Apr 26, 2017 4 min read

For quite a while now, there’s been a trend in this country of the very rich getting very much richer, while those on the other end of the wealth spectrum have struggled to keep their heads above water. The money being gathered by the extremely well-off has not exactly been trickling down, and suggestions about ways to help those at the bottom, such as increasing the minimum wage, have been met with dire warnings from the “haves” that we’d better be careful, or we’ll end up paying another 15 cents for a Big Mac.

This widening gulf between rich and poor also is being reflected in life expectancy, with attendant fiscal consequences. A recent Bloomberg report on a study by a prominent group of economists and experts on health policy tells us that, “The richest people in the U.S. aren’t just getting several years of extra life, they’re also reaping a financial reward for their longevity – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. These trends will be crucial as the new administration and Congress consider any changes to Social Security, Medicare and other programs. Even tweaks to those programs, from the retirement age to benefit formulas, could affect the rich and poor very differently.”

According to the study, in 1980, a 50-year-old man in the wealthiest fifth of income in this country could expect to live five years longer than a man the same age in the lowest fifth of income bracket. Thirty years later, in 2010, that gap had widened to 12.7 years, with those in the bottom fifth having a life expectancy of 76, compared to nearly 89 for those in the top fifth. And last year, the Society of Actuaries announced that it was dropping its expectations of life expectancy for 65-year-olds in this country by six months. The biggest factor in that reduction was the deteriorating health prospects of middle-aged white Americans.

The fiscal effects of this large gap in life expectancy, according to the Bloomberg report, can be illustrated by a look at the Social Security program. Wealthier Americans have always collected more from Social Security than their poorer counterparts, because they live longer, and because they qualified for larger checks by earning more during their working lives. But that gulf is growing much wider.

“In 1980, a wealthier 50-year-old could expect to collect $103,000 more than a poor American,” said Bloomberg’s story. “Thirty years later, the gap was $173,000.”

Why are the wealthy now living so much longer? Bloomberg said there are a number of theories, including higher levels of substance abuse, obesity and suicide, which more often affect the less affluent, and the effects of economic inequality on the quality of health care that people receive. As Bloomberg notes, even for those with some form of insurance, the cost of top-notch health care has soared.

The core concern is what can be done to narrow the gap, to help those on the lower end of the economic scale live longer. We have advocated in the past for a single-payer health-care system designed to provide all Americans with access to quality care, and we see no reason to abandon that position.

The Affordable Care Act certainly is not without its faults, but it has helped millions of Americans obtain health coverage, including many people with pre-existing conditions. It could have been made better through inclusion of a public option, but sufficient support for that in Congress simply did not exist. Our leaders in D.C. should be exploring every way possible to improve the ACA, better known as Obamacare. Unfortunately, the president and many Republicans in Congress are trying to gut the program, and if they succeed, we can be certain about a couple of things. Fewer people will have access to quality health care and, as a direct result, people will be condemed to early deaths. That gap between rich and poor will grow wider.