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.
Oklahoma has a size-able Hispanic population, we also have the largest Native-American population in the country. We have the sixth-highest automobile fatality rate in the country(which is almost four times higher than the homicide rate).
Oklahoma has one of the highest obesity rates, and highest rates of smoking in the country. Our economy is built on agriculture, and the oil and gas industry(both very dangerous professions).
We also have one of the highest suicide rates in the country. Probably in part because of our high gun-ownership rates, among other factors. We also engage in a lot of activities, such as four-wheeling, hunting, noodling, etc.
In any case, why exactly do you think Oklahomans are dying?
My point was, there is no evidence that the longer life-expectancy in Europe is the byproduct of healthcare. If you compare healthcare outcomes, Americans do better than Europeans. And the same logic can be applied to comparisons between American states.
The life-expectancy rate in America is lower than Europe, because we have a higher homicide rate, and higher rates of accidental death.
Also, you need to understand why things like accidental-death and homicides so greatly affect life-expectancy rates.
If you have one person who dies at 100, and another who dies at 50, the average life-expectancy is 75. But when an infant is killing in a car-accident, then even if most people are living to very old ages, the single infant heavily reduces the overall life-expectancy.
In simplest terms, you aren't going to live any longer by moving to a blue state or a red state, as long as you continue to live the same life.
Obviously if you are obese, and then move to Colorado, and its beauty encourages you to spend more time outdoors, and go walking and hiking through the mountains, and you lose weight as a result. Then yes, you could argue that by moving to Colorado, you extended your life.
And if by moving to New York, they are able to limit the amount of soda you drink, or get you to walk more, and depend on your car less, or otherwise make better choices, then sure, you might live longer.
If you move to Japan, and begin eating primarily fish and rice, and you become healthier, you will likely live longer, than if you live in Mississippi, and eat mostly friend foods, and then die of a heart-attack.
I'm just saying, lets be fair about the actual causes of death. Not jump to conclusions.
Certainly there are lots of underlying reasons for why life-expectancy rates are higher or lower in areas. Many of them are connected to the parties.
The so-called "nanny state" of California where:
1) public smoking was made illegal before any other place in the world
2) it became the first state to have hands free phone laws when driving
3) motorcycle riders are required to wear motorcycle helmets
4) the smoking age is 21 (recently changed)
It actually does affect quality of life. If trans-fats are being removed from food, that's going to help people live longer. If your state is fighting those health improvements (i.e. Republican states), then that affects life expectancy.
Better health care is only a part of that improvement, but it is a part. I fail to see how someone could see the list and to have 10 traditionally blue states as the longest living and 10 traditionally red states as the shortest living and not think there's a correlation (obviously you do, but others).
California farmers just grow different crops, and the land itself is more-productive(better soils, better climate, better irrigation/water control).
California's weather allows it to grow much higher-value crops, such as citrus fruits, and many types of vegetables. While the Midwest depends a lot more on grains.
California leads the nation in "agricultural cash receipts"(IE the total value in dollars of their farm production).
But when you look at the total quantity of food produced by state by bushels/tonnage, then California is not #1.
And that doesn't take into account the fact that California's population is many many times the size of a state like Oklahoma or Iowa. Obviously per-capita, Oklahoma and Iowa have far more farmers.
It actually does affect quality of life. If trans-fats are being removed from food, that's going to help people live longer.
Look, I agree that the government could force you to be healthier through a variety of means.
I mean, if you look at Nazi-Germany, Hitler put in place basically a "sport-requirement".
To explain what it is in American terms. Imagine if the government opened a bunch of gyms all over the country, and then required everyone to sign up for some sort of sport(basketball, softball, swimming, even dancing/ballet/gymnastics).
If you've been on a military base, you'll realize that the government usually runs several different gyms on each base. And in the military, you have "PT" in the morning(Physical training). And the military requires you to periodically pass physicals, and well as having restrictions on weight/body-mass index.
I agree that if you wanted to get people to live longer, you could. But it would take some coercion/regulation.
I never objected to the fact that the policies of nanny states have an effect on life-expectancy. My objection was to the notion that the difference were because of healthcare.
If they completely outlawed smoking, and made fried-food and soda illegal, that would probably bump the life-expectancy rate by several years. But should we?
Let me clarify something. I hope I do not live to even the average life-expectancy. And why does it even matter?
Is living a long-life better than living a good life?
There are things we could be doing right now that would likely allow us to live many years longer. But do we do them?
Should we design our entire lives around trying to live as long as possible? Should we only eat the food that will make us as healthy as possible? Should we only engage in completely-safe activities?
As I mentioned before, it is much safer to take mass-transit than drive your own car. So should we all sell our cars?
For that matter, there are significant health benefits to doing more walking. So should we do more walking? Why don't we already?
The advocates of the nanny-state want to take away your right to make your own choices, "for your own good".
But where does it end?
If the argument is that the government should act to increase life-expectancy rates, then on that principle, what couldn't it do?
Because a high % of those Black people are doing very well financially. Maryland & Virginia have high numbers of Blacks raking in the dough working in Washington DC.
And likewise, there are also fewer wealthy people in certain predominantly white states that make the bottom 10, such as West Virginia and Oklahoma.
Let me clarify something. I hope I do not live to even the average life-expectancy. And why does it even matter?
Is living a long-life better than living a good life?
There are things we could be doing right now that would likely allow us to live many years longer. But do we do them?
Should we design our entire lives around trying to live as long as possible? Should we only eat the food that will make us as healthy as possible? Should we only engage in completely-safe activities?
As I mentioned before, it is much safer to take mass-transit than drive your own car. So should we all sell our cars?
For that matter, there are significant health benefits to doing more walking. So should we do more walking? Why don't we already?
My guess is that a "good life" is also different between the states. My guess is that a worsening life doesn't start earlier in the blue states. So if California's life expectancy is 80.9 and West Virginia's is 75.4, it's not like West Virginia has five years of bad life quality and California has ten.
I don't think the government should dictate what you cook in your home. And if a particular part of the country prefers fried-based foods, so be it. I do think that chains having thresholds for how "bad" their food can be makes sense and that most people would come to find it fine almost immediately.
And a state could "make" us do more walking by having more walkable communities. A state that creates bike lanes, leaves accessible nature areas alone or modifies them slightly to be more walkable can get more active citizens. One of the great things that San Diego has done is that the bay and ocean areas have primarily free and plentiful parking. There are bike paths everywhere. Those are choices communities can make that can add to worthy upper living years.
That's why Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware weren't on the bottom 10, despite having larger AA populations than several of the ones actually on it?
Come on... you're gonna have to do better than to default to "Blame the Blacks".
It isn't really that complicated. And there are of course exceptions to the general observation. Kentucky and WV are very white, but have low life expectancy too.
But by every study ever done on this topic, black people live unhealthier lives than other groups. Obesity, crime, less likely to get preemptive screenings for colon cancer, etc. the list goes on.
Some white states like KY and WV are similar in that large numbers of their people are dying of preventable causes. But on a nationwide scale this isn't happening as much.
Just shows this is definitely not a red state blue state thing. Some groups live healthier than others.
Is living a long-life better than living a good life?
Exactly right and too many people forget this. I've met a lot of miserable elderly people who probably wish their ticket had been punched years before. If your life consists of sitting in a chair all day with the only deviation being doctors appointments, and/or dialysis, then I don't see living longer as a positive.
Also, many of the things that make life enjoyable are likely to reduce life expectancy:. Alcohol, unhealthy food, driving, motorcycles, flying planes, shooting guns, enjoying nature, promiscuous sex, etc. The things that could kill you are the most enjoyable.
Too many possible factors to really peg this down.
In dense areas, you're more likely to have faster EMS response times, greater access to medical professionals, more interaction with other people, etc.
Trying to pin this to political leanings is pretty silly.
BTW, the world's largest medical center is located in Red Texas down in Houston.
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 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.
