NH #1 for healthiest kids - But not because it's 'blue'!!!

[CNHT]

Someone needs to set this jerk straight -- he claims that a book called Homeland Insecurity says that children who live in a Red State are more 'at risk'.
He lists NH as one of the examples of a Blue State, proving that this is a better way to be.
Well duh! NH has been RED for hundreds of years! How does he think we GOT TO BE #1?

"Book: 'Red' State Kids at Much Greater Risk Than Those in 'Blue' States"

Living in a "red" state appears to be more hazardous to the health of millions of American children, according to startling data contained in a major new book, Homeland Insecurity ... American Children at Risk available free on the Web.

The factors weighed in the "Homeland Insecurity" ranking includes such diverse indicators as inadequate pre-natal care, lack of health care insurance coverage, early death, child abuse, hunger and teen incarceration.

Based on a diverse range of 11 child-related statistical measures, nine of the 10 top states with the best outcomes for children today are "blue"states (Wisconsin, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and No. 1-ranked New Hampshire, with Iowa being the sole "red" state in the group) and all 10 of the bottom states with the worst outcomes for children are "red" states (Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and, in last place, Mississippi).

The political dividing lines used in the book are "red" states (those that voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election) versus "blue"states (those that voted Democratic). Homeland Insecurity ... American Children at Risk outlines a $500-billion "Invest in Kids" agenda to reverse the harmful impact of conservative ideology on children caused by the failure to invest in documented children's needs and by federal andstate cuts in taxes and children's programs beginning in the early 1980s and accelerating since 2001, according to the book's author.

Michael Petit, author of Homeland Insecurity ... American Children at Risk, and founder of Every Child Matters, says: "The bottom line here is that where a child lives can be a major factor in that youth's abilityto survive and thrive in America. The reason why this is the case is no mystery: 'Blue' states tend to tax themselves at significantly higher levels, which makes it possible to reach more children and families with beneficial health, social and education programs. 'Red' states overwhelmingly are home to decades-long adherence to anti-government and anti-tax ideology that often runs directly contrary to the needs of healthy children and stable families."

How serious is it for many children today in "red" states?

The"red"/"blue" state dividing line is clear on issue after issue cited in Homeland Insecurity, the author says:

* A child in the bottom 10 states is twice as likely to die by the age of 14 as are children in the top 10. All 10 of the bottom states of this measure are "red" states. All of the top 10 states are "blue" states.

* Children in the bottom 10 states are 1.8 times as likely to be uninsured as children in the top 10. Nine of the 10 states in the bottom of this measure are "red" states. Eight of the top 10 states are "blue" states.

* Children in the bottom 10 states are seven times more likely to die from abuse and neglect as are children in the top states. Nine of the 10 bottom states of this measure are "red" states. Eight of the top 10 states are "blue" states.

* A child in a bottom-10 state is more than twice as likely to be living in poverty as a child in a top-10 states. All of the 10 states in the bottom are "red" states. Six of the top 10 states are "blue" states.

* Women in the bottom 10 states are more than twice as likely to receive inadequate prenatal care as women in the top 10 states. Eight of 10 states in the bottom of this measure are "red" states. Seven of the top 10 states are "blue" states.

* Juveniles in the bottom 10 states are almost two and a half times as likely to be incarcerated as juveniles in the top 10. Eight of the 10 bottom states of this measure are "red" states. Seven of the top 10 are "blue" states.

* Children in the bottom 10 states are 74 percent more likely to die before their first birthday as are children in the top 10. Eight of the 10 states in the bottom of this measure are "red" states. Seven of the top 10 states are "blue" states.

In order to illustrate the gap between "red" and "blue" states, the new book points to the serious circumstances facing more than a million children today in one of the crucibles of "compassionate conservatism": Texas. The Lone Star state has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation (24.6 percent v. 15.7 percent nationally), the fourth worst rate of immunizing two year-olds (75 percent v. 84 percent nationwide) and a teen birth rate that is 50 percent higher than the national average. There are more uninsured children in Texas (1.24 million) than there are in 26 other states combined, including such large-population states as Oregon, Minnesota, Louisiana, Colorado and Wisconsin. Texas also ranks No. 1 in both child abuse deaths and the percentage of households experiencing "food insecurity" (16.4 percent versus 11.4 percent nationwide).


http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/

[error]

I don't even know where to start with this crap. But if I had the time, I'd start with the statistics, most of which I suspect are distorted or made up out of whole cloth.

[CNHT]

I don't even know where to start with this crap. But if I had the time, I'd start with the statistics, most of which I suspect are distorted or made up out of whole cloth.

The nerve of him though, to include NH, when NH has been RED for at least 84 years...and is still #1 in healthiest.

I posted a comment but how much you wanna bet it won't show up?

[eques]

But don't you realize, cherry-picking data to support one's conclusion is the way research is done!

Seriously, though, there have to be much better reasons why one region is healthier as compared to another... though I'd wonder how exactly you measure that, too.

[CNHT]

But don't you realize, cherry-picking data to support one's conclusion is the way research is done!

Seriously, though, there have to be much better reasons why one region is healthier as compared to another... though I'd wonder how exactly you measure that, too.

Well at this time, it happens that NH is 'blue' (we hope it's only temporary) but, NH did not just become the healthiest in two months.
It's been red for 84+ years.

I think it's because NH has proven it does more with less.

Just like the poverty issue -- people are always screaming about it, but once again, NH is the state where the LEAST amount of kids (13%) go without a personal computer at home!

I'd say that's a good indication of our lack of poverty here.


WOW and right on cue, here is an article that just popped up!

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14112
RICH STATES, POOR STATES

States are now in a ferocious competition to attract jobs and businesses, says economist Arthur Laffer, who is advising several Governors and legislators on the issue, and one of the best ways to win this race is to abolish the state income tax.

Consider:

In Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina, Governors and state legislatures are drafting serious proposals to repeal their income taxes to promote economic development.

St. Louis, one of America's most distressed cities, may overturn its wage/income tax as a way to spur urban revival.
And in Michigan, the legislature is in the last stages of phasing out its hated business income tax -- the most onerous in the land.
The timing for fixing state tax codes could hardly be more ideal because states are swimming in budget surpluses thanks to the booming national economy.  This should be a big year for state tax cuts, says the Wall Street Journal:

Governors in Arkansas, Florida and West Virginia have already announced major tax relief plans for 2007.
Even New York City has a $1 billion surplus and Mayor Michael Bloomberg is promising a property tax cut.
The idea of financing state services without an income tax is hardly radical, says the Journal:

Nine states today -- Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming -- manage well without one.
With a few exceptions, the non-income tax states are America's most prosperous.
Meanwhile, the high income tax states, which tend to be congregated in the Northeast, keep surrendering jobs, people, and voters to the South and West.
Source: Editorial, "Rich States, Poor States," Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2007.

For text:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116969533548687229.html

For more on Taxes:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=20