Right leaning states have less unemployment

[Bob]

Plenty of reasons why, but why are we attempting to impliment policies that crashed Michigan and California? (just so you know numbers below are for May, except for Michigan, which are June's numbers...)

"saving everything" will ensure loosing more capasity, higher inflation, much higher, and longer unemployment numbers -- 20% average within two years.

1 NEBRASKA 4.4
1 NORTH DAKOTA 4.4
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 5.0
3 WYOMING 5.0
5 UTAH 5.4
6 IOWA 5.8
7 MONTANA 6.3
7 OKLAHOMA 6.3
9 NEW HAMPSHIRE 6.5
9 NEW MEXICO


40 KENTUCKY 10.6
42 DISTRICT OF C 10.7
42 TENNESSEE 10.7
44 OHIO 10.8
45 NORTH CAROLINA 11.1
46 NEVADA 11.3
47 CALIFORNIA 11.5
48 RHODE ISLAND 12.1
48 SOUTH CAROLINA 12.1
50 OREGON 12.4
51 MICHIGAN 14.4

[Fedaykin]

Did you just make an idiotic comparison between subsistence style rural economies that are entirely locally focused to the major industrial and technological economies in the U.S. that are intertwined with each other and foreign economies on a global scale?

Are you really that naive?

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Did you just make an idiotic comparison between subsistence style rural economies that are entirely locally focused to the major industrial and technological economies in the U.S. that are intertwined with each other and foreign economies on a global scale?

Are you really that naive?

Agreed. This is really a dumb thread.

[ghwk]

Bob = FAIL.

[cutthemdown]

Why he said plenty of reasons and then gave the stats. He left the debate open for people to argue if they think it is significant, why it is that way, and if there is anything to be learned from it.

Not sure why people just want to say he made any conclusions from it yet.

[TexanBob]

Kentucky and Tennessee are red states while North Carolina and South Carolina have been until very recently.

What we are seeing, though, is an acceleration of what has been happening for the past 20 years where the Northeast loses population and the South and West gain. The only difference is that states like California and Nevada are taking a hard hit from the recession.

If you were to chart the unemployment rates on a map, you'll see that the unemployment rates climb, in general, the closer you get to the East Coast or the West Coast. The states in the middle of the country are showing the best employment figures which may lead to a population shift from the coasts.

In Austin, I'm already seeing a ton of out of states plates on the vehicles which doesn't please me much.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Did you just make an idiotic comparison between subsistence style rural economies that are entirely locally focused to the major industrial and technological economies in the U.S. that are intertwined with each other and foreign economies on a global scale?

Are you really that naive?

Yes and yes.

[BroncoBuff]

Zero correlation Bob ... zero.

Massachusetts is doing fine ... and they have full-public health care.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Zero correlation Bob ... zero.

I'll bet he gets that all the time.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Not sure why people just want to say he made any conclusions from it yet.

How does this statement not equal "making a conclusion":

Originally Posted by Bob

"saving everything" will ensure loosing more capasity, higher inflation, much higher, and longer unemployment numbers -- 20% average within two years.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

How does this statement not equal "making a conclusion":

Damn for some reason I didn't see that lol.

Still though it's weak to dismiss something without a good argument. Most of the responses didn't really make a point, that was my point.

I'm not saying I agree with him only that it's an interesting stat.

my bad though I skipped over his conclusions for some reason.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Zero correlation Bob ... zero.

Massachusetts is doing fine ... and they have full-public health care.

Is it fine though?

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00113

Massachusetts, the proud model for likely Obama-Kennedy reform, is trying a new answer for the problem of a severe doctor shortage: group appointments.

Deluged with demand from newly insured patients, doctors have no room on their appointment schedules for all the new patients. At Holyoke Medical Center, it takes 4 months to get an appointment. A patient with chronic Lyme disease can’t find a single primary physician in three towns who will accept a new patient, so she goes to the emergency room, recounting her history to a different intake nurse, for all medical needs, including her regular prescriptions.

The Massachusetts universal coverage law required 440,000 more people to buy insurance or sign up with expanded Medicaid, and every one of them has to have a primary doctor in order to get into the system. Yet in the past year, 18 primary physicians have left the Amherst area (All Things Considered). , NPR 11/20/08

Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates now features “shared medical appointments.” Dr. Gene Lindsey, reputedly HVMA’s best cardiologist, sees all his patients in groups. HGMA plans to offer group appointments with 50 physicians and nurse practitioners (Liz Kowalcyzk, “The Doctor Will See All of You Now,” Boston Globe 11/30/08).

One group appointment, featured in a Boston Globe video showed nine patients seated in folding chairs around a table with snacks. Dr. Erickson shook hands with each of them and examined them one by one, discussing their medical details aloud. The video showed him listening to and percussing chests through clothing.

The appointment lasted 90 minutes. This is said to reduce doctor and patient dissatisfaction about feeling rushed during a 15 to 20 minute visit. Patients are said to be pleased that they are spending much more time in the room with the doctor. Nearly 80% said they would schedule future group appointments.

Patients are said to benefit from hearing others describe their symptoms and ask questions.

“People came to me with similar complaints and I had these canned speeches,” Erickson explained.

Patients have to sign a form promising not to reveal information they learn about other patients.

The doctor can bill for nine individual visits for the time period in which he previously could have seen only four to six individual patients. He can thus increase his productivity without having to work more.

There were 58 comments posted by Dec 1, and not all patients were pleased.

One wrote: “Nice business model if you can achieve it. Convince state lawmakers to require everyone to ‘get’ medical insurance which is really privatized medical taxation. Now convince the check-writing insuracrats that it’s justified to pay you the same for less service. Sorry, sharing the appointment with others is less service. This is little different than a taxi driver charging each of five passengers the same fare to go from location A to destination B. At least the taxi driver doesn’t provide less service.”

Another wrote: “There aren’t enough doctors because doctors are required to practice high-speed cookbook medicine…. So the answer is to speed it up more so patients can listen to canned speeches together?”

Other descriptions: “Third-world standard of care: many people being seen by a doctor at the same time, sharing…germs.” A “commoditization” of human beings. Having to listen to all the other patients is a “tax on people’s time.”

One idealist thinks it’s just what we need: “I think that as a nation we need to move AWAY from rampant individualism toward a system that embracees shared responsibility in a community. You are more likely to follow those pesky lifestyle recommendations if you feel like you’ll not only be letting down yourself and your doctor, but also your community.”

The appointments are “voluntary”—although possibly the only kind available for months. They are focused on health care, not sickness care: “1) education, 2) individual goals, expectations, and treatment plans, 3) self-management strategies, 4) developing a personal action plan.

Obama needs to look no farther than Massachusetts for a model, writes Jeremy Smerd. One small problem: Massachusetts knew it was not addressing the cost issue. Annual state spending could top $1 billion by 2009 (Workforce Management). 11/11/0




I also remember reading that GP are leaving the area because they think it stinks having to see all these patients for not enough money. I'm not sure Kennedy's plan is very good.

[Beantown Bronco]

The Mass model is still in its infancy, so it's tough to really come to any conclusions right now.

Is it expensive? Sure, it is definitely costing the state big $.

Is it bad for the average joe? We'll see. There are quite a few positives and the only negatives I've seen so far which were hinted at above (group visits, tough to get appts, etc.) are all only issues if you live in the rural areas in Western Mass. Anyone near a medium to large city should have no problems making appts to see their primary care physician.

And that blurb about "needing" a primary care physician? That is BS. It depends on your healthcare plan. Most don't require them anymore. Obviously you can choose to have one, but it's not required.

[cutthemdown]

Regardless of what MASS does there is a shortage of GP doctors. Everyone specializes now to get the big bucks. You can't make as much money as a GP.

IMO Physicians Asst will probably become more and more needed as GP use them to see all the patients.

Really do you need the doctor when the PA is good enough? I know some people complain about that but the PA at my doctors office seem really smart.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Did you just make an idiotic comparison between subsistence style rural economies that are entirely locally focused to the major industrial and technological economies in the U.S. that are intertwined with each other and foreign economies on a global scale?

Are you really that naive?

There are plenty of reasons why rural states have lower unemployment generally. Iowa is an interesting state -- low population, generally Dem, has a manufacturing base (John Deer.) Iowa has great school systems as well.

So, are most of the problems with sky-high unemployment with industry going belly up? In Michigan, my guess would be that is a big percentage of the problem. What about:

47 CALIFORNIA 11.5
48 RHODE ISLAND 12.1
48 SOUTH CAROLINA 12.1
50 OREGON 12.4

I know that everything is seen in right and left terms around here, but I think it is safe to say that many of the policies being batted around now like universal healthcare, and policies favoring unions, are more like the states with high unemployment, and less like those with low rates, so are policies being implimented to resolve the problem, or are those choices made dispite evidence? California does have higher taxes then most states in the union, would they be better off imitating states like Texas, that has gained ground relitive to other states in recent years? Are high unemployment rates in California and Oregon due to lost car manufacturing jobs, or high taxes, and stupid variable interest rates and bad loans, using homes as ATM's to buy products, which well is now dry?

There is room to debate and at least consider another point other than your own...the thought police squad are not arresting folks like me yet, you may be free to consider another view as well.

[TexanBob]

I also remember reading that GP are leaving the area because they think it stinks having to see all these patients for not enough money.

My GP has told me that if Obamacare passes, he's retiring. He sees no need to work where there's no profit.

My supervisor's daughter is getting married to a physician in France. He can't make money working in France under socialized medicine so he spends his weekends driving to Italy and doing unlicensed private medicine there in order to make money.

[Garcia Bronco]

Interesting. DC get's something like 7 dollars returned in tax dollars for every dollar they pay yet they have 10 percent unenployment and it's probably more like 14 percent. And Michigan.....get your act together.

[frerottenextelway]

I wonder what the UE% is in rural areas compared to urban centers.

The unemployment rate in rural counties jumped to 9.8% in February, well above the rates for both exurban counties (9.2%) and urban counties (8.7%).

Hmmmm.....

[Bob]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

I wonder what the UE% is in rural areas compared to urban centers.



Hmmmm.....

Good point, if true, or can I compliment without you looking to score points instead of getting at the heart of the issue.

The next logical question to ask is the reason for the loss in jobs in repective states? The stats I cite are only broader state vs state --

[Bob]

But the point may be that conservative state's policies are better for creating jobs (at least in general.)

In North Dakota their budget director stated:

“Isn't it crazy?" said Pam Sharp, North Dakota's budget director, in a telephone interview with Reuters. "People are still making money here; income growth is up," she added. What sets North Dakota apart from other states according to Sharp is an economy that has been diversified beyond the energy and agricultural sectors, a stable housing market that did not take a hit from the subprime mortgage crisis and conservative financial management, Reuters reported.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bob

But the point may be that conservative state's policies are better for creating jobs (at least in general.)

In North Dakota their budget director stated:

“Isn't it crazy?" said Pam Sharp, North Dakota's budget director, in a telephone interview with Reuters. "People are still making money here; income growth is up," she added. What sets North Dakota apart from other states according to Sharp is an economy that has been diversified beyond the energy and agricultural sectors, a stable housing market that did not take a hit from the subprime mortgage crisis and conservative financial management, Reuters reported.

Both North Dakota's Senators are Democrats along with their single Representative. Goes to show you how ****ing retarded this "theory'' is.

[Spider]

I think I know what the OP is looking for .......... Unions bad out ot destroy america , Democrats bad , out to destroy America , People in blue states are lazy looking for a hand out , People in Red states are great , god fearing hard working people , that know how to run this country , and understand the evil of unions and workers rights ..............
there ya go Bob

[Bob]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Both North Dakota's Senators are Democrats along with their single Representative. Goes to show you how ****ing retarded this "theory'' is.

Do right leaning states like ND have laws that are freindly to businesses, are labor unions huge, does the state have large illegal populations, and large percentages of state funded healthcare? You of all people should know, that a D or an R after a name for some representatives does not mean that the policies of the state are left leaning or right leaning. ND is a right leaning state, whose policies are right of center – sorry to break that shocking news to you.

In Montana we have a D governor, along with Tester and Baucus -- but the laws in place for state governance are not tilted left --

Higher taxed states cripple business generally, and those businesses flee to states (or countries) that will provide a less abusive tax environment. Unions (while they last) may help the worker, but in the end can suck the blood out of a business.

I think three things have lead to more unemployment in some states:
1. the housing market's inflated prices, that have been deflating for some time -- the inflated prices created a wealth effect, people used homes as ATM's, when that unsustainable model deflated, an economy built on spending (70%) is in a tailspin. I am not convinced that most of the "wealth" was even real – we built towers in the air.
2. Higher taxes can't help states like California -- businesses that can leave, have, or are thinking about it. Until they curb spending, they will spiral out of control.
3. When spending crashed the vulnerability of car businesses was revealed -- the union’s don’t help the situation -- their artificially high wages, and legacy costs have now been shifted to the tax payer.

So what do we do to fix rising high unemployment numbers according to the insane, ideologically driven, and non-fact driven? We strengthen unions, tax more and spend money we don’t have (just like Bush did) while never cutting back on spending -- again -- seems a bit like what has been tried in California. Now, if we “get to” bailout California for their bad choices, and unwillingness to moderate spending it will drag down those states who have been more responsible, and will encourage additional (mostly) liberal states who can’t control spending to get in line as well.

[watermock]

What they need is a stimulous package.

Get a hardon special interests.