1. #7081
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,401
    *looks at the Missouri post*

    My state is such a god damn clusterfuck. And I'm sure they'll keep electing Republicans despite all of this...

  2. #7082
    Link to the March of Dime 2022 Report Card. US grade is D-.

    Some of the more interesting excerpts.






  3. #7083
    With data like that it sure seems like it's those pesky libruls that are indeed the ones who invest and care more about supporting folks through pregnancy and delivery and achieve better outcomes.

    Almost as if none of the "pro-life/mother" rhetoric actually lines up with policies that deliver those kinds of results.

  4. #7084
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Florida looks pretty good though, surprisingly. A bit of trouble up north, but overall it seems to be the southern/midwest conservative state with the most access overall.
    Florida only functions because of tourism and medicare recipients. Both need hospitals sometimes.

  5. #7085
    While I readily believe that the US as a whole is behind on healthcare, and the south in particular, those charts seem pretty bad from an information point of view. Without showing other nations, it's hard to get a judge on the infant mortality data when each state is differing only by 1-2/1000. Preterm birth data has a higher spread, but without actually knowing the science surrounding the topic doesn't really tell you much. Finally, the mother mortality rating doesn't really show much at all unless you click through to the source report.

  6. #7086
    Quote Originally Posted by Shkar View Post
    While I readily believe that the US as a whole is behind on healthcare, and the south in particular, those charts seem pretty bad from an information point of view. Without showing other nations, it's hard to get a judge on the infant mortality data when each state is differing only by 1-2/1000. Preterm birth data has a higher spread, but without actually knowing the science surrounding the topic doesn't really tell you much. Finally, the mother mortality rating doesn't really show much at all unless you click through to the source report.
    Why do we need to compare outcomes in different nations? States themselves have fairly different policies around health care and insurance coverage, and there are different networks in place throughout them. Comparisons between states is like for like, it's absolutely fair and reasonable and doesn't need to be compared to other nations. It's comparing the different outcomes for folks within a nation, and that they seem to vary pretty significantly is indicative of some states policies resulting higher rates of infant mortality. Especially when you look at some of those states and how they still proudly reject federal funding that could go towards addressing those types of problems. That's a pretty significant data point in the discussion when we're taking a look at whether the states run by Republicans actually pursue policies that achieve their stated goal of being "pro-life" and "pro-mother".

    Yes, looking at overall data sets doesn't give you granular data on every individual case. But it gives you a large data set of like data in which to analyze and study to evaluate if there might be issues worthy of further investigation - like why a state that professes to be "pro-life" seems to have nearly twice the infant mortality rate as one of those "librul" states that are filled with baby killers.

    And yes, if you want to see the actual underlying data you do have to find the sources, which are usually provided. That's how data works. If you'd like to discuss something in the source report I'm sure folks would be happy to do so, though.

  7. #7087
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The map of women without health insurance is truly damning for the Southern states. Including Texas and Florida.
    To be fair...the insurance map strikes me as the only one that's actually representative of much. Other than the fact that enough people simply don't live in a lot of space on the map to justify/support some of these services, regardless of whether or not the politicians that represent them are actively fighting against the expansion/availability of healthcare.

  8. #7088
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Shkar View Post
    While I readily believe that the US as a whole is behind on healthcare, and the south in particular, those charts seem pretty bad from an information point of view. Without showing other nations, it's hard to get a judge on the infant mortality data when each state is differing only by 1-2/1000.
    That data's readily available if you bother to look for it. For instance;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ortality_rates

    The UN data, for instance, pegs the USA at 5.3 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, using the CIA World Factbook source. That's 2020 figures and a different model, hence the small variance from 5.4 in the study linked here.

    By comparison, Canada's at 4.3 (we're a very large country with some significant transport issues from remote regions for critical care, unfortunately), and most of the developed world is at 3.3/1000 or lower.

    The USA is a steep outlier.

    But we don't even need to look at other countries. It demonstrates the American average to be "bad", but State differentials are more important. Look at California, at 3.7, or New York at 3.9; not that terrible. But then look at Mississippi, which is more than twice those figures. So if you're having a baby in Mississippi rather than California or New York, your new baby is twice as likely to die as an infant. Differing by 1 or 2/1000 (or 3 or 4/1000) is huge when the average is 5.4/1000.

    Preterm birth data has a higher spread, but without actually knowing the science surrounding the topic doesn't really tell you much. Finally, the mother mortality rating doesn't really show much at all unless you click through to the source report.
    You've got all that information. Literally the only thing keeping you from accessing it is you. Clicking through to the source report and looking for those details is a basic first research step.

    If you want to know more, you check the source, that's why they tell you the source and give you links to that report. It's right there, and you can't be bothered. That's a "you" problem, not the study's problem.


  9. #7089
    I'd like to see a separate layover of wealth (maybe as a state, maybe per capita) added to that image. I'm betting it would explain in part why Florida and/or Texas appear better than one might expect. Just a hypothesis.

    EDIT: Can't quite find the type of map I'm looking for but in the meantime I discovered that Texas and Florida are just behind California and New York for most millionaires (above 30 mill), so that's sorta along the lines of what I was implying.
    Last edited by Benggaul; 2023-11-16 at 05:40 AM.

  10. #7090
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Why do we need to compare outcomes in different nations? States themselves have fairly different policies around health care and insurance coverage, and there are different networks in place throughout them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That data's readily available if you bother to look for it.
    Trimming quotes to shorten post length.

    First, my post was just on the graphs on the March of Dimes report card, and I managed to accidentally mess up and miss the link on the Maternal Vulnerability Index chart linking to the Surgo Ventures report. I read through the report card, got to the end and went back to click on the link I'd seen, and clicked the one at the bottom of each page which gives technical notes, but forgot about the Surgo link. The Surgo report has (at least in my opinion) better charts because it actually breaks down the counties based on factors. Having that breakdown means I don't have to wonder if its poverty, lack of health care, environmental factors, etc. As I suspected (but couldn't tell from the report card), it's all of them in the south. It also helped elucidate how the different factors interweave; for instance, Michigan has a higher infant mortality than Texas but actually has MORE access to reproductive healthcare. I honestly expected access to maternal healthcare to be a bigger contributor, but from the individual charts it looks like it's more like regular physical health and (of course) substance abuse/socioeconomic factors.

    The connection to other nations is because I would expect that, when giving a grade to a nation, the grade should be compared to other nations. Knowing that the states that have low numbers are comparable to countries that actually kind of have their shit together like Canada or France is good. Knowing that those same states are 1.8-2x as high as the Nordic countries, and the worst states are closer in line with small island or South American countries is better (in the sense of frame of reference).

    Finally, I'll admit that I probably just shouldn't have commented, since reports like that really aren't aimed at me. On this topic, I'm right in the dunning-kruger space; I know just enough that the ultra simplified stats you find on the internet don't have enough information, but the specific stuff for the experts I have no frame of reference for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    I'd like to see a separate layover of wealth (maybe as a state, maybe per capita) added to that image. I'm betting it would explain in part why Florida and/or Texas appear better than one might expect. Just a hypothesis.

    EDIT: Can't quite find the type of map I'm looking for but in the meantime I discovered that Texas and Florida are just behind California and New York for most millionaires (above 30 mill), so that's sorta along the lines of what I was implying.
    Page 15 of the Surgo Report kind of has what you're looking for.


  11. #7091
    Nikki Haley Says She Would Have Signed Six-Week Abortion Ban as Governor

    Yep. Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024.

    It looks like 11 states for sure will have abortion amendment on the ballot in 2024. Twelve if Florida pro-choice groups can get theirs' on the ballot.

    Will abortion outweigh the usual GOP spiel on the economy, immigration and crime?

  12. #7092
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Nikki Haley Says She Would Have Signed Six-Week Abortion Ban as Governor

    Yep. Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024.

    It looks like 11 states for sure will have abortion amendment on the ballot in 2024. Twelve if Florida pro-choice groups can get theirs' on the ballot.

    Will abortion outweigh the usual GOP spiel on the economy, immigration and crime?
    They can always say it'll be illegal brown people who will be required to get them before deporting them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  13. #7093
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Nikki Haley Says She Would Have Signed Six-Week Abortion Ban as Governor

    Yep. Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024.

    It looks like 11 states for sure will have abortion amendment on the ballot in 2024. Twelve if Florida pro-choice groups can get theirs' on the ballot.

    Will abortion outweigh the usual GOP spiel on the economy, immigration and crime?
    Plain-old failure to comprehend the statement. State bans are on the ballot. Nikki Haley can speak to her experience as a governor.

    Yet you say "Federal abortion ban" for Nikki Haley? She just spent considerable political capital in the debate saying she opposed that exact thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJmc4iXZRY

    You're lying about quite possibly the most articulate response on abortion in states and abortion at the federal level of any candidate in the race.

    And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  14. #7094
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,821
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.
    Then why the constant lies, half truths, and misinformation from the GOP?
    Last edited by unfilteredJW; 2023-11-18 at 10:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Venara
    Half this forum would be permanently banned if we did everything some of our users regularly demand or otherwise expect us to do.
    Actual blue mod response on doing what they volunteered to do. No wonder this place is infested.

  15. #7095
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Plain-old failure to comprehend the statement. State bans are on the ballot. Nikki Haley can speak to her experience as a governor.

    Yet you say "Federal abortion ban" for Nikki Haley? She just spent considerable political capital in the debate saying she opposed that exact thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJmc4iXZRY

    You're lying about quite possibly the most articulate response on abortion in states and abortion at the federal level of any candidate in the race.

    And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.
    Key sentence from her speech "It will take 60 Senate votes." The unsaid implication was that, as a President, if she has that "60 votes" and House majority, she will impose a Federal ban. Even without those "60 votes", as President, she could do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. Something as simple as reversing FDA approvals on Mifepristone and Misoprostol could have a devastating impact to abortion access. Or limiting telemedicine consultation to in state patients only.

    No. I wasn't lying.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-11-18 at 10:25 PM.

  16. #7096
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,145
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Plain-old failure to comprehend the statement. State bans are on the ballot. Nikki Haley can speak to her experience as a governor.

    Yet you say "Federal abortion ban" for Nikki Haley? She just spent considerable political capital in the debate saying she opposed that exact thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJmc4iXZRY

    You're lying about quite possibly the most articulate response on abortion in states and abortion at the federal level of any candidate in the race.

    And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.
    "Articulate"? She is, by her own admission, only pulling back from a federal ban because she think it's impractical to achieve.

    She's also blatantly lying. If she believed her own "leave it up to the people" schtick, she'd be pro-choice. That leaves the decision on any individual case up to the individual persons involved in that case. She does not personally support that. She wants women to be denied their own self-ownership, because of her own archaic Bronze-age-era religious extremism.


  17. #7097
    As the others have implied, if she actually opposed an abortion ban, it would take 67 votes. That's the magic number to override a presidential veto, after all. All she's doing by saying 60 votes is acknowledging that the democrats would filibuster such a bill.

  18. #7098
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Key sentence from her speech "It will take 60 Senate votes." The unsaid implication was that, as a President, if she has that "60 votes" and House majority, she will impose a Federal ban. Even without those "60 votes", as President, she could do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. Something as simple as reversing FDA approvals on Mifepristone and Misoprostol could have a devastating impact to abortion access. Or limiting telemedicine consultation to in state patients only.

    No. I wasn't lying.
    Sadly, no. Her whole wind-up to that was how she respected other states. How the Supreme Court put it back into the states.

    And then used the 60 votes to allege the other candidates were both wrong and unrealistic as an attack on them. Other candidates on that stage supported a federal ban.

    It takes ignoring every word of her speech up to that sentence to arrive where you did. That's exactly why I stand by my previous characterization: you're lying, and if you don't think you are, re-watch the video.

    I will, however, admit that she will do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. The reason is honest dialogue about personal choices and each state's actions being tolerated will handicap pro-choice rhetoric nationwide.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  19. #7099
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Sadly, no. Her whole wind-up to that was how she respected other states. How the Supreme Court put it back into the states.

    And then used the 60 votes to allege the other candidates were both wrong and unrealistic as an attack on them. Other candidates on that stage supported a federal ban.

    It takes ignoring every word of her speech up to that sentence to arrive where you did. That's exactly why I stand by my previous characterization: you're lying, and if you don't think you are, re-watch the video.

    I will, however, admit that she will do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. The reason is honest dialogue about personal choices and each state's actions being tolerated will handicap pro-choice rhetoric nationwide.
    From her interview with Fox News. Go to 6:00.

    “Let’s start there and whatever 60 Senate votes come to, whether that’s 15 weeks, I absolutely would sign it.”

    If she becomes president, the only thing that would stop her from passing an abortion Federal ban would be that "60 Senate votes."

  20. #7100
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,821
    @tehdang accusing someone else of lying is peak comedy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Venara
    Half this forum would be permanently banned if we did everything some of our users regularly demand or otherwise expect us to do.
    Actual blue mod response on doing what they volunteered to do. No wonder this place is infested.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •