Well, I'm noticing that "Less than High School" seems to plateau in the 60s, while the other two education categories continue to decline. Wonder why that is?

Anyone have any statistics on leading causes of death that we can compare this to?

Perhaps the causation is reversed. At age 25, only 50% of <HS education is in "very good or excellent health," while about 80% of College is the same. At 80+, the ratios are about 25% and 35%, respectively. Conditioned on someone being in very good or excellent health at age 25, by this data (and ignoring that this isn't a longitudinal study), they have the same relative chance of being in very good health at 85.

So, to the original point, perhaps it is that young adults in poor health are less likely to complete education, biasing the initial statistics?

Negative outcomes are part of how we incentivize participation in the capitalist economy, and education is a fundamental part of increasing positive contribution to a post-industrial society.

Also, the geographic and demographic distribution of education isn't uniform. There are more educated people on the coasts and in the north, where diets, environmental factors and lifestyles are generally healthier. higher education is pursued/achieved at lower rates in minority communities, and the genetic predispositions of African Americans to certain incapacitating health conditions is well-documented, and immigrant diets are, for both economic and cultural reasons, frequently less healthy (I'm thinking specifically of the carb- and lard- heavy latin american cuisines). All these things contribute to overall poorer health for groups less likely to be educated, but where education is not the decisive factor.

Interestingly, the graph isn't about morbidity-- it's not life expectancy, but rather healthfulness, which suggests that the graph isn't talking abotu whether you can afford cancer treatments, but rather whether, generally, you're likely to be in good shape. I'll be the asshole here: maybe people who pursue and attain higher education are more motivated, and pursue healthier lifestyles because they're generally more conscientious?

"I’ll be the asshole here: maybe people who pursue and attain higher education are more motivated, and pursue healthier lifestyles because they’re generally more conscientious?"

You're right, that does make you the asshole. Food deserts - primarily poor, urban areas in which healthful food, even supermarkets, refuse to locate - are a well known phenomenon and a huge contributor to poor health. I'd posit that that, in addition to lack of health insurance and thus lack of preventative care, contributes significantly to the proportional difference.

As for the evening out at the ends - many lower income individuals are unable to retire for significantly longer. As terrible as that can be on a personal level, it often requires greater (mental AND physical) mobility, which is well known to slow decline with age.

Re: leveling off at older ages for lower education levers -- Medicare? Possibly the first consistent health care a lowish income person will get, and it comes late in life.

I believe the stats are not much different for Canada, although allopathic health services are free here (consultations, tests, surgery, etc.) and I believe that poor people can get their medication costs covered by the government.

I suspect a couple of the major factors are (1) less-educated people are less likely to have the confidence to refuse doctors' recommendations for drugs and invasive tests or procedures and so are frequently harmed/impaired thereby, and are less likely to feel competent to research these dangers and investigate other options themselves; and (2) less-educated people are likely to be poorer, and thus unable to afford the not-free (and often quite-expensive) safe and natural treatments available to those who are better off, whether as preventatives (vitamins, homeopathic prophylaxis, etc.) or as therapeutics for existing conditions. A person who feels/is chained to allopathic assault and drugging is hardly likely to experience 'good health', no matter how that health is measured/evaluated.

Pollution exposure is much less visible than nutrition and exercise, so people often don't think about it...but it can have enormous effects on health. Educated people tend to be wealthier, so they can afford to live in neighborhoods with less air pollution (this has a direct effect on respiratory health and overall immune system health.) Factory workers, farm laborers, and even janitors, are often exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals on the job, and higher education opens up different (generally safer) career paths.

“So, first, that means that genes that may be advantageous in a tropical climate with a vegetable-rich, meat-poor diet and less prevalent motorized transportation don’t do a lot of good in the U.S., and those genes haven’t been diluted or discarded.”

...but wait!

"I never called anyone primitive, or suited to the jungle. I said that certain genes that have advantages in Africa — sickle cell, which provides resistance to malaria, is a good example– don’t provide the same advantages in the U.S., where malaria isn’t prevalent in most of the country, and have particular drawbacks to someone living an average U.S. lifestyle, like anemia, caused by having sickle cells, which is definitely a bad thing to have, because it makes it harder to get oxygen to your cells."

Nice backpedaling. Funny how sickle cell has nothing to do with diet, or your first statement.