Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Oct 27, 2009.
State Scorecard 2009 - The Commonwealth Fund
very interesting map.
RI is overall 11th, very satisfied with the provision of health care that I have access to...
Not surprised that the "red" states are generally the worst at health care.
Very amusing that red states preach so much about family values, capitalism, and having the best health care, yet lead the country in divorce rates/teen-pregnancy, handouts from federal funds, and the worst health care scores.
I didn't know that Illinois was a red state..........
I said generally. Look at the map.
I did..Who peed in your cheerios today?????I would like to see the criteria because you have a top state (Iowa) right next door to a lower quarter state (Illinois). What is the scoring that allows New England and Plains states to score so highly versus the rest of the nation??? Is there an inherent bias?
Put another way, what do those states have/do that others don't that gives them a better result? Bad winters????
It is an extremely interesting question that you raise. I'd love for someone, anyone to try to figure out why generally the red states lead the nation in divorce rates, teen pregnancies, federal public funding, and apparently now also in low health care.
I really don't know the answer, but it's even more interesting given how much the red state voters care about family values, capitalism, and private health care when it comes to elections.
I bet it's all explained by life expectancy.
Ding ding we have a winner
Table: U.S. States Ranked by Life Expectancy
IT is unfair to use life expectancy as a measure of healthcare without taking into account other socio-economic factors such as murder rates and gun violence which negatively impact life expectancy.
Life expectancy is the answer to every question.
That's the trick. ignore the detailed info all over that website, make snarky comments about who Illinois voted for, scream "LIFE EXPECTANCY!" at the top of your lungs and hope the thread goes away.
The original link discussed bedsores in nursing homes but it did not list the exact weighted criterion for calculating the rankings. Please post some of the exact details for calculating the rankings because they were not easily found.
We all know Mark Twain's old saw about statistics and it's easy to manipulate them to get any conclusion you want. All I'm asking is how did they come up with the rankings? If they did use life expectancy as the major factor, it has to be adjusted for a host of other variables.
Let me repeat the question i asked earlier. Why is Iowa ranked so high and Illinois so low? It is the only place in the country where a top ranked state abuts a bottom ranked one.
Your question is a valid one, but I think the answer is simple. Illinois is an empty state (in more ways than one) except for Chicago. There is no Chicago in Iowa.
I love how the cherry-picking and Mark Twain quotes are the defense here. It doesn't matter, though. This is a familiar map, isn't it? Whether you talk about rights of citizens, average income, education level, life expectancy, obesity, quality of public services, tax rates, property values (well, maybe not so much) voting tendencies...It's all the same map.
And New England continues to behave like one state. Ever notice that? I think we annex all the NE states and make Wistah the capital...yeah!...that's the ticket!
This is more of that Health Index crap we went through in here a while back.
Another factor (beating a dead horse but sorry)is trying to fit all the square pegs, round pegs, triangular pegs into the same hole. Every state is different, and especially so within a single state. Looking at Pennsylvania, you have James Carville's famous quote of Philly, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between. What he meant and it's true is that you have two metropolitan areas with large suburban areas and a very rural 300 miles in between. How do you rate a state for health indices when the care and accessability to hospitals in Philadelphia is much different than in Erie or Lancaster?
A more appropriate rating would use the census bureaus listing of metropolitan areas that would include Philly, it's suburbs in PA, NJ and Delaware in one area, Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA in another and so forth. That sort of evaluation would give you an idea of what's working and what's not in terms of health care, prevention, access etc......
Who cares about quality of life and longevity?
Let's save on taxes!!!!!!!!
We've been through this before, and you still can't understand the basic points. What's old, and who decides the quality of life? The answer is, it's an individual choice. It's not yours definition for me, nor mine for you. If you want to pay more of your money, to live longer, but maybe with less throughout life, so be it. That's your decision. Maybe someone like me wants to keep that money, so as to enjoy life a little differently, even if it means living for a shorter period of time. What good is living to be 80, and having your money confiscated all your life, if you've enjoyed little, and are now drooling on yourself, and soiling your Depends in some nursing home? The point is, the choice is up to the individual.
Real World I doubt you'll be able to answer this in a coherent or sincere way, but given your views about why you're against universal health care, why aren't you against:
- public libraries
- detectives who solve murders
- general cops
- fire fighters
- publicly provided lawyers
- public highways, roads
Cut the crap, everything you want is on that huge site, right down to PDF's of the actual surveys.
It's tough trying to have a discussion when the other side is too lazy to investigate, has their mind already made up, and also dismisses data/evidence even when presented in front of them. These 30% of people who still think Palin and Bush were great, are basically impossible to convince, and concerning healthcare nothing will ever convince them to agree that universal healthcare in all industrialized nations costs less of a country's GDP and gives longer life spans.
Separate names with a comma.