Health Span
Have you ever heard of the concept of “health span”?
It’s somewhat similar to the widely used term “life span.” However, while life span is about how long you live, health span refers to the amount of that time you are actually healthy. We are all living longer, but for many people, the extra years gained are often years spent with illness. In other words, simply living longer doesn’t necessarily say much about our quality of life.
Poverty and Health Span
There is also a significant difference between people who are financially well-off and those who are struggling. In terms of life span, the difference is about seven years. People fighting to make ends meet live on average seven years shorter than those who don’t have to worry about every penny. On top of that, the group with financial struggles not only has a shorter life span but also a shorter health span. In other words, during their already shorter lives, they spend more years in poor health. Poverty is thus a negative predictor for both life span and health span.
Poverty Figures
In 2023, about 540,000 people in the Netherlands lived in poverty (source: CBS/SCP/Nibud). They have a very limited budget for daily groceries. When more than 80% of supermarket promotions focus on unhealthy products, we aren’t exactly helping people in poverty to improve their health span or life span. And that’s just the supermarket offerings. What about the products offered by food banks or initiatives like Mini Manna? If such initiatives mirror the offerings of supermarkets, they may not be helping much either. I can’t say for sure, as I have never used them myself.
Stress
Life is tough, and the flesh is weak. We live in uncertain times, and as a result, many people’s stress levels have risen. Ongoing stress increases our biological craving for fatty and sugary foods. I didn’t make this up — it’s a well-established biological fact. People living in poverty experience constant stress, which biologically deteriorates their eating habits and also fuels addictive behaviors.
When I worked as a community nurse, I often visited people at home. Today, I still visit people as a volunteer, though in a completely different capacity. One thing I consistently notice is that people who can least afford it are often the heaviest smokers.
Survival
But honestly, if you have little to live for, what would you do? How would you make the constant battle for survival somewhat bearable? Smoking, drinking, and indulging in comforting (yet unhealthy) food can soften the pain of existence. It helps in the short term, but in the long term, it significantly shortens health span. Yet people in poverty generally aren’t focused on the long term. They need to survive day by day.
Freedom of Choice?
We live in a liberal country where freedom of choice is highly valued. But true freedom of choice only exists for those with money. In the Netherlands, we dislike paternalism. “I decide how I live my life.” But aren’t we ignoring how this attitude harms vulnerable groups in our society? Surely everyone can see that? So why do we collectively look the other way? Why don’t we tackle the problems at their roots?
Costs
Imagine lifting those 540,000 people out of poverty, allowing them to live an average of seven years longer. Do you have any idea what that would cost? Many people currently living in poverty don’t even reach the retirement age and thus never claim a state pension (AOW).
But what if they did live longer and healthier lives? A simple calculation shows that this could cost the Dutch government an additional €8.5 billion per year in AOW payments. That’s about 1.84% of total government expenditures at the moment.
Benefits
If 540,000 people no longer lived in poverty, their chances of dropping out of the workforce due to illness would significantly decrease. If extending their health span allows them to work an average of seven years longer, the economic gain would roughly balance out the additional AOW costs.
Why, then, do we in the Netherlands prioritize freedom of choice and minimizing government intervention when we know this denies vulnerable groups the prospect of a dignified life?
Under Pressure
Currently, over half the Dutch population is overweight. And being overweight is a strong predictor of many diseases in the long term. In other words, the health span of more than half of the Dutch population is under serious pressure. One out of two people is making choices that could shave off a significant number of healthy years from their lives.
But are these people truly making a choice? Or do they merely believe they have freedom of choice?
Shareholder Interests
I believe it’s the latter. We are collectively being deceived by Big Food, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Money. These industries are determined to maximize their profits at our expense while pretending to serve our best interests. In reality, they mainly serve the interests of a small elite: the shareholders.
It gets even more complicated because our pension funds are major shareholders in these industries. About 70 to 80 percent of pension fund income comes from investment returns, and only 20 to 30 percent comes from paid pension contributions.
Old-Age Provisions
In short, a large portion of the money needed to provide us with income after retirement depends on profits from Big Food, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Money.
What would happen to our pensions if a complete system change caused these industries’ profits to collapse?
In other words, shouldn’t we first come up with a solid and affordable alternative for old-age provisions if we want any real chance of successfully tackling Big Food, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Money?