AbstractObjective To provide quantitative evaluations on the association between income inequality and health.Design Random effects meta-analyses, calculating the overall relative risk for subsequent mortality among prospective cohort studies and the overall odds ratio for poor self rated health among cross sectional studies.Data sources PubMed, the ISI Web of Science, and the National Bureau for Economic Research database.Review methods Peer reviewed papers with multilevel data.Results The meta-analysis included 59 509 857 subjects in nine cohort studies and 1 280 211 subjects in 19 cross sectional studies. The overall cohort relative risk and cross sectional odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) per 0.05 unit increase in Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, was 1.08 (1.06 to 1.10) and 1.04 (1.02 to 1.06), respectively. Meta-regressions showed stronger associations between income inequality and the health outcomes among studies with higher Gini (≥0.3), conducted with data after 1990, with longer duration of follow-up (>7 years), and incorporating time lags between income inequality and outcomes. By contrast, analyses accounting for unmeasured regional characteristics showed a weaker association between income inequality and health.Conclusions The results suggest a modest adverse effect of income inequality on health, although the population impact might be larger if the association is truly causal. The results also support the threshold effect hypothesis, which posits the existence of a threshold of income inequality beyond which adverse impacts on health begin to emerge. The findings need to be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity between studies, as well as the attenuation of the risk estimates in analyses that attempted to control for the unmeasured characteristics of areas with high levels of income inequality.
It's a combination of stress, poor development space, poor living conditions, poor eating and drinking conditions and lack of effective care for the problems that do arise, in addition to all of the psychological and then cultural consequences that keep people in poverty.
Why should we, as a society, accept this limitation on our liberty so that a few rich people can have so much more than they can possibly have? How is it that we accept their excesses over our needs, in the hopes that we'll, one day, have those excesses ourselves in the unlikely to impossible future?
Why is it that Libertarians put abstract concepts, such as "liberty" for a few ahead of the actual meat which enables us all to have liberty? And how is it that conservatives frequently just siddle on next to these careless and callous elite people, public and private, who have absolutely no love or care for the general public as a whole?
There is no peace while these ideologues and careless people hold the reigns of power, regardless of which society that they live in. It's all thanks to an apparent deficit or excess in their brains that they become so ill-equipped at handling basic affairs of state and society.
And, as history has shown, countless times, these people pay the price of their incompetence and greed for relative power and monetary riches with their lives.
Not so clever.
Not so powerful.
Think about it.