an outcome doesn't have to be deserved in order to be obvious.

They don't deserve it, of course, but it's obvious that someone with less resources available to them will have worse health. They will have to work more hours to meet their basic needs, and the money left over will be used at places available to them -- far from the best the world has to offer.

It's not something anyone deserves, it's a consequence of limited care being prioritized by economy. It's a damn shame, but that's pretty largely applicable to all facets of living life.

Higher quality lifestyle/housing/food/travel, less work hours, less stress, better medical care and opportunities to seek care leads to better health versus someone with none of those advantages.

It's a well known phenomena across the health spectrum, and it's nice that it was quantified and linked in yet another way as it was in the article.

Blaming individuals for a lack of success when the deck is stacked against them is likely to lead to more mental health issues, not more success.

And it is not a fact of life. It can be changed.

Ultimately this is a moral problem. You either care or you don't. If you don't - well, fine.

But don't complain when your family is being bankrupted and/or made homeless when you in turn receive "limited care being prioritized by the economy."