%). Massachusetts, in contrast, has universal coverage.

California also has very low vaccination rates (see Murderous Marin Moms) of 78%, compared to 84% for Iowa, the top state for that indicator. As a result, Pertusis (whooping cough) has reached epidemic levels in California, with 5600 cases and 10 deaths last year. Only 50% of children in California have a consistent medical provider, compared with 69% in top-ranked New Hampshire.

In related news, California ranks 47^th in per-pupil education spending, ($2,856 less per pupil than the national average).

The Wealth Gap is Making Us Sick

The Rich Make Me Sick! (Image from Clav)

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just issued the government’s first report ever on the health disparities caused by social inequity in the U.S. In general, lower-income residents reported fewer average healthy days and more illness than wealthier individuals.

Between 1981 and 2006, the number of pre-term births increased from 9.4% to 12.8%. Infant mortality and pre-term births are linked to the ability of mothers to obtain adequate nutrition, health care and social support before, during and after birth. Smoking, which is much more common among lower income Americans, also increases the risk of premature births and infant mortality.

Families living at or below the poverty level were five time more likely to live in “inadequate” housing (flaking lead paint; defective or nonexistent smoke detectors, wiring or plumbing; mold; rodents; leaks) that increased their exposure to toxins and pathogens. Approximately 5% of American families are living in such inadequate and unhealthful housing.

The number of people without health insurance rose from 31 million in 1987 to 47 million in 2006, and 52 million last year. Because of their lack of insurance, many of these people did not get preventative health care or treatment for mild and chronic diseases, causing them to progress to life-threatening situations. Not surprisingly, the highest rates of hospitalizations were in the poorest communities, with African Americans having highest rate of preventable hospitalizations. Meanwhile, record numbers of hospitals and emergency rooms have been closing.

The data below comes from the Unnatural Causes video website. I highly recommend this video series.

 

Government Death (er, Deficit) Panel

Obama’s Deficit Panel has launched a large scale assault on the majority of Americans. Some of their proposals include:

• ·         Increasing the retirement age to 68 by 2050, and then to 69 by 2075
• ·         Cutting  cost of living increases for retirees
• ·         Cutting Medicare and Medicaid
• ·         Implementing tort “reform,” limiting our ability to sue doctors for malpractice
• ·         Cutting 10% of the federal workforce (approximately 200,000 more people will become unemployed)
• ·         Eliminating many tax deductions, including mortgage deduction interest.
• ·         Reducing the tax rate for those earning over $375,000 per year from 35% to 23%
• ·         Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 26%

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

The last two proposals actually worsen the deficit, but they mollify the rich who run the show. Obama defended the proposals saying, “We’re going to have to take actions that are difficult and we’re going to have to tell the truth to American people.” Their “truth” goes something like this: The sky is falling because we are living beyond our means. The deficit harms all Americans; therefore, we all have to tighten our belts. However, if this was true, then the rich should have tax increases, not cuts. Former republican senator, Alan Simpson, a commissioner on the panel, joked that he might have to go into the witness the protection program, which might be true if we were in France, or Germany, or England, or just about anywhere else with a semblance of labor militancy.

Meanwhile, over 26% of American adults are without health insurance. The total number is 49.9 million, up from 46 million in 2008, according to the CDC. The largest jump in uninsured individuals occurred among middle class families. Nearly one-third of adults in households making between $43,000 and $65,000 a year were uninsured last year, while one in five adults in households making between $65,000 and $87,000 were uninsured last year. Uninsured children declined slightly. However, uninsured adults must care for children, which is much more difficult when ill, particularly when they have serious chronic illness, which is the case for one in eight uninsured Americans. The uninsured are also much more likely to die of preventable or treatable diseases, which puts further strain on families and children, who then suffer emotionally, from the loss of a parent, and financially, from the loss of income.