You must log in or # to comment.
Health care. Not insurance. Care.
All these comments are great, but the real mystery is:
Why did someone overlay a different font on top of the original graphic rather than just make a whole new graphic? Like, the work is exactly the same, and the rest of us can view sane font placement.
Most horse people I know (me included) are BROKE because we choose to have horse(s) when we really shouldn’t. Bad financial decisions for sure, but most horse people have a passion for the creatures and don’t let things like finances get in the way.
There have been days where I’ve skipped meals in order to buy my horse her supplements. Not many days, but a couple. My bond with horses is what keeps me going when I’m at my lowest, so I refuse to give them up. My mom and grandma will occasionally sneak me a few bucks to help because they’re almost as invested in my horse as I am.
Here’s the horse tax:
Nice yee yee ass horse you got there
Implied Causation #2: health insurance has a bearing on longer life
Implied Causation #3: Health insurance isn’t effective at insuring health, thus the implied causation needs to be explicitly noted
Health insurance doesn’t equal Healthcare
People who live longer:
People who drink a glass of wine every night.
People who buy organic and cook whole foods at home.
People who spend 30+ minutes a day being activr/at the gym.
People who get 9+ hours of sleep every night.
People who have less chronic stress.
People who get regular checkups/screenings at the doctor.
So… rich people that have the time and can afford to do all of those things or have them done for them.
The glass of wine is likely due to a selection bias in Tea Total people. Most people who are completely sober, are so either because they are recovering alcoholics, or have other health issues.
Most people who are healthy and have no prior alcoholism issues drink at least occasionaly, which introduces a selection bias favouring people with health issues as strict non drinkers, which causes not drinking at all to be correlated with worse health than drinking occasionally.
Idk… a lot of gen Z people I know just don’t drink at all
OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn’t control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn’t drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day.
Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they’re is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume.
So it’s got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the “1-2 drinks is healthy” thing.
No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe?
Yep.
Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it’s likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food).
Drinking is different because no one needs to drink.
Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary
Yes but this depends significantly on where you live.
alcohol is driving?
Exactly!
I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues.
It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won’t increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I’m not saying it’s negligible or significant, but I can’t be bothered to look it up.
because they can’t afford it. prices are up, incomes are down. Gen Z starting incomes aren’t much higher than the start incomes of people from 10-20 year ago, but booze prices are triple what they were, i’ve actually seen them start to come down recently because well, even older folks can’t afford $20 cocktails or $20 four packs of beer. when I was 25 $20 got you a 24 pack of craft beer. or a 48 of the cheap shit.
Yeah but these (usually flawed) studies that have wormed their way into the public consciousness were done long before gen z was drinking age. From up-to-date information it’s pretty clear that any amount of any kind of alcohol is quite bad for you. Obviously increasing with quantity.
How does wine taste? I really wanna taste wine before I die.
It varies dramatically for different types of wine, even within the broad categories (red, white, rosé, etc.). Some wines are grapier and will be reminiscent of juice you’ve had. Others are further away from that. Invariably they will taste different if you’ve never had wine before, even moreso if you’ve not had alcohol.
If you are interested in wine for the experience, I’d recommend situations where it’s well-paired with food. The best wine I’ve ever drank has been with good food that complemented it.
The crazy thing about wine is that it tastes wiiiiiiiiiiildly different based on the grape and process.
A good bottle of wine is only in the $20-$30 range. IMO, every wine I have ever had that costs more than $30 is not any better than wine that is $30. Ive tried quite a bit of different stuff up to $75-$300 bottles that I got for free. None of it was worth more than a $30 bottles, at least to my palette. The one exception probably being Veuve Cliquot champagne, which is really good but costs like $50.
There is a pretty big difference between a $7 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine though. Honestly wine is kind of an acquired taste, and there are a lot of varieties. If you want something good but also cheap then you cant go wrong with a $10 bottle of sweet table wine. Any other kind of wine its worth it to spend for something in the $20-$30 price range if you want it to be decent
Depends on the wine. I wanted to see for myself so I bought 2 bottles from the same producer. Same type of wine and stuff as well. One bottle was 25-ish€ and the other was 80-ish. I could instantly tell which the more expensive wine was. Then I asked my wife to taste without telling her which is which. She could also instantly tell. Was it worth the price? Fuck no. I usually buy in the 10-15 range from a guy that I trust since supermarket stuff is hit and miss and I like trying new ones, not just buying the same one every time.
I suppose thats kind of what I meant. For sure there are actual differences between a $30 bottle and an $80 bottle, but after $30 it is mostly a game of massively diminishing returns. A $60 bottle of wine is nowhere near as good of a value as two $30 bottles of wine. A $300 bottle is sure as shit nowhere near good enough to be better than the value of 10 $30 bottles
Other than Cliqout, Ive never had a bottle of wine worth over $30 that I would ever pay for myself. Im a big fan of Saldo, which doesnt have hardly any label on it. I figured it would be good wine since its definitely not selling itself with a sexy label lol
I’m lucky to live in France so there’s plenty of affordable and good local wine but I’ll definitely keep an eye on the import section for that one. Heard good things about Californian wines. So I was already curious but never actually tried any.
I am not American and where I live, wine is illegal (exceptions are there and loopholes too) so it is difficult for me to drink wine in my community and country.
The basic recipe for wine is grape juice, yeast, and time, and yeasts are everywhere. It’s not hard to “accidentally” turn an opened bottle of grape juice into wine.
I had a nepo coworker gloat about spilling $500/bottle champagne in NYC for his birthday party. I said, “why aren’t you drinking that?” Sick.
If you haven’t tried it because you have to avoid alcohol, good news - alcohol free wine is hitting the market.
Tbh, it’s not the most amazing example of wine, but the ones I tried were not awful either. It would give you a good example how wine tastes like.
I wanna drink alcohol bro.
personally I don’t think any alcoholic beverage tastes good - at least not the traditional ones like wine, beer, spirits. I do still drink and have done since I was a kid because it does make you feel kind of happy and socialising is easier and more enjoyable. (just two or three drinks though - more than that and it starts having negative effects)
Tastes a lot like grapes that have gone off, actually. So just imagine that. Maybe you’ll live longer.
Well I don’t wanna live longer. I wanna enjoy everything in this life before I die.
Here for a good time, not for a long time.
Based
Pretty terrible, honestly. My review is: “Ugh, this grape juice has gone really bad!”
I don’t mind the occasional whiskey, and I really like Amaretto … but IMO, wine is just gross.
There are notable exceptions, but in general:
White wine: candy.
Red wine: asshole.
i grew up poor and did most of those things, except from the organic whole foods stuff, which didn’t even exist where i lived.
you don’t have to be rich rich, you just have to have free time and good habits. and lots of poor people have lots of free time and very bad habits.
There are different levels of poverty that vary drastically in quality of life, and are highly dependent on what region you live in.
Being poor basically anywhere in Europe is a lot easier than being poor in America. Being poor in a state like California or New York is going to be easier than being poor in Oklahoma or Alabama.
Different regions have different local governments that have a huge impact on the social safety network afforded to the working poor and the disabled.
In my experience, I haven’t known very many poor people who weren’t disabled that had a lot of extra free time on their hands. Good habits are hard to keep when you work two to three jobs 6-7 days a week to make a wage that barely pays the bills.
“Two to three jobs” is already a statement that in Europe would apply to basically no one, while it’s a common reality in US
Yeap, an unfortunate side effect of “Obamacare” mandating corporations provide coverage for full time employees was everyone cutting hours back to make sure no one was full time. Labour laws here are a joke.
I had to sell all my free time for some ultra-processed foods
In the UK where everyone has decent basic health care on average you live 2 years shorter if you own a horse. It’s worse than riding a motorcycle (1 year shorter). It turns out that owning a big animal that will kick you if you look at it funny or throw you off if it gets startled by a packet of crisps in the road isn’t that great for your health.
I always thought horses could murder someone because that’s their idea of a good joke.
We need a comprehensive study that compares health outcomes from getting your face kicked in, between the US and the UK.
Kind of like all the sugar substitute correlation “studies” that keep saying sugar substitutes cause the same diseases that being obese cause. Hmmm, I wonder who typically consumes sugar substitutes…
Flip side of the studies that show people that eat almonds as a snack live longer.
Almonds are fucking expensive, yo. If you’re snacking on almonds, you’re doing OK already.
what? they are fairly cheap for a nut. that’s why they are so ubiquitous. walnut, pecan, pistachio, macademia… all more per lb.
most other nuts cost more, excluding peanuts.
almonds are about 5 dollars a lb raw, which is the price of cheap cuts of chicken, which is by far the cheapest meat on the market.
Good point, has any good prospective study been done on this? Seems like something that really should be studied with methodology that can prove or disprove causation.
Yes, artificial sweeteners are literally the most studied food in human history. There are a lot of different chemicals involved so I won’t make any sweeping statements, but all of the most popular ones have been proven over and over to be harmless.
But then things get complicated because the sugar lobby will fund a rat study where they inject an absolutely insane amount of sweeteners into their blood and it obviously fucks them up. Then they publish a study about how the sweeteners cause all kinds of ailments. But when you actually look into it (nobody does) you realize they injected the equivalent of drinking 100 Liters of soda per day, which obviously nobody does.
Shiiit for a second I thought that said “Implied Caucasian”
Also, if you own horses, you’re probably going out to take care of them on a daily basis, which means you get at least a little bit of mild exercise every day. That would help a lot, compared to people who are entirely sedentary.
And are getting exercise, eating healthy, etc.
You don’t typically have a horse without money.
Typically all horses have no money. What would a horse even do with it anyway. And they don’t even have pockets to put in it.
No pockets, you say?
Tweed on a steed!
saddlebags
Touche
What about a horse with no name?
horse people love to tell you how they have no money because of their horses though
My wife’s family would be the atypical version. Income wise they were below the poverty limit, but because they farmed a quarter section in N. Alberta they had lots of horses.
Jr researchers are using AI to comb through cancer research datanases and every time they come back with data linking racial minority to worse outcomes or faster tumor progression, and proposals to review genetic differences.
Never does it link that non rich people don’t go to a doctor unless it’s very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can’t afford the better personalized treatments.
The entire world of dog cancer research has recently collapsed not because there aren’t researchers invested in the work or that there aren’t clinical trials available, it’s that dog owners can’t afford to even travel to clinical sites for treatment.
It’s heartbreaking
Never does it link that non rich people don’t go to a doctor unless it’s very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can’t afford the better personalized treatments.
Also…
-
Poor people are more likely to work in dangerous industrial jobs that expose them to carcinogens.
-
Poor people are more likely to work outside, where they’re exposed to high levels of UV, causing skin cancers.
-
Poor people are more likely to live in less desirable places, which may be located closer to industrial sites that spread carcinogenic waste into the air and water.
-
Poor people are more likely to eat highly processed foods that increase cancer risk.
-
Poor people are more likely to be obese, which increases cancer risk.
-
Poor people are more likely to smoke and/or be exposed to second-hand smoke.
-
Poor people are more likely to have high stress levels, which increases cancer risk.
There’s a million different non-genetic reasons why racial minorities (who tend to be poorer) would have higher cancer rates.
-
Just remember, you’ll always be third to a horse girl after her daddy’s money and her horse.
She’s really good on top, though.
No, she’s not. The horse does most of the work.
Nah. Horse girls have got to learn how to keep up with the rhythm and roll their hips. Sure, the horse does most of the work, but they’re still doing some work … work that’s very applicable to other activities as well.
Tru dat.
To be fair, I’d choose a pile of money and a horse over myself any day so I don’t blame the girl.
Headlines need to not mislead, yes. But people also need to read beyond headlines.
they used to teach that in schools. probably not anymore.
Heads up that Justin King guy is extremely sus with ties to US intelligence and human trafficking. He made up his whole Beau persona and puts on his accent as an affect. He’s shady as shit.
