People live longer in blue states than red

[titan]

By Noam N. Levey
Aug. 3, 2020 9:01 PM PT
WASHINGTON —
Weak environmental protections, safety rules and labor and civil rights protections may be cutting lives short in conservative states and deepening the divide between red and blue states, according to a new study on links between life expectancy and state policy.
The report, published Tuesday in the health policy journal Milbank Quarterly, finds that states where residents live longest, including California, tend to have much more stringent environmental laws, tougher tobacco and firearms regulations and more protections for workers, minorities and LGBTQ residents. ...
By contrast, the life expectancy in states with more conservative health, labor and social policies — concentrated in the South and Appalachia — have stagnated in recent decades, according to the study, which adds to growing research on health and political disparities between states.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-03/longer-life-expectancy-blue-states-than-red-ones

The LA Times observes the statistic, cites policy, implying the policy causes the life expectancy result.

Does it?

 

[Rampage]

The LA Times observes the statistic, cites policy, implying the policy causes the life expectancy result.

Does it?

If the statistical relationship were only observed in one city, or one State it might be a statistical fluke. But if it's the statistical trend throughout the nation, the cause and affect seems corroborated.

The obvious question: if red State tax payers knew of this, for sake of their own longevity would they reform themselves to more bluish taxation standards?

Meanwhile with ample reason not to be proud of it, red States are proclaiming their dollar value on (their own) human life.

The difference in longevity, minus the difference in taxation, equals the dollar value both red and blue States place on human life. Corroborating this, gun rights retain a higher priority than the lives of school children.