Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oy vey. Ignoring semantics (because Harrier presumably has never so much as read a British publication, must less visited the UK if he has such issues with the language), there is a lot of truth to this.
It's similar to why young adults with cancer haven't seen any increase in survival rates in the past 30 years, while survival rates for the elderly and children have skyrocketed. Cannot afford medical care until the disease is more advanced, the added stress of fighting cancer while also worrying about how to pay rent, skipping medications and appointments due to cost, and having to go back to work too soon (or, in my case, not being able to take time off of work at all against doctor's wishes). Even in the best of diagnosis circumstances, if you are going through treatment working full time, stressed out about bills, unable to eat well or keep clean (or hire people to do it for you), then you are not going to have as good of an outcome as someone who had less stress.
Money can't buy you health, but it can mitigate the effects of bad health.
Liberal non-words and terms such as "social deprivation", "income inequality", "undocumented immigrant", and "marriage equality" need to be denounced for what they are - utter nonsense.
Oy vey. Ignoring semantics (because Harrier presumably has never so much as read a British publication, must less visited the UK if he has such issues with the language), there is a lot of truth to this.
It's similar to why young adults with cancer haven't seen any increase in survival rates in the past 30 years, while survival rates for the elderly and children have skyrocketed. Cannot afford medical care until the disease is more advanced, the added stress of fighting cancer while also worrying about how to pay rent, skipping medications and appointments due to cost, and having to go back to work too soon (or, in my case, not being able to take time off of work at all against doctor's wishes). Even in the best of diagnosis circumstances, if you are going through treatment working full time, stressed out about bills, unable to eat well or keep clean (or hire people to do it for you), then you are not going to have as good of an outcome as someone who had less stress.
Money can't buy you health, but it can mitigate the effects of bad health.
People who aren't "socially deprived" don't have stress?
It is not social deprecation that kills people with breast cancer. It is the chemo that does. Chemo has a 97% failure rate.
However, there are many holistic doctors that cure cAncer all the time. But they are usually shut down by the FDA. that is the real crime.
Social deprivation - whatever that no doubt liberal inspired term means - claims the life of 450 breast cancer victims a year, according to a Cancer Research study.
Now, we all know that "deprived" is a code word for "black, brown, or non-white", while "affluent" is a code word for "white", no matter the fact that many non-white people are affluent, and many white people are deprived, and this is true in England as well as the USA.
Don't we always hear that non-white people are "warmer" and more socially connected than those "cold" "anti-social" white people who are supposedly the source of all the non-white people's ills?
If that is so, then how can any of these people cited be socially deprived?
Can someone answer that question and/or explain how the conclusions of this study make an iota of sense?
(UPDATE: having read further posts, I now see that the article was written in a foreign language, by a Brit, and refers to economic deprivation, which is not the meaning of 'social deprivation' generally understood by Americans. Therefore, the bit below in this post should probably be regarded as what Brits call '*******s' and hence disregarded.) (Had no idea vBulletin knows British English)
Um, no, in this context, "socially deprived" is used in the interpersonal sense and is NOT about money or material resources. It's about having friends, family, and social networks, which can provide invaluable yet intangible support. The poor and the non-white in this country are probably less likely to be socially deprived than to be materially deprived.
The stereotypical welfare abuser yakking on smartphone, with kids sporting iPods and XBOX and Air Jordans, is NOT socially deprived, they are socially well-connected within their networks, while their next door neighbor on welfare who has none of those things is more likely to be socially deprived. Among welfare recipients, material deprivation probably is an indicator of social deprivation, which might be why things that don't make sense to the rest of us (like tattoos and Air Jordans) often take on inordinate importance to some of these people.
There is an extreme example of social deprivation I've seen described in multiple places; for all I know it may be a fiction employed to show an example. Traditional Asian clan structures are highly socially-dependent, and the example I've seen described involves an Asian man from a clan which has relocated to the West. The man knows only the clan lifestyle; Western culture is, well, foreign to him. He does something apparently unspeakable and is completely ostraciized by his clan; he now has no social support, is completely deprived socially, and soon dies, totally alone.
Is there a study that has been conducted to demonstrate that your assertion is true?
Google is sometimes your friend:
The study by the Pittsburgh-based university measured the income and years of education for 95 men and 98 women, and then tested their urine and saliva for stress hormones.
An avalanche of chronic stress — driven by concerns ranging from parenting to discrimination — disproportionately affects poor mothers and fathers, according to the first results from a comprehensive multi-state study.
"Those who are poor have much higher stress than those who are not. In fact, being poor was associated with more of almost every kind of stress," said Chris Dunkel Schetter, a professor of psychology in UCLA's College of Letters and Science and the study's lead author.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
