Treating poverty works like medicine, doctors say

[Moonlight Graham]

Adding to poor patients' incomes works to decrease the health effects of poverty, Canadian doctors are finding.

The Canadian Medical Association is asking people across the country how poverty affects their health as part of its national dialogue tour. The group said that social and economic factors determine 50 per cent of health outcomes.

At his inner city family practice at Toronto's St. Michael's Hospital, Dr. Gary Bloch puts income information at the top of the medical history he puts on his charts.

"Treating people at the low income with a higher income will have at least as big an impact on their health as any other drug I could prescript to them," Bloch said.

To that end, Bloch asks all patients what their income is and where they get it, along with the standard questions about past medical history, surgeries and medications.

"I do see poverty as a disease," Bloch said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/05/24/poverty-disease.html

Is this another reason to try to improve income equality in Canada, at least as far as alleviating poverty for the poorest groups in the country? Or is this some kind of CBC left-wing media nonsense?

Comments on the story?

[TimG]

It is not clear what this story has to do with income *inequality*.

Why would making everybody equally poor help?

Edited May 26, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

It is not clear what this story has to do with income *inequality*.

Why would making everybody equally poor help?

Nobody said anything about making everyone equally poor.

"Treating people at the low income with a higher income will have at least as big an impact on their health as any other drug I could prescript to them," Bloch said.

[TimG]

Nobody said anything about making everyone equally poor.

Well that is what you mean when you say we need to 'reduce income equality'. IOW you are saying that people getting poorer is fine as long as people are equally poor.

If that is not what you mean you need to find another way to express what you mean.

But I suspect that is what you mean - you just don't like the way I put it because it turns your trite feel good phrase into a negative.

As for the op: giving people more money requires that money be taken away from others. That has consequences which the doctor ignores. Why does a doctor ignore the side effects of his recommended treatment?

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/05/24/poverty-disease.html

Is this another reason to try to improve income equality in Canada, at least as far as alleviating poverty for the poorest groups in the country? Or is this some kind of CBC left-wing media nonsense?

Comments on the story?

This is not a story about inequality - it is about poverty.

IMO, one of the best investments our society can make is in reducing child poverty, the key message is:

"A nutritious diet and access to opportunities for recreation could do more for health care than building more hospitals, Stanwich said."

In other words, an ounce of prevention...

[Pliny]

The argument you are going to save costs with preventative measures is not valid unless there is some ability to measure cost savings. Any proposed savings in health care costs are generally never realized as costs will always increase to swallow any real savings. A reduction in the cost of socialized medicine is a fable. It may be able to reduce inefficiencies to a degree but you are kidding yourself if you think you are going to save costs in any established socialist endeavor be it in health care, education or whatever. Over the long term they all become an unsustainable liability.

The correct solution is to not solve people's problems for them but ensure they have the ability to solve them for themselves. A knowledge of right and wrong helps. Making choices that are right improves self respect and self esteem. Self-discipline, self determination helps.

I listened to Dr. Benjamin Carson speak about how some people thrive on making other people feel they are victims. Blacks were slaves before the civil war in 1862 so you should feel like a victim today. Making people feel they are victims does not help and is actually detrimental to the individual and society in general.

What about all the victims of society? Ask if is really viable for them to stay victims because that is what is being encouraged by some of their leaders.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Pliny

[Canuckistani]

This is not a story about inequality - it is about poverty.

IMO, one of the best investments our society can make is in reducing child poverty, the key message is:

"A nutritious diet and access to opportunities for recreation could do more for health care than building more hospitals, Stanwich said."

In other words, an ounce of prevention...

And the best way to reduce child poverty is to reduce parent poverty. Higher wages for the working poor better support for people with kids on welfare if they can't work.

[TimG]

And the best way to reduce child poverty is to reduce parent poverty. Higher wages for the working poor better support for people with kids on welfare if they can't work.

Except the government can't simply wave a magic wand and decree that unskilled people be paid more than their worth (at least not without reducing the number of jobs available). Welfare rates also cannot be higher than what an unskilled person can expect to get on in labour market because that would create a disincentive to work.

[Moonlight Graham]

Well that is what you mean when you say we need to 'reduce income equality'. IOW you are saying that people getting poorer is fine as long as people are equally poor.

If that is not what you mean you need to find another way to express what you mean.

You completely misquoted me. I said "improve income equality", not ''reduce income equality' as you said. I also never said we "need" to do anything. I think you're just readings things that aren't there but which you wish I wrote so that you can refute them. Sorry, try again.

But I suspect that is what you mean - you just don't like the way I put it because it turns your trite feel good phrase into a negative.

Again, paranoid assumptions based on fabrications of your own imagination.

As for the op: giving people more money requires that money be taken away from others. That has consequences which the doctor ignores. Why does a doctor ignore the side effects of his recommended treatment?

Something to think about, but what could these side effects be, in terms of health of Canadians?

[Moonlight Graham]

This is not a story about inequality - it is about poverty.

I agree. It's just that a short-sighted rule on this forum means that I can't just post an article and say "what do you think?". I have to add some extra commenting to spur discussion, which in this case has distracted from the actual article. So, everyone, feel free to ignore my comments in the OP and just comment on the article itself.

[TimG]

I said "improve income equality", not ''reduce income equality' as you said.

I am not sure what you mean by "improve" if you don't mean "reduce".

"income equality" is a red herring.

We will always have poor people.

It is a truism to suggest that poor people would benefit if they had more money.

The issue is where does this money come from and there are no easy answers.

It is quite possible that is it more cost effective to provide healthcare to subset of poor people than to provide income subsidies to all poor people in the hope of reducing healthcare costs.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

Poverty is subjective. Minimum wage is almost four times what it was when I was earning it. Just adding money clearly didn't solve the problem.

[carepov]

The argument you are going to save costs with preventative measures is not valid unless there is some ability to measure cost savings. Any proposed savings in health care costs are generally never realized as costs will always increase to swallow any real savings. A reduction in the cost of socialized medicine is a fable. It may be able to reduce inefficiencies to a degree but you are kidding yourself if you think you are going to save costs in any established socialist endeavor be it in health care, education or whatever. Over the long term they all become an unsustainable liability.

The correct solution is to not solve people's problems for them but ensure they have the ability to solve them for themselves. A knowledge of right and wrong helps. Making choices that are right improves self respect and self esteem. Self-discipline, self determination helps.

I listened to Dr. Benjamin Carson speak about how some people thrive on making other people feel they are victims. Blacks were slaves before the civil war in 1862 so you should feel like a victim today. Making people feel they are victims does not help and is actually detrimental to the individual and society in general.

What about all the victims of society? Ask if is really viable for them to stay victims because that is what is being encouraged by some of their leaders.

Giving children free vaccinations saves real health costs.

Educating women about FAS saves real health (and other) costs.

Providing free needles saves real health costs.

Providing kids with nutritious school meals will save health costs.

Providing children with accessible active recreation programs will save real heath (and social) costs.

A housing-first program for homeless people saves policing and EMS costs.

Not every social program is effective and cost-efficient - but many are proven to be, and they should be expanded.

[Moonlight Graham]

Poverty is subjective. Minimum wage is almost four times what it was when I was earning it. Just adding money clearly didn't solve the problem.

In some ways poverty is relative, in other ways (ie: income, life-expectancy, caloric intake etc.) poverty is absolute and can be measured objectively regardless of culture/country etc.

Also minimum wage has increased, but so has inflation. Minimum wage also hasn't been implemented to solve the entire problem of poverty, it's meant to help the problem. That's like saying "cancer research hasn't solved the problem of cancer". Of course it hasn't, but it has helped the problem and saved many lives.

[Bryan]

Also minimum wage has increased, but so has inflation.

That's kind of my point. The more the bottom earners make, the higher all other wages and prices get, and they're still on the bottom. The only thing that works is getting out of the bottom.

[Canuckistani]

That's kind of my point. The more the bottom earners make, the higher all other wages and prices get, and they're still on the bottom. The only thing that works is getting out of the bottom.

Funny how that only applies to the people at the bottom. Everybody else seems to strive quite hard to get paid more. Of course there will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. What matters is how far that bottom is from the middle and the top. There's no reason it has to be so low they live in abject poverty.

[Bryan]

There's no reason it has to be so low they live in abject poverty.

Whatever the bottom is, will always be described as "abject poverty" compared to the wealthy.

[carepov]

Whatever the bottom is, will always be described as "abject poverty" compared to the wealthy.

Perhaps by some, but not by me and most likely not by the Doctor quoted in the OP.

Don't you think that a worthy goal would be to ensure all kids are safe, and have access to good nutrition and recreation?

Not only does this seem morally right, it is a wise economic investment.

[eyeball]

As for the op: giving people more money requires that money be taken away from others. That has consequences which the doctor ignores. Why does a doctor ignore the side effects of his recommended treatment?

The only real side effect I can see here is that the life spans of poor people might start exceeding that of rich people.

I admit that's a consequence I might ignore but all joking aside...I'm sure the good doctor's Hippocratic oath to do no harm would let him know when he's over-prescribed something.

[Bryan]

Don't you think that a worthy goal would be to ensure all kids are safe, and have access to good nutrition and recreation?

I do, as do most Canadians. That's why we already have that here by a pretty wide margin. Even someone on welfare in Canada is absolutely wealthy compared to most people in other parts of the world.

For the most part, the problem is not access, it's people's choices. It's their patterns of action that leave most people poor. Giving those people more money won't solve that problem, they need other kinds of help.

[Moonlight Graham]

Whatever the bottom is, will always be described as "abject poverty" compared to the wealthy.

Why would anyone (who isn't a moral degenerate) not want, say children or the elderly, to not have access to the most healthy levels of nutrition, health care, and environmental conditions that society can produce at any given time in history?

There are some people ignorant enough to believe that most of "the poor" are inherently unskilled, unintelligent, lazy bums who just need to pull themselves up by their boot straps lest they deserve their economic fate. I guess 95% of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans are inherently unskilled, unintelligent, lazy bums too!

[Moonlight Graham]

For the most part, the problem is not access, it's people's choices. It's their patterns of action that leave most people poor. Giving those people more money won't solve that problem, they need other kinds of help.

So ie: black people are generally statistically poorer than white people because they make poorer choices? I see what you're saying, and yes maybe they do, but we have to understand WHY some people make poor choices and others do not. In many cases, the reason is systemic. And yes, this does call for other kinds of help. (On the other hand, money does tend to solve a crapload of problems.)

[carepov]

I do, as do most Canadians. That's why we already have that here by a pretty wide margin. Even someone on welfare in Canada is absolutely wealthy compared to most people in other parts of the world.

For the most part, the problem is not access, it's people's choices. It's their patterns of action that leave most people poor. Giving those people more money won't solve that problem, they need other kinds of help.

You are missing something: children have no choice.

[Bryan]

You are missing something: children have no choice.

Which is exactly why we give them different kinds of help. Instead of giving money to their parents that the kids may never see, we institute meal programs at schools, and clothing drives, and equipment drives so they can play sports, and grants to cover the registration for those sports, and increased policing so that their neighborhoods are safe, and training programs so that those parents who are motivated can qualify for better paying jobs to get out from that bottom, and grants to employers if they hire those people.

[carepov]

Which is exactly why we give them different kinds of help. Instead of giving money to their parents that the kids may never see, we institute meal programs at schools, and clothing drives, and equipment drives so they can play sports, and grants to cover the registration for those sports, and increased policing so that their neighborhoods are safe, and training programs so that those parents who are motivated can qualify for better paying jobs to get out from that bottom, and grants to employers if they hire those people.

Agreed.