• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For the Poor Geography is a Matter of Life and Death

JANFU said:
Use CC cleaner- I do and read to my hearts content.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Didn't think of that, 'cuz I don't want to lose all the cookies I *do* like!
 
Chomsky said:
Thanks.

Didn't think of that, 'cuz I don't want to lose all the cookies I *do* like!
Click to expand...

I use the free version, also not sure what anti virus you have, I have Kaspersky. Open additional tools and cleans it. I use both as one misses some. Great for NYT, Washpo that have a limit on articles.
 
SocialD said:
And it wasn't in the article. just like I said. AND lets look at some of those since you are making it a point. Maine, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Massachusets and others... they don't fit into what you are alleging.
On the other side what about the Dem run states like Louisiana , Missouri, West Virginia.. they don't fit in either.

Notice the areas of the states where the life expectancy is the lowest. with the exception of Vegas its pretty much rural areas. And of course the highest are generally in areas where people with more money would live. Hence poor people generally wouldn't live there.
No, fraid you are trying to make something up that really isn't there.
Click to expand...

To suggest that LA is democratically run state is a bit rich. The only reason the Democratic candidate was recently elected is because the Republicans couldn't do any better than serial womanizer that had been caught in multiple lies.

Second, It doesn't matter whether or not the NYT made the correlation. This is how information works. People do studies. Other people read them and apply them to the world.

Also I never claimed that correlation was exact. Idaho is a good example as is SD. What is clear however is there is a correlation. The worst state by average is TX the best state is CA. What is the difference between the two states? One huge difference is the amount of per capita welfare spending. Your assumption about the rural areas is also incorrect the worst are overall is Gary, IN not what anyone would consider rural. Also some of the worst areas of TX are in urban areas around Dallas, Houston and El Paso. The urban areas of Kansas City and St. Louis are not any better off than the rural areas of IL or MO.
 
JANFU said:
I use the free version, also not sure what anti virus you have, I have Kaspersky. Open additional tools and cleans it. I use both as one misses some. Great for NYT, Washpo that have a limit on articles.
Click to expand...
Yes, but won't that wipe-out my cookies from all my other sites?
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, but won't that wipe-out my cookies from all my other sites?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I have a number of blockers and rarely have an issue.
You visit the site, cookies are installed again, I am not comp savvy, though not completely stupid either, so I do not know what the problems would be???
 
JANFU said:
Yes, it does. I have a number of blockers and rarely have an issue.
You visit the site, cookies are installed again, I am not comp savvy, though not completely stupid either, so I do not know what the problems would be???
Click to expand...
Well fair enough, then.

Thanks for the suggestion.
 
Erod said:
The inference to poor around here is always racial. It doesn't take a deductive reasoning savant to figure that out about Debate Politics.

And poor in the United States is top 1 percent in most countries. Many poor people in the U.S. carry on just fine without blaming anyone. Unfortunately, we have a party that encourages poverty among their own so they can be the fix-all solution in exchange for their willing dependence.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is Munchhausen By Proxy on a grand scale.
 
jmotivator said:
Liberalism is Munchhausen By Proxy on a grand scale.
Click to expand...

Yeah just like conservatism is a narcissistic personality disorder to the extreme.

It must be awful to be so insecure in your own beliefs that you have to believe that people with whom you disagree have a mental disorder.
 
smb said:
The discrepancy is that the life expectancy of 64 for Rwanda is life expectancy from birth. The NYT article takes life expectancy of people at 40. It eliminates the variables of infant mortality, violent and accidental death rates which predominantly occurs in younger age groups.

I should think the what to make of this is obvious. Policy decisions have real consequences. If you cut healthcare access for the poor by doing things like, cutting Medicaid, cutting county health services, cutting planned parenthood funding, cutting state supplements to food stamps, cutting state welfare initiatives etc. etc. it has a direct impact on the health of your population.
Click to expand...
First thing that came to my mind when I read this response, knowing full well not to trust liberal sources, like a NYT article, to get at the real truth, was when you indicated that "The NYT article takes life expectancy of people at 40. It eliminates the variables of infant mortality, violent and accidental death rates which predominantly occurs in younger age groups.".. and I am thinking, now for what real reasons would the NYT do that?

Well, upon some admittedly quick investigation came up with facts that may be some of the reasons why they would exclude people under 40, people who have more tendency to be in poverty. The highest poverty rate seems to be in the 0-18 age group at 21%. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Also, a reason to exclude those under 40 might deal with urban areas having much higher violent crime death rates, genereally of those under 40. And its the urban areas that most of the concentration of liberal/Democrat voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Rural.2Furban

The rate of The FBI reports the 2012 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 409.4 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 380.4, and for non-metropolitan counties it was 177.0.

The FBI reports metropolitan cities had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate known to law enforcement of 4.9 per 100,000 persons in 2012. Cities outside metropolitan areas had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 3.8 per 100,000 persons, while non-metropolitan counties had a rate of 3.3 per 100,000 persons.

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf?sfvrsn=2


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf Older teens and young adults have the highest homicide victimization and offending rates

Urban areas and then suburban areas have much more violent crime/murder/non-negligent manslaughter rates than do rural areas.

“The risk of firearm-related death showed no difference across the rural-urban spectrum for the population as a whole, but varied when divided up by age — firearm deaths were significantly higher for children and people ages 45 and older, while for people ages 20 to 44, the risk of firearm deaths were much higher in urban areas...”

But guns — whether used accidentally or with intent — are much less likely to be the cause of death than another tool: cars. And people drive more, drive longer, drive faster and drive drunker in rural areas than in urban ones, where they can walk or take public transit. Motor-vehicle crashes led to 27.61 deaths per 100,000 people in most rural areas, and just 10.58 deaths per 100,000 people."

So, rural areas have more deaths in automobiles, nearly three times the rate of urban areas Study Shows That Cities Are Safer Than Rural Areas, Despite Crime | TIME.com

Also, access to ambulance, hospital and emergency room care would obviously be much more limited in rural areas due to the fact there is not a hospital every ten-30 blocks

"Only about ten percent of physicians practice in rural America despite the fact that nearly one-fourth of the population lives in these areas."

"Death and serious injury accidents account for 60 percent of total rural accidents versus only 48 percent of urban. One reason for this increased rate of morbidity and mortality is that in rural areas, prolonged delays can occur between a crash, the call for EMS, and the arrival of an EMS provider. Many of these delays are related to increased travel distances in rural areas and personnel distribution across the response area. National average response times from motor vehicle accident to EMS arrival in rural areas was 18 minutes, or eight minutes greater than in urban areas."

http://www.ruralhealthweb.org/go/left/about-rural-health/what-s-different-about-rural-health-care
 
smb said:
To suggest that LA is democratically run state is a bit rich. The only reason the Democratic candidate was recently elected is because the Republicans couldn't do any better than serial womanizer that had been caught in multiple lies.

Second, It doesn't matter whether or not the NYT made the correlation. This is how information works. People do studies. Other people read them and apply them to the world.

Also I never claimed that correlation was exact. Idaho is a good example as is SD. What is clear however is there is a correlation. The worst state by average is TX the best state is CA. What is the difference between the two states? One huge difference is the amount of per capita welfare spending. Your assumption about the rural areas is also incorrect the worst are overall is Gary, IN not what anyone would consider rural. Also some of the worst areas of TX are in urban areas around Dallas, Houston and El Paso. The urban areas of Kansas City and St. Louis are not any better off than the rural areas of IL or MO.
Click to expand...

Are you confusing me with someone else? you are replying to someone who you say was talkinga bout Los Angelos.. I didn't even mention California so I'm guess you replied to the wrong person.
Yes Texas is got issues. but no the best state is not California. Hawaii is the best state, followed by Minnesota. California is fourth. but the 3-10 all all very close
 
SocialD said:
Are you confusing me with someone else? you are replying to someone who you say was talkinga bout Los Angelos.. I didn't even mention California so I'm guess you replied to the wrong person.
Yes Texas is got issues. but no the best state is not California. Hawaii is the best state, followed by Minnesota. California is fourth. but the 3-10 all all very close
Click to expand...

Overall given the population and total of areas below the national average CA is the best.

LA = Louisiana not Los Angeles.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
First thing that came to my mind when I read this response, knowing full well not to trust liberal sources, like a NYT article, to get at the real truth, was when you indicated that "The NYT article takes life expectancy of people at 40. It eliminates the variables of infant mortality, violent and accidental death rates which predominantly occurs in younger age groups.".. and I am thinking, now for what real reasons would the NYT do that?

Well, upon some admittedly quick investigation came up with facts that may be some of the reasons why they would exclude people under 40, people who have more tendency to be in poverty. The highest poverty rate seems to be in the 0-18 age group at 21%. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Also, a reason to exclude those under 40 might deal with urban areas having much higher violent crime death rates, genereally of those under 40. And its the urban areas that most of the concentration of liberal/Democrat voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Rural.2Furban

The rate of The FBI reports the 2012 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 409.4 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 380.4, and for non-metropolitan counties it was 177.0.

The FBI reports metropolitan cities had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate known to law enforcement of 4.9 per 100,000 persons in 2012. Cities outside metropolitan areas had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 3.8 per 100,000 persons, while non-metropolitan counties had a rate of 3.3 per 100,000 persons.

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf?sfvrsn=2


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf Older teens and young adults have the highest homicide victimization and offending rates

Urban areas and then suburban areas have much more violent crime/murder/non-negligent manslaughter rates than do rural areas.

“The risk of firearm-related death showed no difference across the rural-urban spectrum for the population as a whole, but varied when divided up by age — firearm deaths were significantly higher for children and people ages 45 and older, while for people ages 20 to 44, the risk of firearm deaths were much higher in urban areas...”

But guns — whether used accidentally or with intent — are much less likely to be the cause of death than another tool: cars. And people drive more, drive longer, drive faster and drive drunker in rural areas than in urban ones, where they can walk or take public transit. Motor-vehicle crashes led to 27.61 deaths per 100,000 people in most rural areas, and just 10.58 deaths per 100,000 people."

So, rural areas have more deaths in automobiles, nearly three times the rate of urban areas Study Shows That Cities Are Safer Than Rural Areas, Despite Crime | TIME.com

Also, access to ambulance, hospital and emergency room care would obviously be much more limited in rural areas due to the fact there is not a hospital every ten-30 blocks

"Only about ten percent of physicians practice in rural America despite the fact that nearly one-fourth of the population lives in these areas."

"Death and serious injury accidents account for 60 percent of total rural accidents versus only 48 percent of urban. One reason for this increased rate of morbidity and mortality is that in rural areas, prolonged delays can occur between a crash, the call for EMS, and the arrival of an EMS provider. Many of these delays are related to increased travel distances in rural areas and personnel distribution across the response area. National average response times from motor vehicle accident to EMS arrival in rural areas was 18 minutes, or eight minutes greater than in urban areas."

http://www.ruralhealthweb.org/go/left/about-rural-health/what-s-different-about-rural-health-care
Click to expand...

I am sorry you had to spend so much time giving the exact same reasons the NYT eliminated people under 40. The purpose of the study was to determine longevity effects of poverty based on geography. In order to accomplish that you must eliminate as many variables as possible. Variables like infant mortality, death by unnatural causes, etc. etc. as you have stated. That gives you a clear picture of the longevity of chronically poor based mostly on natural causes of death.

The conservative world is awful paranoid. It seems you guys must search for liberal conspiracy everywhere. Why is that?
 
smb said:
I am sorry you had to spend so much time giving the exact same reasons the NYT eliminated people under 40. The purpose of the study was to determine longevity effects of poverty based on geography. In order to accomplish that you must eliminate as many variables as possible. Variables like infant mortality, death by unnatural causes, etc. etc. as you have stated. That gives you a clear picture of the longevity of chronically poor based mostly on natural causes of death.

The conservative world is awful paranoid. It seems you guys must search for liberal conspiracy everywhere. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Many of the things you lump together, and exclude others, do not make common sense. Longevity is based on how long you live, not how long you live after a certain point. Not if you want a true picture of longevity. Why, for instance, would you not include infant mortality? You think rich mothers during their pregnancy do not have much more access to good doctors and probably have higher survival rates than the poor?

Longevity = 1. a long individual life; great duration of individual life 2. the length or duration of life

Its dishonest to discriminate against all the facts together and only pick and choose the ones that will further your agenda.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Many of the things you lump together, and exclude others, do not make common sense. Longevity is based on how long you live, not how long you live after a certain point. Not if you want a true picture of longevity. Why, for instance, would you not include infant mortality? You think rich mothers during their pregnancy do not have much more access to good doctors and probably have higher survival rates than the poor?

Longevity = 1. a long individual life; great duration of individual life 2. the length or duration of life

Its dishonest to discriminate against all the facts together and only pick and choose the ones that will further your agenda.
Click to expand...

It is not dishonest to discriminate. Do you even know how to properly employ scientific surveys? You want to eliminate as many variables as possible. Infant mortality especially needs to be eliminated if your goal is to determine the health and longevity of adults. Why...because if include infant mortality I will greatly depress the overall life expectancy years for adults. If I am trying to find out how long adults live compared to other adults in geographic areas I would need to eliminate infant mortality at the very least.

66+75+82+.2=an average life expectancy of 56 years
66+75+82=an average life expectancy of 74 years for those over 40.

See how that works.
 
smb said:
Overall given the population and total of areas below the national average CA is the best.

LA = Louisiana not Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

LOL ok fair enough on Louisiana vs Los Angeles. When you mentioned a serial womanizer I thought you were talking about Schwarzenegger.
 
SocialD said:
LOL ok fair enough on Louisiana vs Los Angeles. When you mentioned a serial womanizer I thought you were talking about Schwarzenegger.
Click to expand...

Vitter
 
smb said:
It is not dishonest to discriminate. Do you even know how to properly employ scientific surveys? You want to eliminate as many variables as possible. Infant mortality especially needs to be eliminated if your goal is to determine the health and longevity of adults. Why...because if include infant mortality I will greatly depress the overall life expectancy years for adults. If I am trying to find out how long adults live compared to other adults in geographic areas I would need to eliminate infant mortality at the very least.

66+75+82+.2=an average life expectancy of 56 years
66+75+82=an average life expectancy of 74 years for those over 40.

See how that works.
Click to expand...
You said absolutely nothing about poor adults over 40 in the OP, you said the poor. Lets bring up your original post dealing with that:

smb said:
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

I always here conservatives whine about how liberal always say that conservatives don't care about the poor. That is conservatives that really care about and for the poor and that liberals just want to keep them poor. The correlation between conservative run states and liberal run states on life expectancy of the poor cannot be more obvious. Many places in the very deep red states have worse life expectancies for the poor than places like Rwanda and other third world countries. However I keep hearing that it is liberals that want are making the U.S. a third world country. Go figure...
Click to expand...
Where did you mention only those poor adults after 40 years of age? YOU DIDN'T. Besides which, that would only be a fraction of the story, the fraction you want to tell as it suggests something that correlates to your premise. However, the poor are not just the ones living 40 and beyond. You speak of worse life expectancy. If you are looking at life expectancy of a country from a source like Wikipedia, do you look only at those who achieve age 40 and beyond? No. Its life expectancy from birth.

Here is the Methodolgy quoted on Life Expectancy worldwide by Wikipedia: Methodology--- "Life expectancy equals the average number of years a person born in a given country would live if mortality rates at each age were to remain constant in the future." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


Oh, I see how you want it to work. I know how research is supposed to be conducted, and I know how liberals like to cast research in their favor. Its why I am always on the look out.

See how that works?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You said absolutely nothing about poor adults over 40 in the OP, you said the poor. Lets bring up your original post dealing with that:

Where did you mention only those poor adults after 40 years of age? YOU DIDN'T. Besides which, that would only be a fraction of the story, the fraction you want to tell as it suggests something that correlates to your premise. However, the poor are not just the ones living 40 and beyond. You speak of worse life expectancy. If you are looking at life expectancy of a country from a source like Wikipedia, do you look only at those who achieve age 40 and beyond? No. Its life expectancy from birth.

Here is the Methodolgy quoted on Life Expectancy worldwide by Wikipedia: Methodology--- "Life expectancy equals the average number of years a person born in a given country would live if mortality rates at each age were to remain constant in the future." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


Oh, I see how you want it to work. I know how research is supposed to be conducted, and I know how liberals like to cast research in their favor. Its why I am always on the look out.

See how that works?
Click to expand...

It is mentioned clearly in the article I posted and referenced to. I was hiding nothing. Also when the question was raised a few posts later I clarified what was posted in the article. Again if you didn't bother to read the article then that is on you not me.
 
smb said:
It is mentioned clearly in the article I posted and referenced to. I was hiding nothing. Also when the question was raised a few posts later I clarified what was posted in the article. Again if you didn't bother to read the article then that is on you not me.
Click to expand...
As you said in the OP, one might have to have something I don't, I do not have a subscription, nor do I want one, to the NYT. What you should have put in your OP, knowing beforehand some of us would not be able to access it, is the relevant information instead of using generic terms like, the poor. Even so, it is not a valid point based on life expectancy and all the factors I mentioned previous.

Its just liberal fluff, sorry... but you make no points worth noting by cutting out the parts you do not want to have to deal with and submitting only those that follow your narrative.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
As you said in the OP, one might have to have something I don't, I do not have a subscription, nor do I want one, to the NYT. What you should have put in your OP, knowing beforehand some of us would not be able to access it, is the relevant information instead of using generic terms like, the poor. Even so, it is not a valid point based on life expectancy and all the factors I mentioned previous.

Its just liberal fluff, sorry... but you make no points worth noting by cutting out the parts you do not want to have to deal with and submitting only those that follow your narrative.
Click to expand...

Dude that is not on me. The only reason you would need a subscription to the NYT is if you exhausted all your free article reads. As people have later explained in the thread you don't even necessarily have to have that because there is a workaround. If you choose not read the article attached to the OP and make ridiculous claims based on your own ignorance then again that is on you not me. Take some responsibility. Quit whining about what was or was not posted when you clearly didn't bother to read the article. Don't blame me for you ignorance.
 
smb said:
Dude that is not on me. The only reason you would need a subscription to the NYT is if you exhausted all your free article reads. As people have later explained in the thread you don't even necessarily have to have that because there is a workaround. If you choose not read the article attached to the OP and make ridiculous claims based on your own ignorance then again that is on you not me. Take some responsibility. Quit whining about what was or was not posted when you clearly didn't bother to read the article. Don't blame me for you ignorance.
Click to expand...
Dude, you stated it was the POOR.

THE POOR.

You are wrong about it all the way around and I proved that. Who would even write such an asinine article about only the poor 40 years old and older. That is plain stupid and an attempt to associate it with all the poor of certain states, as you quite plainly did, is flat out deceitful.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Dude, you stated it was the POOR.

THE POOR.

You are wrong about it all the way around and I proved that. Who would even write such an asinine article about only the poor 40 years old and older. That is plain stupid and an attempt to associate it with all the poor of certain states, as you quite plainly did, is flat out deceitful.
Click to expand...

You proved nothing except you are too lazy to read the article posted. Again that is on you not me. You can call me whatever names you want to but it boils down to your inability to read the posted material can come up with an intelligent response to it. Instead you just want to whine and spout BS liberal biased conspiracy theories instead of having a reasonable logical response.
 
smb said:
You proved nothing except you are too lazy to read the article posted. Again that is on you not me. You can call me whatever names you want to but it boils down to your inability to read the posted material can come up with an intelligent response to it. Instead you just want to whine and spout BS liberal biased conspiracy theories instead of having a reasonable logical response.
Click to expand...
Wow, now that I read it, has to be one of the most bogus studies I have ever seen printed. And the little "* Life expectancy of 40-year-olds with household incomes below $28,000, adjusted for race*" and then the article just calls them, like you did, the poor. So, as I surmized earlier, without even reading the stupid article, its intention is to hoodwink. They don't even take the real populations of the places, they adjust them to even out the populations racially and ethnically, etc... even though that is not the truth of those localities...and this at the bottom, another little asterisk "* Map shows what life expectancy would be if every place had the same share of Hispanics and Asians (who tend to live longer than whites) and blacks (who tend to live shorter lives than whites), and the same share of men and women. "

What a sham.

So, lets take for instance, this paragraph,

"The poor in some cities — big ones like New York and Los Angeles, and also quite a few smaller ones like Birmingham, Ala. — live nearly as long as their middle-class neighbors or have seen rising life expectancy in the 21st century."

That is the first sentence and it alludes to the poor, not highlighting its adjusted to those over 40, just the poor, just like YOU did.

Then the next sentence,

"But in some other parts of the country, adults with the lowest incomes die on average as young as people in much poorer nations like Rwanda, and their life spans are getting shorter" Most people, taught to skim, are not reading this intently and will come away with the impression, since the term young is utilized for heightened effect, that the article is including the young, the middle-aged and the old... but no, its just the middle aged and older crowd that is actually being measured.

The whole article never again, besides that non-bolded smaller print than the title phrase which many are accustomed to ignore and get right to reading the body...those writing know this full well as it is just what most folks do ... and yet they do not ever again emphasize the nature of the study being geared for those who have already reached a certain age as well as ignoring all the other things that will limit life span when one is younger, i.e. urban violence among younger folks and what will limit life spans overall in a rural area.

Its downright duplicitous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom