Glad to see you're not making assumptions or anything. First, the citizens of places like the Carolinas have freely chosen (unlike the masochists in CT) to live with low taxes, and to pay public servants accordingly.

Second, the teaching profession has plenty of grizzled, burnt-out veterans, and the students might benefit by replacing them with eager rookies bursting with energy and enthusiasm and new creative ideas.

Third - "no experienced mentors" - show me the data that says that there aren't any experienced teachers left.

Paying teachers poverty wages isn't ideal. Nor is what we have here in CT, where we have promised them benefits that can never, ever be delivered.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/well...nb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

Any fat bastards that think its the states fault they are fat, raise there hands. :hihi:

Nope, that one is on me and my love of Craft Beer and BBQ

And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

Bash the Carolinas all you want, and there are plenty of legitimate things to bash them with. I don't like NASCAR or hunting either. The fact is, huge numbers of upper middle class New Englanders are moving there, and most don't come back. And the reason is, it turns out that you can have all the good things about our quality of life, without having to overpay for them.

But that's the very core of liberalism - nothing is your fault, and only the state can save you from yourself, and from the predatory practices of the craft breweries and BBQ joints. It's stupefying that anyone would think that obesity rates are tied to politics. Think how much you have to reject the notion of free will, to blame obesity on the state.

If all behavior is determined by politics, what does it say to you, Paul, that the crappiest and most dangerous cities in the country, are overwhelmingly liberal cities? Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Hartford, Bridgeport? Is all that drug use, fatherlessness, and crime, the result of liberalism? Or does that connection only exist when bad things happen in conservative places?

There are plenty of places in NC where I would never want to live (there are also plenty of places in CT where I would not want to live). But there are some places in NC that offer a high quality of life, with a low cost of living. Please name me one single place in CT that has a high quality of life, with low low taxes. You can't. Because we haven't been able to pull that off, but NC has. Ask the real estate agents and real estate developers.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1142743]And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1142756]"Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. "

You are desperately grasping at straws. Anyone who would suggest that politics determines obesity for a significant percentage of the citizenry, is a maniac.

"The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA."

Unions? UNIONS keep people skinny?

OK, I had my laugh for the day, I think we are done now.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1142756]"Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation."

As an actuary, if I ever dared to say out loud that state politics plays any meaningful role in people's weight, they'd kick me out of the association and never let me work again, and they'd be right to do so.

Again, if what you say is true (and it isn't, bit let's pretend), I'd bet that liberal states have more abortions, more drug use, more violent crime, poverty, fatherlessness, infidelity, divorce. If conservatism causes obesity, do you concede that liberalism causes the problems I listed? Can't have it both ways.

Some good reading here:

The red states all have significantly lower life expectancy than blue states, owing to much higher incidences of diabetes, obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Red states have much higher rates of uninsured citizens, death, food stamp recipients and Medicaid recipients
The 10 poorest states in the nation are all red states and 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
The median income is much lower in red states than in blue states.
State funding per student is much lower in in red states.
The top 10 states that practice corporal punishment are red states.
The percent of the population with college degrees is lower in red states than in blue states.
Red states have a higher percentage of population abusing drugs.
The rate of traffic related fatalities is higher in red states.
The incidence of alcohol-related driving fatalities is higher in red states.
Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states.
Of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine are red states.
Of the top 15 states with the highest per capita execution rate, 13 are red states.
The incarceration rate is much higher in red states.
Property crimes rates are higher in red states than in blue states.
Divorce rates are significantly higher in red states.
Abstinence-only sex education is more prevalent in red states, which accounts for the fact that of the states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine of the top ten are red states.
There are significantly more white supremacists hate groups in red states than in blue states.


Violence
http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpol...igher-crime-r/

Divorce
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25032268

Teen Pregnancies
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...een_moms_.html

Pornography
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...re-pornography

Best states for woman.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-w...r-women/10728/

That is surely because all those rich liberals threw the fat, drunk, abusive, illiterate deplorables out of their blue states.

amazing that despite all that, they can't build $450,000 houses fast enough, in the Carolinas or the suburbs of Nashville.

Paul, instead of pointing to studies, try answering this...please point to some principles that you and I would both agree are conservative principles, that would cause people to be fat, unhealthy, poor, etc.

As to income, our median income in CT is very high. Some of that, probably much of that, has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with how lucky we are to have beautiful waterfront real estate that is close to Manhattan.

"Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states"

Break it down by city, please.

I pity all those upper middle class people moving south in droves They must really be stupid.

jim people are moving but not in the numbers you think or the area and the reason have been very constant

When we look just at movers into North Carolina, Virginia is the most common sending state: nearly 29,300 individuals moved to North Carolina from Virginia between 2012 and 2013 according to the 2013 American Community Survey. Florida was second, with just under 26,000 individuals moving from Florida to North Carolina. New York is third, with 24,300 individuals moving from New York into North Carolina over the same time period.



Also poverty and low wages result in higher obesity rates (its not the only factor )

A new study has found that minimum-wage employees are more likely to be obese than those who earn higher wages, adding to growing evidence that being poor is a risk factor for unhealthy weight.

50-60 years ago they were building them as fast as they could in the NYC, Boston and Jersey suburbs. They must have been getting out of the liberal cities to the conservative suburbs.
Not all change is due to liberal politics, most of the people i know that moved south did it for warmer weather. Some did it for opportunity.

The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300.

The median price of homes currently listed in Connecticut is $315,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $239,100.

sure you can get a lot of house down there but a truck cost the same a gallon of gas isn't much cheaper a gallon of milk cost the same . some taxes are less but its still about wages

the southern state Gentrification is due in large part to liberals and their money

https://www.salon.com/2016/06/17/5_s..._poor_partner/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...420-story.html

CT isn't losing huge numbers of employees, but it's losing the ones we can't afford to lose. CT is continually ranked in the top 5 of population exodus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinq...inues-to-fail/

50-60 years ago, CT was a cheap place to live, and called "land of steady habits". We had a value proposition back then. Not anymore.

"Not all change is due to liberal politics"

Sure, weather is part of it. But other cold states aren't lagging population growth like CT is. Cost if living is a huge factor. I could move to NH tomorrow, get almost the same house in a town with similar schools, and enjoy tax savings of $900 a month, every month., for the rest of my life. And the cost difference between NH and CT is increasing, not decreasing. That is a fortune an absolute fortune.

"The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300."

Look in the Charlotte suburbs, BOOMING places like Waxhaw and Fort Mill SC. And remember, a 187k house down there, costs a lot more up here. Can't just compare dollars. Have to compare apples to apples. I'm not wrong. You want me to be wrong, I get that.

Let's have a fair comparison.

According to raltor.com, the median listing price in southeast Charlotte (one of the hottest areas in the country), is 425k. Look at the house I listed, 5 br brick colonial, 3400 sf on a perfectly manicured 0.6 acres, awesome public schools (I know Waxhaw), property taxes are less than 500 a month? Would be close to double that in the Hartford suburbs. That's why people are moving there. CT is no longer worth the premium you have to pay.

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...3_M67219-02349

WDMSO, Paul -

I agree completely that there are places in the south that are nothing but fried twinkies and trailer parks, places I would never raise my kids. It's a different culture, no question.

But there are places in the Carolinas and Tennessee, that aren't like that at all. Entire cities that are booming, $450k houses selling like hotcakes, being bought by northern transplants who want all of the things that make life nice (pretty neighborhoods, cute towns, great schools, healthy activities for kids, restaurants, good healthcare), and a much lower price. In other words, if you do 5 minutes of homework, you can find a town in the suburbs of Charlotte or the suburbs of Nashville, that look and feel and work like great New England suburbs, with southern taxes. We now know it's possible.

I know a handful of cities like that in the Carolinas and Tennessee. There are exactly zero cities in Connecticut that have the CT quality of life and southern taxes. Not one. Zip.

I'm not saying that every town in the south is as nice as CT at a lower cost. But there are some places like that. That is indisputable. Why aren't we trying to emulate that?

If I'm wrong, and there are towns in CT that offer a comparable quality of life with much lower taxes, please let me know where they are?

Not all of NC is better than all of CT. Posting studies comparing entire states, is off topic. But there are specific areas with similar quality of life, at far less cost. That is called "winning". I can't fathom why we aren't screaming for that here, and I think the reason is that the media and those who run the state, never stop saying that in general, CT has a lot of advantages over those states. They talk about the worst places in those states, but that's not where people are moving.

Are the ten poorest states really Republican? Apparently not:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...ly-republican/

There are so many variables in these state by state comparisons that making broad overall judgments by one statistic is beyond stupid.

Here's another example from another point of view:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#631224291d60

Actually - when I worked 4 years in a RI K-12, most of the hardest working teachers were the young ones - not the ones corrupted by the system.

I bet the top 20 poorest large Cities are all Democrat

:rotf2:

tax savings of $900 a month, ???? how do you figure that

the roads are nicer too...was up there visiting a customer the other day....leaving Mass where the road looked like someone bombed it, as soon as I hit the NH line, the road was pristine....go figure?

Beer is cheaper, dining out is cheaper, property taxes are waaaaaay cheaper. Vehicles last longer because they don’t rot out from all the salt on the roads in winter. Spring starts in February vs June up here :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, but they suck at plowing them :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a simple calculation, actually. There is zero state income tax in NH, and there is zero state sales tax in NH. I know exactly what I pay in state income tax, and I can make a good estimate of what I pay in state sales tax. That's my tax savings. That savings is reduced by the fact that local property taxes would be a bit higher.

We looked at a nice house in Sunappee, NH. Tax savings would be $900 a month in my pocket. And that does NOT include the impact of limited deduction of state/local taxes, which increases what I would save by moving to NH. And it doesn't take into account the certainty that CT will be increasing taxes again and again, to try to fund the union pensions. The cost differential between CT and NH (currently $900 a month for me) is increasing, not decreasing.

$900 a month in my pocket, just based on today's taxes. Plus, the University of New Hampshire costs residents $7,000 less a year, than UCONN does. For my 3 kids, that would add up to a savings of $84,000. 84 grand in my pocket, on top of the 900/month.

It's a fortune, an absolute fortune. I could retire years earlier if I moved to NH.

What do you think?

and somehow, their flagship public university (UNH) is $7,000 less a year for residents, than UCONN. Despite having no state income tax and no state sales tax.

Amazing.

Here's how they do it. 7 years ago, the chief of police for the UCONN campus (whose job is to manage 15,000 college students 8 months a year, and who does nothing 4 months a year), made more than the top cop in New York City (whose job is to watch over 8 million people). Also, there are retired UCONN professors with annual pensions over $200,000 a year. Read that again. They don't allow that kind of insanity in New Hampshire.

Houses also cheaper.

Yep, I could sell my house in mass, buy a bigger house in NC and put about $100k in the bank to help supplement my retirement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NC is high on my list - you?

Yep, the wife and I have been down a few times since our daughter is down there in school. Everything we’ve seen we’ve liked. Last time we spent a couple of days in the Asheville area. Beautiful out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, you suggested a BBQ joint in Greensboro to me (going down in July), I lost the note I made, can you remind me the name of the place?

I gather you like BBQ as I do. I live in central CT, there is a national BBQ chain (60 or so locations) called Mission BBQ, they do a lot for military, police, and FD in their areas. One is opening near my house in a few weeks. At all their locations, at noon, everyone stops what they're doing and sings the Star Spangled Banner, pretty cool. Hear the food is pretty good too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care. Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Pete F reply "Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

It's not about a country trying it. "Countries" doing it are government controlled market models. Free market models of all sorts and categories, not just medical care, have not only been tried, they work better and are usually the first model which is then followed by various government attempts at regulating costs and just about everything else--which usually results in overall costs going up.

As far as free market surgical procedures go, Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices not only are far less costly than the highly government controlled health care procedures, they have gone down due to competition. And there are some private surgical and medical clinics that do not take Medicare or Medicaid, and who advertise prices which are far below standard hospital prices: http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospi...prices-online/

And, as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and
Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.

Switzerland is first in the world for healthcare costs per capita

Actually Switzerland's healthcare looks a lot like Obamacare, except the insurance company can't make a profit on it.

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (German: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); French: la loi fédérale sur l’assurance-maladie (LAMal); Italian: legge federale sull’assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[3]

The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[3]

I just read a very interesting viewpoint on this subject.

Matt Jones, I live in VA United States. I've lived in Thailand.
Updated Sep 26, 2017
Because America has now become less than a country; it’s currently a rat race. The idea of paying more tax to have another fellow human being covered is so out of place they can’t imagine it without wincing. Saying that other folks should take their own risk and for the poor to go die in the street, however, does not make an American flinch as many commentators do here. All things considered, Americans don’t deserve any more humane system than what they currently have. Like Gore Vidal said: American never learned. This is the least-christian Christian country. They have chosen it to be like this.

Even a developing country like Thailand has a universal coverage for everyone. I lived in Thailand for a long time before moving to America, and I have seen their healthcare system transformed into the envy of the developing world— they became the first country in Asia to eliminate HIV transmission from mother to child in 2016, showing the world that AIDS can be defeated in a few generations from now. How did a low middle income country like Thailand achieve this? - considering also that they have had many military coups over the years. I have pondered this puzzle and in the end the answer is quite simple: Thailand is a buddhist society and the mentality of people there is quite passionate toward the poor and the weak. The universal healthcare was introduced there as a populist program in 2002. Naturally, it was the poor who benefited from it the most. The program was initially criticized by the rich and the middle classes. But after having seen how it had saved many poor lives, nobody dared to say in public that the health scheme needed to be repealed. I think their Buddhist culture plays a great role in shaping the public consensus regarding the UHC. For the Thais, medicine is a profession based more on sacrifice and compassion; it’s not a business. Instead, every successive government, whether conservative or liberal, came and improved upon it - making it more efficient and better. Public research funds were earmarked each year to keep improving the health scheme.

For America’s Republican politicians, on the other hand, being Americans is all about “taking risk”, forming tight upper lip and working hard for oneself. So if you were born poor and sickly, then it’s too bad. If you get old and sick without enough saving, then you just fail in an American way. If you have this sort of heartless politics or a cankerous system of belief, something like a UHC will never happen. But what are the root causes of American failure in this regard?

America believes almost blindly in the market and in the market solution of its healthcare inadequacy. Too many Americans believes that private investments and businesses can do everything better than a government. Ironically, this reduces the role of politicians to mere pawns for private lobbyists. Politicians don’t run America; they run a PR service for the richest companies. Expensive healthcare is only one of the symptoms of this madness. Economists are employed to cook up evidence and reports in order to show that government can’t do a project as well as private companies could. The only goal is to keep the government from actually participating and providing important public services to the people.

America’s faith in the market is so blind that it is the only country in the world that passed a law prohibiting the government to negotiate the price with drug companies and healthcare providers. Thus, even though the government is a huge spender of healthcare, it cannot use that bargaining power to negotiate the price for American citizens. So much for America’s faith in the market. They’d say: “we will wait until someone finds a way to make it cheaper and more efficient.” So people are dying in anticipation of a right “market model”? Tragically, the only market-based incentive that the insurance companies have is to dump more and more expensive claim-dodging paperwork traps on their customers.

But there is no such thing as a market solution to health care — unlike other goods and services, patients cannot refuse to buy healthcare (or pay to see a doctor) because it’s too expensive and wait until it becomes cheap enough, or even safe enough; and healthcare consumers include children and people with no income, with no buying option. Human being cannot be reduced to mere consumers. We will go on believing that we are the richest country and the most technologically advanced country on earth. But our kids will die uninsured in the street.

If you look everywhere in America, public services and infrastructures are crumbling. Metro and subways in DC, New York and other big metropolises are almost not running anymore; and these are public transportation in some of the world’s richest cities. It’s an international scandal. New research says the American political system disfavors public transportation improvement projects because “it is seen as welfare”. It’s the same logic that led to mass privatization during the Thatcher regime in the UK: people deserve improved infrastructures only if private companies can make profits from them, otherwise, it’s socialism.

If you apply the same logic to public school, you’d instantly understand why it has become so bad. To get a decent education, American kids are forced to take huge loans and go to ultra-expensive private schools. If you want to be schooled, you have to be in debt. The wealth of this richest of countries never reached the public hands.

“Everybody is laughing at us”, Trump would say. And it’s true. Who wouldn’t like to laugh at this circus called America.

Matt Jones's mind is full of biased opinions and low in facts other than distorted notions posing as facts. And he doesn't seem to understand the role of government in supporting a free market rather than distorting it into a big government/business complex, which is what he actually criticizes as if that complex is a free market.

As I said--"as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.

They are both highly market based plans which include a few government mandates which benefit the poor. The Swiss plan could work here without the buying mandate and some other minor changes--we are vastly different than Switzerland and Singapore (demographically, politically, culturally, immigration-wise, size of population and land to govern, constitutionally, etc.). Here are two articles of interest:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#637d799e7d74

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth.../#a2878252e878

I posted above the Oklahoma surgery clinic (there are others including general care clinics) as an example of free market health care where prices are far lower than standard hospital prices for the same procedures. I also mentioned that other surgeries that are not supported by insurance or government subsidy such as Lasik and cosmetic surgery whose prices are way lower than insurance/government mandated procedures are and in which prices have even gone down due to market competition.