As this blog is supposedly fitness-esque this data from the Economist caught my eye. Everyone, even Donald Trump to a lesser extent, is trying to figure out what the heck happened in the election. Here's a trend that is suggested in this article is disparity in health correlating with Trump votes. It even goes so far as to suggest that if many of these folks were healthier, they may have put Hillary in the White House.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-13?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
If this is the case, perhaps there is some additional reasoning behind peoples votes. Perhaps a portion of the population felt left behind in healthcare while other groups found increased coverage. Or perhaps having insurance through the mandate is poor incentive when care is still difficult to access.
Regardless of political views, a healthy population is a good thing. It appears that while expanding coverage may be a noble path forward it is also important to increase accessibility and come up with incentives that are more positive for people living in more rural areas or who have reservations about or challenges in seeking medical care.
No comments:
Post a Comment