SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
London, United Kingdom - A decade of "austerity" - a political programme of slashing public spending on services in a bid to reduce government budget deficits - has seen significant effects on the health and wellbeing of Britons, new research has reported.
Life expectancy has stalled and mortality rates have increased, especially for the poorest in the United Kingdom, according to a report commissioned by the Institute of Health Equity.
The report, Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review Ten Years On, was launched on Tuesday and sees Sir Michael Marmot, a former president of the World Medical Association, updating his influential 2010 report, having been asked by the then-Labour government to study the question: "Is inequality making us sick?"
Marmot's latest research analysed a wealth of data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Public Health England to explore what has happened since his last landmark report. And the answer can only be summarised as: Not only is inequality making us sick but it is killing us quicker.
In the past decade - for the first time in 120 years of increasing life expectancy in England - life expectancy has stalled for those people living in the UK's 10 percent most deprived areas, particularly in the northeast.
Among women from the most deprived areas - especially British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin - life expectancy fell between 2010-2012 and again between 2016-2018.
Mortality rates have meanwhile increased for people aged between 45 and 49 - the generation that grew up under former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's administrations. The report details how life expectancy follows the social gradient - the more deprived the area, the shorter the life expectancy.
Marmot's data analysis finds that, as the social gradient has become steeper, so inequalities in life expectancy have also increased.
Austerity has adversely affected the social determinants that impact on health in the short, medium and long term. Austerity will cast a long shadow over the lives of the children born and growing up under its effects
:- Professor Sir Michael Marmot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:36PM (9 children)
Third way labour dipshit gordon brown lowering taxes on the highest tax brackets by 15% probably had more to do with the shortfall that imaginary infinite expense balloons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:52PM (5 children)
Something else the Labour government did may be a large non-imaginary expense. [telegraph.co.uk] If only we had some idea what it was...
... I have no idea, what could it be?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:02PM (4 children)
Yep, those expenses are entirely in your imagination, or at least not discussed even in passing in your article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:13PM (3 children)
They are in the summary above...
If women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin aren't disproportionately reliant on social care, why is their life expectancy falling disproportionately? More importantly, why would the British taxpayer be footing the bill for "British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin"? By what percentage has that population increased since 1997 and if public funds are disproportionately expended on this population segment why was it not in any of Labours election manifestos?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:32PM (2 children)
Jesus Fucking Boogitty Christ
You racist fucktards just can't get it through your thick heads that community is an all-inclusive concept.
"if public funds are disproportionately expended on this population segment why was it not in any of Labours election manifestos?"
Umm, because no one wants a dystopian future like Logan's Run where death is mandated. That is the end-goal of your type of thinking. Old people get sick easier and require more expensive on-going care, why not just kill them off before that becomes a problem? /sarcasm
Same sort of deal for your attempt to persecute a specific population for health issues.
"More importantly, why would the British taxpayer be footing the bill for "British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin""
The FUCK is WRONG with you? Because they are BRITISH WOMEN! Racist, religion persecuting motherfucker. Rot in hell dipshit.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:41PM
Ahh, "Muh racism". Was it "Muh racism" when I squared off against a group of white lads hurling racist abuse at a Chinese woman on Friday night? Just wondering if that elicits the "Muh racism" argument like everything else does these days?
Nothing in my comments here has been racist, the article inadvertently makes the case that Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are overrepresented in social welfare dependence (Bangladeshi men are also often dependent on something [researchgate.net]). Do you know where Bangladeshi and Pakistani men are really overrepresented? [quillette.com]
Ahh yes, "all-inclusive". Is that why a muslim womans word is worth is half that of a man? Is your usage of "all-inclusive" here a codeword for wife-beating or racially motivated child rape? Or is it not in the public interest [independent.co.uk] to discuss how such things were aided and abetted [wikipedia.org] by the police and political establishment? The majority of the vulnerable girls who were raped were in the care of social services, costing the British taxpayer multiples of the best boarding school education money can buy. [thetimes.co.uk]
This is what I'm paying 18% corporation tax and 40% income tax for is it pal? For British people to wait 6 months for life saving surgery or mental health treatment while flying incubators full of African women touch down daily for free NHS child birth? And if I object to any of it or treat dickheads like this [twitter.com] to an NHS supper (once again at my own expense) I'll be called a "racist"? That's very funny - fuck you! As to the public servants responsible for this criminal shit show, either they lose their pensions or the day of the rope approaches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @11:23AM
From personal experience, they are Bangladeshi and Pakistani women living in Britain. Note they didn't mention Indians? I've known Indian women who're more English than the native English, in Scotland and Wales, again, the situation is different to an extent but the Pakistani & Bangladeshi 'communities' are more Pakistani & Bangladeshi than 'British' or 'Scottish' or 'Welsh', and that includes their children, in some cases, their grand-children....yes two generations born in the British Isles and they're more 'Pakistani or Bangladeshi' than British, not racism, just a statement of fact.
And it's funny you bring religion into it....I'll leave it up to you, dear readers, to figure out which religion is predominate in both the the Pakistani and Bangladeshi 'communities' (Though, in fairness, I have to add, the Bangladeshis aren't, on the whole, as dangerously fanatical about it as the Pakistanis..again, from personal experience over a couple of decades).
Besides, let's not be distracted from the truth, it doesn't matter what race or religion you are, if you're poor in the UK, despite the alleged safety nets of the welfare state, you're fucked, and 'They' want rid of us...and, I say that from current bitter personal experience.
Really?, is that like 'no one wants to live in the world of 1984?', if so, I hate to break it to you, but have you seen what the UK has become over the past couple of decades?
Let me tell you a story of the dying years/months/days of the Thatcher regime, a little outfit called the R@yne Institute down in London were evaluating software for the NHS which 'scored' patients for treatment, if said patient was aged, unemployed or in a low income job, then their starting score was very very low...no effective or expensive drugs, treatments or procedures for you then, little peon, swallow these cheap co-codamols, go away and quietly die (saving us having to pay you the state pension you contributed to and cover your geriatric care) And that wasn't the only 'endlösung' to the problem of how to rid themselves of the great unwashed they were evaluating.
Of course, then we had the 'Red Tory' Blair regime, the assumption by the great unwashed was that all these Thatcherite schemes were shelved..were they fuck, they were just more circumspect about their deployment (rather than the software sitting on GPs desktop computers as the Thatcherites planned, it sat on 'policy planners' machines, safely away from scrutiny), fast forward to the now, the Tories are fully back in control..expect more of that shit.
Logan's Run, eh? funny you mention that, for years I've said the Tories (both Red and Blue) are the parties of 'Renew! Renew!', very few (less than one handful) people got the reference...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 28 2020, @03:39AM (2 children)
Imaginary? Every single election cycle the "I'm for the little man! We demand $freeshatoftheday!" party attempts to increase spending. And about every other time on average, they succeed. But, yeah, it's totally my imagination that new or more highly funded programs cause a spending increase.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @04:29AM (1 child)
I don't really agree with this assessment, mostly because there aren't a lot of political parties that support austerity. Your typical left and right parties tend to support a lot of government spending but disagree on where it should be spent. In the US, the Democrats and Republicans worked together to end sequestration and increase spending levels across the board. If spending is going to be reduced, it's probably going to come from a classically liberal party like the US Libertarian party. Unfortunately, we're stuck with typical left and right parties wanting to increase spending in different areas. Whoever has a majority decides what type of spending to increase. Left-leaning parties tend to support more spending on social programs while right-leaning parties tend to support more defense spending and reducing revenue through tax cuts. I don't like taxes any more than you do, but it seems irresponsible to cut taxes while already running large deficits. But if you want to actually cut spending and reduce deficits, you probably need a classically liberal party in power.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2020, @04:17AM
Read the thread not just the comment. In context you're agreeing with me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.