U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2010, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
2,955 posts, read 4,510,838 times
Reputation: 4258

Advertisements

For those who enjoy rankings, America's Health Rankings recently came out with its rankings by state for 2010 based on many different criteria. New Mexico came in 33rd, down from 31st last year. The top two states were "socialist" Vermont and Massachusetts, with Mississippi placing last overall.

Positives for New Mexico include a very high (good) ranking for air pollution (3rd best), low incidence of cardiovascular deaths (7th lowest) and cancer deaths (5th lowest). We scored poorly in several other categories however, with near-worst scores in teen pregnancy, high school dropout rate, and children in poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2010, 01:40 PM
 
Location: 3219'03.7"N 10643'55.9"W
7,962 posts, read 16,775,537 times
Reputation: 6912
Aries,

This is great resource, and I am looking through it. You made interesting intonations about "socialist" Massachusetts and Vermont. Let me ask you something: based on the rankings criteria, many of these lower rankings, it would seem to me, are based on personal decisions, to the detriment of those who undertook them. To wit: teenage pregnancy. Or uninsured motorists. When someone decides to stick you know what you know where, and there is no condom, IUD or anything else used, how does a government influence this? You could argue that such devices should be made free by state governments, but does Massachusetts hand out any more free birth control than New Mexico? Can the state of New Mexico force a car driver to buy insurance? On the books, sure it does, and can. But it is still up to the INDIVIDUAL to make these choices. At some point, personal accountability has to trump government intervention. I am not so sure how governments can mandate any further to reverse these negative numbers in New Mexico. It's now how our government is run versus Massachusetts government. It's about the standards of the individuals that inhabit our towns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:18 PM
 
2,857 posts, read 5,849,354 times
Reputation: 1704
But it could be argued that those states with the highest scores value quality of life with regard to health, child well-being, and education. As "socialists", they also see a role for government as a safety net to assure these things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:31 PM
 
1,938 posts, read 4,058,813 times
Reputation: 841
As I read it, I think Aires was making a wry comment about other people's labeling
by using "socialist" in quotes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Where I live.
9,191 posts, read 18,522,437 times
Reputation: 4766
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
For those who enjoy rankings, America's Health Rankings recently came out with its rankings by state for 2010 based on many different criteria. New Mexico came in 33rd, down from 31st last year. The top two states were "socialist" Vermont and Massachusetts, with Mississippi placing last overall.

Positives for New Mexico include a very high (good) ranking for air pollution (3rd best), low incidence of cardiovascular deaths (7th lowest) and cancer deaths (5th lowest). We scored poorly in several other categories however, with near-worst scores in teen pregnancy, high school dropout rate, and children in poverty.
Given that New Mexico is a fairly large state with only one big city, it stands to reason that overall air pollution would be lower than most other states.

After all, there are 2 million or LESS in the entire state, with most of the population being concentrated in and around ABQ/Rio Rancho.

Teen pregnancy rates and high school dropout rates go hand in hand with poverty.

The teen pregnancy rates would probably take care of themselves, if the government quit subsidizing it. As soon as they find out they're pregnant, they can go apply for all of the welfare freebies that enable it for generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 08:37 AM
 
2,857 posts, read 5,849,354 times
Reputation: 1704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathy4017 View Post
The teen pregnancy rates would probably take care of themselves, if the government quit subsidizing it. As soon as they find out they're pregnant, they can go apply for all of the welfare freebies that enable it for generations.
I don't know how many kids you've raised lately, but government subsidies don't begin to cover the costs. I really doubt many teen mothers look at pregnancy as a ticket on the gravy train.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Where I live.
9,191 posts, read 18,522,437 times
Reputation: 4766
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino View Post
I don't know how many kids you've raised lately, but government subsidies don't begin to cover the costs. I really doubt many teen mothers look at pregnancy as a ticket on the gravy train.
The point is that the taxpayer should not subsidize any part of it.

It's a vicious cycle, and New Mexico is not alone in this. Even relatively wealthy Texas has the same problem. The subsidies enable it to keep on happening.

If you cannot support a child on your own, don't have one. But this way of thinking is so foreign to so many. There seems to be no end in sight. It isn't healthy, and both mother and child suffer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,597 posts, read 7,308,899 times
Reputation: 2753
I imagine that without teen pregnancy, NM would be shrinking in population. Those kids-of-teen-mothers end up doing all manner of things for the economy.

I don't like it either, but the fact is we need teen moms to keep the population up, lest we end up like Japan or Italy, where senior citizens are dragging the economies down because of low birthrates.

The notion of teens being unfit parents is quite novel; I'm sure if you were to go back in your family tree you'd find generation after generation of ancestor that was a teen mother. We all need to ask ourselves what changed.

My theory: increased life expectancy has shifted the balance of wealth far beyond peak childbearing years (compound interest works wonders). As a result, the costs of having a child have risen beyond the means of those most able to have them. After a couple of generations, this creates a rift between the wealthy aged, who became wealthy by not having kids, and the poor fertile, who now aren't related to the wealthy aged. The traditional transfer of wealth downward through inheritance and direct support has been interrupted, and the government ends up doing the job of Grandma (who is nowadays increasingly just an old maid who never had, or had fewer, children).

We as a society have become much more accepting of the notion that kids are more trouble than they're worth. While that may very well be true, we risk dying out and economic irrelevancy by following that path too closely. As with all things, point your finger at government if you like, but recognize where the other fingers are pointed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 09:31 AM
 
1,938 posts, read 4,058,813 times
Reputation: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
I don't like it either, but the fact is we need teen moms to keep the population up, lest we end up like Japan or Italy, where senior citizens are dragging the economies down because of low birthrates.
There's a really big fallacy in this... namely that the kids will become such productive adults
that they can carry several times their own weight rather than becoming drags on the
system yet the results of the last 20-30 years don't seem to support that assumption as
poverty and poor education (most teen mothers are poorly educated) combine to breed
further poverty...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 09:34 AM
 
2,857 posts, read 5,849,354 times
Reputation: 1704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathy4017 View Post
The point is that the taxpayer should not subsidize any part of it.

It's a vicious cycle, and New Mexico is not alone in this. Even relatively wealthy Texas has the same problem. The subsidies enable it to keep on happening.
So we, as a society, should let innocent babies starve to death, or deny them health care, if there parents cannot afford to properly care for them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top