U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 04-16-2019, 02:27 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
What "benefits" does Vermont have that Texas doesn't?
It's more like this. Vermont, per capita, has a higher amout of "benefits" than Texas.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2019, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,710,956 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
It's more like this. Vermont, per capita, has a higher amount of "benefits" than Texas.
I still don't understand. We talking welfare or just total government spending?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 02:33 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I still don't understand. We talking welfare or just total government spending?
Probably both.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,710,956 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Probably both.
Well, almost all of the welfare-programs are federal programs. And there are very few differences between one state and another, mostly just cost-of-living adjustments.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 03:44 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Well, almost all of the welfare-programs are federal programs. And there are very few differences between one state and another, mostly just cost-of-living adjustments.
While were on the life expectancy topic, I offered my theory regarding Wyoming.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Washington State
18,453 posts, read 9,554,421 times
Reputation: 15742
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
A healthy diet goes a long way in helping people live longer, healthier lives. Southern food isn't healthy. Neither are most of the things from fast food places. I will add something else that hardly gets mentioned.

West Virginia, for being a lightly population(and dropping) state, has very high levels of pollution. And not just air pollution. Water pollution is an issue in West Virginia. And much of it is related to abuses from the coal industry.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522

West Virginia ranks in the bottom 10 for life expectancy in the USA. Pollution is playing a role in this. High rates of cancer. And because of the amount of people who depend on the coal industry for work, many get black lung disease.

I watched a documentary that Diane Sawyer narrated and was part of. She went to eastern Kentucky. It was some of the most horrifying things one could see outside of the inner cities. Grinding poverty, drug addiction, alcoholism. One place visited was a coal mine. Sawyer brought up the subject of black lung disease. None of the miners wanted to talk about it. One thing that was found was a high amount of junk food consumption. In addition, alot of Mountain Dew consumption.
I agree with everything you posted....diet choices, obesity, cancer and exposure to cancer causing elements as well as drug addiction and related suicide are the key factors whether black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Republican or Democrat.

Personally I am 10% bodyfat, perfect BMI range, and eat a healthy diet but I haven't always done that in the past and I have been exposed to chemicals in various countries as I worked in petrochem industry for years.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 04:06 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,946 posts, read 22,257,781 times
Reputation: 9051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
What "benefits" does Vermont have that Texas doesn't?
Medicaid expansion under the ACA for one: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-b...pand-medicaid/

The consequences of that are a significant number of lower income people with no health coverage.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 04:09 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 576,334 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
Take two completely unrelated things and connect them as if they have some sort if correlation... Fail
Post #1 is just an ill-conceived attempt to turn demographics into a dumb game of red vs. blue ping pong. This approach gets a poster into a world of trouble.

For example, as posted before. If you look at the map in OP's link it is obviously more of a South vs. North phenomenon. 30-50 years ago, the South was solidly blue. It did not become solidly red until 1994.

Does that mean that in 1975, blueness was a cause of low lifespan, while after 1994 redness was? That is the implication of OP's claims. Ill-conceived arguments produce misguided conclusions.

I posted this before but appears he never replied. Why? Because he would have to admit he's wrong. By doubling down on his thread, he's painted himself into a zungzwang.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 04:23 PM
Status: "Living in Gratitude" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Durango or Flagstaff?
449 posts, read 272,305 times
Reputation: 1230
Genetics.


Blacks & Hispanics (on avg) don't live as long as Caucasians.
Also, lots of older folks flock to states like CA and Hawaii for the good weather when they're older.
CA and Hawaii also have a much higher percentage of east Asians, and east Asians on avg tend to live longer than any other racial group.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Post #1 is just an ill-conceived attempt to turn demographics into a dumb game of red vs. blue ping pong. This approach gets a poster into a world of trouble.

For example, as posted before. If you look at the map in OP's link it is obviously more of a South vs. North phenomenon. 30-50 years ago, the South was solidly blue. It did not become solidly red until 1994.

Does that mean that in 1975, blueness was a cause of low lifespan, while after 1994 redness was? That is the implication of OP's claims. Ill-conceived arguments produce misguided conclusions.

I posted this before but appears he never replied. Why? Because he would have to admit he's wrong. By doubling down on his thread, he's painted himself into a zungzwang.
Epic failure on your part: Even just among northern states, longevity in blue states exceeds that of red states. That is why you don't see any red northern states in the top 10. And - once again - even just among white people, there are only 7 red states in the top 25. There are no Southern states (except VA) in that top 25 at all, so your objection is irrelevant even there. That is, even if we isolate whites only, and northern states only, blue states out-perform red states. That is a fact.

It appears you are disturbed by me pointing out it is a fact that life expectancy in blue states is longer than in red states. It is even true among just white people. At the very least you need to consider the possibility that Southern lifestyles or some other phenomenon of Southern-ness tends to be more self-destructive than northern ones.

As for your changing political alignments, back in the 70's there were still lots of liberal republicans and conservative democrats. That is no longer the case. The republicans in states like NJ and IL (both of which voted republican in 1976) were a far cry from the republicans of today - they were more moderate, and even liberal. And the democrats in the South were more like the republicans of today (which, after all, is why they switched parties). So even back in the days you're referring to, the pattern was:

Liberal states = higher life expectancy
Conservative states = lower life expectancy


Thus, all we need to do is substitute republican for conservative and democrat for liberal for pre-1980's, and your objection still fails.
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.


 
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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