Tags

, , , , , ,

I recently read a very enlightening fact. Scientific evidence shows that there is a positive correlation between the number of birthdays and life expectancy. If I read it correctly, the more birthdays a person has, the longer the person can be expected to live. So for example, if a person has had 79 birthdays, we can predict using regression analysis that the individual will live for at least 79 years.  The relationship is also statistically significant at the .001 level.  Conversely, if one does not have as many birthdays, we can expect to find a reduction in life expectancy.  This is a problem for the poor.

Studies overwhelmingly agree that there is a positive correlation between income and health. As individual income increases, life expectancy increases. We also know that the poor tend to suffer from more health problems and can be expected to have a lower life expectancy. The influence of socioeconomic status on health is known as the “fundamental causes of illness” thesis, which was Link and Phelan’s theory published in 1995 that illness is a problem grounded in social factors, not just biological. This is one of the most powerful theories in medical sociology today and can help us understand how poverty prevents people from being healthier individuals.

For example in Kansas, the fundamental causes theory is evident when comparing health indicators and measures of SES between counties. I compared 5 Kansas counties ranging from one of the poorest in the state to the richest in terms of median household income according to several measures of socioeconomic status and neighborhood effects, such as the unemployment rate, by health indicators. The data clearly show a relationship between SES and various health measures. So what do birthdays have to do with anything?

Birthdays are social constructs, cultural products we use in the U.S. to denote and attach meaning to the annual recurrence of the day on which a person was born. We mark these days with celebratory rituals such as birthday parties and consume foods specifically marked for birthdays such as birthday cakes. Americans will give small rectangular pieces of stiff paper folded in the middle with birthday-related salutations and accolades inside and out that are called birthday cards.  There is also a song performed by friends and loved ones during the ritualistic gathering on the birthday, usually before the cake is consumed, entitled “Happy Birthday.” There was some recent controversy over the rights to the song, if it should be protected by copyright still or belong in the public domain, but people have been singing this song in the U.S. for years with no thought about either.  These are important days, especially for children, who often receive gifts on their birthdays.  The birthday becomes less important to adults, especially after certain landmark years, and varies by gender.  Some women, for example, claim that birthdays no longer occur after 30, while some state they no longer recur after 40.  Men tend to be less concerned with these milestones.

How, then, are birthdays relevant for health?  Well, it is a curious relationship that I will attempt to theorize here.  Since birthdays are often events that produce higher than average levels of happiness, one can guess that anxiety will decline on those days, assuming, though, that the birthdays are desired.  For the sake of theoretical parsimony, I will assume that all people in the US desire birthdays.  Research shows that increased anxiety can increase the likelihood of all sorts of health problems, such as cancer and high blood pressure.  Cancer can increase mortality, and high blood pressure can be indicative of more serious problems such as cardio vascular disease, which, of course, can increase risk of myocardial infarction.  So the benefits of birthdays are evident there.  In addition, birthdays unintentionally connote the passage of a complete calendar year.  This means that birthdays represent a temporal variable measuring aliveness that increases in value.  Therefore, the increase in the time spent being alive is a causal factor in improving life expectancy.  Thus, I can argue that more birthdays, with the objective health benefits and the representation of the annual increase of life, should increase life expectancy, which is the length of time one can be expected to live.  As such, this relationship provides further support for the fundamental causes thesis, as birthdays are social in nature.  What are the implications of this revelation?

Knowing the strong relationship between birthday and life expectancy provides a great solution for mitigating health disparities.  Because the poor have lower life expectancy, we can assume then that they will also have fewer birthdays.  A reasonable means for reducing the disparity of life expectancy between the rich and poor  could be redistribution of birthdays.  If birthdays could be shifted from those who need them less to those who need them more, then we could reduce the inequality of life expectancy and therefore health between the rich and poor.  The poor disproportionately benefit from the increase in birthdays in relation to the rich who presumably have more.  The marginal utility of additional birthday beyond a certain age declines, which mean, the more birthdays one has after a certain point, the less meaningful they are and less beneficial.  By giving the poor more birthdays, they can live longer, even though individuals whom we might expect to live longer will likely see a slight reduction in life expectancy.  But the benefits should outweigh the risks.

I thought about the political implications of such a plan for reducing health disparities, and I think people on both sides of the aisle in American politics can be appeased.  Liberals and progressives will like the plan, because it will reduce inequalities and help a historically oppressed group.  Fiscal conservatives will like it, because it should not cost very much.  Social conservatives may like it, because more people who are more likely to be religious will be around longer to spread His Word and contribute to the glory of this Christian nation.

Of course, there will be the naysayers from across the political spectrum.  Liberals will not like the ageism involved.  Older Americans will be targeted or “profiled” for their number of birthdays resulting in age discrimination.  That could be a problem for the ACLU to resolve.  Fiscal conservatives will be concerned that if the poor have more birthdays, liberals might want to tax them more, and therefore increase taxes on everyone.  Also being around longer means a greater burden on taxpayers to contribute to rising costs of Medicare.  Policymakers will have to develop an efficient means for redistribution that keeps costs down, though the higher taxes could be problematic.  Finally, social conservatives will not like the fact Peter will have to be robbed to pay Paul so that the people undeserving of assistance should get that which other, more hard working, Americans worked so long and hard to get.  Convincing this group that the poor are deserving will be a challenge for progressives.  Perhaps citing the Christian ethos of sacrifice and ‘love thy neighbor’ could be a path toward consensus.

Regardless, there will be challenges facing policymakers that may take time to resolve but will be well worth it in the end.  The pursuit of happiness is the bedrock of the American way of life, and the more people who are able to pursue such happiness longer, the better.  So if anything, birthday redistribution as a reasonable solution for improving health is a truly American solution to one of the biggest problems in people’s lives: death.