Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: More and other criteria to weigh states with  (Read 140504 times)

DanTheTileMan

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
  • Scorpion King!
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #105 on: March 11, 2003, 03:11:33 pm »

Much litigation is about getting someone else's property or protection of what you have, namely money.  I like Tevia's comment in Fiddler on the Roof - in response to the statement: "Money is the
World's Curse," said, "May I be Smitten with it - and may I never recover!"

Dan the Man

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point.  I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary.  What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry?  What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our posterity?  What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon the tide of a temporary popularity?"
 
                                     -- Judge Joseph Story, 1852
Logged
To win without risk, is to conquer without glory - Unknown

mactruk

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
  • PEACE AND FREEDOM
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #106 on: March 11, 2003, 08:25:16 pm »

  Right on.  Can you imagine if we stopped paying taxes how many people would be out of a job - a job by the way that produces no tangible goods.  What really worries me today is the state budget problems that the news reports is only the tip of the negative cash flow iceberg.
Logged

DanTheTileMan

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
  • Scorpion King!
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #107 on: March 11, 2003, 11:18:25 pm »

Right on,...those people are not losing a job.  They just need to go out and get a job.  But, wait a minute, being gub'ment employees, they probably voted for GATT and NAFTA, and love to shop at WALMART!!!  Man, don't get me started - we'll have to start another thread!
Logged
To win without risk, is to conquer without glory - Unknown

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
State Health Ranking
« Reply #108 on: March 19, 2003, 01:29:56 pm »

From the United Health Foundation website:

State Health Ranking - 2002 Edition

#1  NH 23.9
#6  VT 15.8
#9  ND 14.0
#10 ME 13.8
#16 SD  9.7
#20 ID  7.8
#24 MT  3.7
#26 WY  2.7
#30 AK  0.2
#35 DE -3.9


Quote
Many factors contribute to New Hampshire's success. The state is first in four measures: highest availability of adequate prenatal care, highest support for public health care, fewest limited activity days and lowest infant mortality rate. It is in the top 10 on eight other measures. . . In the last year, New Hampshire reduced its uninsured population from 10.2 to 9.4 percent of the population, however, violent crime rose from 97 to 175 offenses per 100,000 population.
_________________________________
_______________________________
Here are some interesting components of what goes into the scoring of the states for this ranking:


Support for Public Health Care
Source: 1999 data, National Association of State Budget Officers and The Sourcebook for Zip Code Demographics, CACI Marketing Services
Support for Public Health Care is a measure unique to this index.  Total state and local expenditures for public welfare, health and hospitals are divided by the total general expenditures of state and local units to calculate a percentage.  This percentage is then divided by the percentage of the state's population with an annual household income below $15,000. The percentage of population with very low income is derived from updated census estimates.


Table 25 displays the 2002 ranks, based on 1999 data (National Association of State Budget Officers and CACI Marketing Services, The Sourcebook for Zip Code Demographics, Sixteenth Edition, La Jolla, CA). The source for the expenditure data is new in the 2002 Edition per the suggestion of the methods review group.
Scores vary from a ratio of 3.32 for New Hampshire and 3.08 for Colorado to less than 1.00 for Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada and Oklahoma. The national ratio is 1.66, down from 1.87 in 2001.
North Dakota increased this ratio the most over the last year moving from 1.30 to 1.40, but still remains below the national average. In Alaska, the ratio dropped from 2.08 to 1.21, the largest change among all states.


Rank State          Support Ratio  Score
1    New Hampshire  3.32           63
22   Delaware       1.55           -7
22   Maine          1.55           -7  
24   Vermont        1.52           -8
27   South Dakota   1.45          -13
28   North Dakota   1.40          -16
31   Idaho          1.33          -20
38   Alaska         1.21          -27
44   Montana        1.10          -34  
49   Wyoming        0.91          -45
United States       1.66

_____________________

Violent crime    
Violent crime measures the annual number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults per 100,000 population.
Rank State            Offenses per 100,000 pop.   Score
1    North Dakota      81                          -75
1    Maine            110                          -75
1    Vermont          114                          -75
4    South Dakota     167                          -67
5    New Hampshire    175                          -65
7    Montana          241                          -52
9    Idaho            253                          -50
11   Wyoming          267                          -47
41   Alaska           567                           12
44   Delaware         684                           35
« Last Edit: March 20, 2003, 01:35:13 pm by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:State Health Ranking
« Reply #109 on: March 19, 2003, 01:49:42 pm »

Violent crime    
Violent crime measures the annual number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults per 100,000 population.
Rank State            Offenses per 100,000 pop.   Score
1    North Dakota      81                          -75
1    Maine            110                          -75
1    Vermont          114                          -75
4    South Dakota     167                          -67
5    New Hampshire    175                          -65
7    Montana          241                          -52
9    Idaho            253                          -50
11   Wyoming          267                          -47
41   Alaska           567                           12
44   Delaware         684                           35


You are right, Wyoming has the 11th lowest crime rate in the country.  However, that rate only compares the amount of crimes to the amount of citizens living in the state.  This makes other low population states look better than Wyoming.  However, Wyoming gets many more tourist, every year, than most of the other small states.  So, crime per people in the state on a yearly basis would be differnt.  Wyoming would do better if this factor was taken into consideration.

The only state of real concern is Delaware.  Not only is it the 6th most dangerous state in the country but it has very restrictive gun laws.  In fact, it is not even a shall issue carry permit state and does not functionally allow open carry, either.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2003, 02:21:56 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

thewaka

  • FSP Member
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
Re:State Health Ranking
« Reply #110 on: March 20, 2003, 01:01:32 am »

From the United Health Foundation website:

State Health Ranking - 2002 Edition

#1  NH 23.9
#6  VT 15.8
#9  ND 14.0
#10 ME 13.8
#16 SD  9.7
#20 ID  7.8
#24 MT  3.7
#26 WY  2.7
#30 AK  0.2
#35 DE -3.9


Quote
Many factors contribute to New Hampshire's success. The state is first in four measures: highest availability of adequate prenatal care, highest support for public health care, fewest limited activity days and lowest infant mortality rate. It is in the top 10 on eight other measures. . . In the last year, New Hampshire reduced its uninsured population from 10.2 to 9.4 percent of the population, however, violent crime rose from 97 to 175 offenses per 100,000 population.

How are we to interpret these figures? In the reverse order of good to bad? I looked at the web site b/c my attention was caught by the phrase "highest availability of adequate prenatal care." I didn't think this could possibly mean there were enough OBs and midwives for all the pregnant women. Surely it meant that the state was providing "free" care. From my browsing, these people like it when the statists provide their definition of health care for us. I have personal feelings about "adequate prenatal care" that aren't appropriate to bring up on this forum, but would like to know how you think these numbers apply to the goal of choosing a state. Thanks.

Diana
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #111 on: March 20, 2003, 10:35:44 am »

Quote
. . . but would like to know how you think these numbers apply to the goal of choosing a state. Thanks.
O.K.,
Too often, I forget that piles of numerical figures are not as self- explanatory as I think they should be.

The first ranking is basically useless for our purposes, except as an interesting curiosity to know what the United Health Foundation thinks of our states.  For one, they are enamored with first-place New Hampshire, for some reasons that we all would agree are good and for a few others that are questionable; so it is the components of what went into those rankings are what are interesting.
__
That New Hampshire has the highest "Support for Public Health Care" is quite telling.  While some battles for liberty in New Hampshire will likely be easier than in other states, something about this statistic tells me that trying to even think about reducing Medicare funding is going to be tough to do.  Of course, this is not a poll, this is merely a look at how the state prioritizes its money, and like most things, it is open to interpretation.

____________
I brought- out the crime figures, which are different from those on the spreadsheets, because they are newer, I believe. The report mentioned that New Hampshire recently had a large  increase in violent crime, and this would change some of those livability ranges on the spreadsheet.

I really think that crime should be given at least some consideration beyond just as a livability factor.  It seems to be that the statist politicians always like to use the urgency of stopping crime to advance their agendas quickly with the populace.  Crime rates also seem to be indicitive of a measure of personal responsibility and morality, or lack thereof in a populace.   My opinion is that a populace scared for its safety is not going to be very rational towards libertarian reforms that seem to accept danger, and so Alaska and Delaware should rank low for this reason.

We could probably engage in a discussion over in the Religion & Liberty topic  about the goodly effect of all those Scandinavian Lutherans and their influence in North Dakota as to why it is #1 lowest crime state, but it would also have to consider how ND is kind of out-of-the way for most of the "riff-raff" as they call it.  Probably all that "Prairie Home Companion" on the radio is a factor too, for that matter.  

The first eight of our states are low-crime states, with Wyoming being at the cusp of that group, followed sharply later by Alaska and Delaware which both are way-way more crime-ridden than not only our candidate states, but most of the  states in the country!  In fact, in the most recent edition of the book, Robert Young Pelton The World's Most Dangerous Places (by the adventurer who brought us an "Inside Look at Afghanistan" and numerous other "Dangerous Places" on the Discovery Channel) he states that Anchorage, AK is one of the scariest places in the world, due to its exceptionally high murder rate, and murders committed by strangers, but of course, the author has a particular bent against all of the U.S. and its 'outlaw environment'.

There were a lot more health-related statistics from the United Health Foundation website.  Another insight that I gleaned in all that data was that Wyoming has made vast improvements in reducing the number of smokers over the last 10 years, but this was done primarily through voluntary action, as Wyoming has the most lenient (libertarian) smoking laws in the country yet is now #13 in least number of smokers.  At one time, I read that Wyoming was one of the largest per-capita consumers of tobabacco.
There's lots more research to discover in that report, as to how useful it all is . . . you decide?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2003, 01:30:54 pm by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #112 on: March 20, 2003, 01:02:17 pm »

--forgive me for being unkind, but I think the typical high-school drop-outs are the kind of people who would vote and support legislation for higher minimum wage.  

I realize I'm the exception to every rule (har har), but if you looked at state statistics, I would be counted as a high school drop out and I hardly support any of that statest crap.  I think escapee is a more appropriate term though.

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #113 on: March 20, 2003, 01:29:55 pm »

I considered that, Varrin.  As far as I can tell, it is a measurement of enrollees in 9th grade public school vs. the number of graduates from public school.

I was even thinking of escapees like you, Varrin by my use of the word 'typical' instead of something more comprehensive.  

But maybe I am being too comfortable with the numbers produced by statists, it did say"High School Graduation measures the percentage of ninth graders who graduate within four years and are considered regular graduates by the state." This information would only be useful if we could compare that to the number of people who go on to enroll in private schools or homeschool after 9th grade.


I took this particular bit of info out of my post (the link is still there).
« Last Edit: March 20, 2003, 01:37:04 pm by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #114 on: March 20, 2003, 01:50:36 pm »


The first eight of our states are low-crime states, with Wyoming being at the cusp of that group, followed sharply later by Alaska and Delaware which both are way-way more crime-ridden than not only our candidate states, but most of the  states in the country!  In fact, in the most recent edition of the book, Robert Young Pelton The World's Most Dangerous Places (by the adventurer who brought us an "Inside Look at Afghanistan" and numerous other "Dangerous Places" on the Discovery Channel) he states that Anchorage, AK is one of the scariest places in the world, due to its exceptionally high murder rate, and murders committed by strangers, but of course, the author has a particular bent against all of the U.S. and its 'outlaw environment'.

Alaska is known to be an attractive place to criminals.  In fact, over the years, I've heard several people talk of how criminals 'hideout' in Alaska.  

Also, Alaska does have a very small percentage of old people and a very large percentage of young people.  According to statistics, seniors are less likely to commit crime than he general population, and young people are more likely to commit crime than seniors.  Alaska has a very large % of people on welfare, compared to must states.  Actually, everyone in Alaska is on welfare, ine the minds of some people, because people get paid to just live in AK.  

This whole, getting paid to live and pay almost no tax mentality is the Alaskan way.  It might not work well for the FSP.  Alaska has a tax system that punishes those that do well because it has high corporate income taxes and pretty high property taxes while no general sales or income taxes.  Actually, a few areas have started a sales tax.  Maybe this mentality is why Alaska has a much larger yearly deficit than any of the other FSP states.

If the FSP goes to AK, maybe the members will truely be in the most free state in the country but they will have been attracted to AK by the same reasons that attract all of the criminal to AK.

As a side note, I still think Alaska is one of the best states for the FSP.  I do not, however, plan to live in Anchorage, AK so the crime issue is not a big deal to me.  Not to mention, that if I moved to Alaska, I would carry 2 guns at all times.
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #115 on: March 20, 2003, 03:46:25 pm »

From the Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts

Mandatory Contraceptive coverage:

States that allow voluntary contractual relationships in insurance concerning contraception:
AK - No
ID - no (law Repealed)
MT - no
ND - no
SD - no
WY - no

States that restrict voluntary contractual relationships concerning contraception
DE - Comprehensive- religious employer exemption
ME - Comprehensive- religious employer exemption
NH - Comprehensive except exempts certain individual policies from coverage requirements. Requires health insurance carriers that issue or renew any policy of group or blanket insurance that provides prescription-related coverage to cover all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices
VT - comprehensive, including all services such as abortion and sterilization
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #116 on: March 21, 2003, 09:08:39 pm »

Good find, exitus. I may cook up a simple rating system using all these mandated insurance benefits (not just the contraceptive ones), and add another row to the big spreadsheet. One of the more detestable tendencies that have appeared is the forcing of other entities to provide benefit. Nothing coming out of the state coffers for that - just order people and companies around. Smells of fascism...

I also added that item, "Support for Public Health Care" that you found earlier. You're doing a great job, don't stop now!   :)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2003, 09:39:37 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #117 on: March 23, 2003, 12:45:56 am »

Thanks, Zxcv here's more data to complement that,  though it might be a little redundant or even useless for spreadsheet purposes though, except to note that previous measurement from the Kaiser foundation apparently used 2001 data and this first one goes back a bit to 1998:  (I've added smilies to show my libertarian opinion for interpretation purposes)  ---and the numbers in front are their ranks among the states.
_____________________________________________
Total (Federal and State) Medicaid Spending per Enrollee, FFY1998 :
Rank in Nation, monetary amount
#2 New Hampshire $6,505  :(   :P  :'(
#5 North Dakota 5,450
#10 Maine 5,055
#14 Montana 4,342
#16 South Dakota 4,321
#20 Alaska 4,035
#24 Delaware 3,939
#25 Wyoming 3,918
#26 Idaho 3,769
#44 Vermont 2,880  :)
Average US 3,822
_________________________________________
Federal Matching Rate (FMAP) for Medicaid, FFY2001 (this is a federal dependancy variable but based on Medicaid rules, New Hampshire might just look good here only because they spend so much locally they've maxed-out the FMAP )
5 Montana 73  :(
6 Idaho 71
14 North Dakota 68
16 Maine 66
17 South Dakota 65
21 Vermont 62
23 Wyoming 61
33 Alaska 58  
40 Delaware 50
40 New Hampshire 50  :)
______________________________________________
Total Medicaid Enrollment, FFY1998   (need to compare to 1998 population figures to assess this one)

51 Wyoming 51,367
50 North Dakota 62,115
49 South Dakota 83,111
48 Alaska 87,873
47 Montana 93,298
46 New Hampshire 98,340
45 Delaware 105,153
44 Idaho 118,519
42 Vermont 131,639  >:(  (even without doing the math, I see that Vermont's pretty high for a lower population state).
38 Maine 195,839
__________________________________________
Eliminated Asset Test Under Medicaid for Children, 2002 (This is a good measure, since it is another hurdle people have to jump to receive taxpayer-funded aid).
ID - No  :)
MT - No  :)
All others, yes  ::)
_________________________________________
State-Only Medicaid Spending, FFY1998
( again, I would have to get some 1998 census figures to assess this one and the next one)
35 New Hampshire 384,071,997
36 Maine 377,784,352
43 Delaware 211,122,219
45 Vermont 151,807,165
46 Alaska 148,695,611
47 Idaho 136,505,676
48 Montana 119,333,404
49 South Dakota 116,171,353
50 North Dakota 100,450,505
51 Wyoming 74,466,526
_____________________________________________
Total (Federal and State) Medicaid Spending, FFY1998
39 New Hampshire 768,143,994
44 Idaho 448,884,170
45 Delaware 422,244,438
46 Montana 405,344,444
47 Vermont 401,393,879
48 Alaska 369,889,579
49 South Dakota 360,221,250
50 North Dakota 339,704,109
51 Wyoming 201,369,730


________________________________________
Births Financed by Medicaid as a Percent of Total Births, FFY1999 :
Listed by Rank in Nation

#3 Vermont 53.0     :(
#7 Alaska 47.5
 
#23 Wyoming 38.0
#24 North Dakota 37.7
#25 Montana 36.0
#29 Delaware 33.0
#32 South Dakota 31.0
#33 Maine 30.9
#34 Idaho 30.2  :)

#43 New Hampshire 21.0  :D woohoo!! Go New Hampshire!!


All of the above data was taken from some data I found at the Kaiser Family Foundation website (link is in my previous post )
« Last Edit: March 23, 2003, 12:50:30 am by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

vepope

  • Guest
Re:Motor Vehicle Safety or Emissions Inspection
« Reply #118 on: March 23, 2003, 02:06:27 pm »

EMISSIONS TESTING
Depending on your libertarian view of polluting vehicles vs. personal responsibility vs. the commons these may be good or bad. I'm guessing that mandatory testing may not be part of a "Free State".

Once industrial hemp is decriminalized, the question of auto pollution in the free state might become moot.  ;)

Ideally, emissions testing would be a moot point anyway.  I have a contact for an auto modification kit that is relatively inexpensive (depending on the car - around $200) which will increase fuel efficiency by about 3x, and reduce emissions to PURE OXYGEN.  It isn't legal to use this kit in many states, for the assinine reason that those states have MINIMUM EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS to pass the test.  The reasoning is that if there isn't a certain amount of emissions, the test must be flawed (incorrectly used test equipment, holes in the tailpipe, etc.).  A pure oxygen emission would flunk the test - only because the law says it has to!

So, let's ditch the law, and work for what is BEST FOR ALL!
Logged

DanTheTileMan

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
  • Scorpion King!
Re:Motor Vehicle Safety or Emissions Inspection
« Reply #119 on: March 23, 2003, 07:40:24 pm »

[quote  if there isn't a certain amount of emissions, the test must be flawed (incorrectly used test equipment, holes in the tailpipe, etc.).  A pure oxygen emission would flunk the test - only because the law says it has to!
quote]

I'm all for ditching the law.  I know that in Maryland, there was mounting evidence that the test was programmed to fail a certain number of vehicles, no matter what the actual emissions were.  Some people were failing and immediately getting back in line and passing.  I have to go back for my second try, and if I fail again I will have to show mechanics receipts for $450 to get a waiver.  I can't afford a mechanic, so I did my own repairs for about $250, but that doesn't count.  I used to use 2 bottles of dry gas in a quarter tank of gas, but as you said, they will now fail your for no emissions.  I also knocked out the catalytic converter when it plugged up, so that will show up, too.  I would like to know more about the $200 system you mentioned.  I bet there is something we could add to the fuel during the test to show emissions temporarily if we put our minds to it!
Logged
To win without risk, is to conquer without glory - Unknown
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 ... 15   Go Up