Philip Klein calls our attention to an overlooked statistic:
Massachusetts, whose health care reform program was used as a template for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, had the highest per capita health spending in the U.S. in 2009. . . . [T]he state spent $9,278 per person on health care in 2009, which was 36 percent higher than the national average of $6,815, and 11.2 percent more than the next-highest state, New York, which spent $8,341.
Was the relatively high cost of health care in Massachusetts a cause or an effect of the push for socialized medicine? The political impetus for ObamaCare came from highly urbanized, Democrat-dominated states where the cost of health care was already high.
If the result of this national policy is to spread the misery (i.e., causing a rise in health-care costs in more rural Republican-dominated states) why should liberals care? This simply deprives the GOP states of an economic advantage they previously enjoyed.
You could do some other correlations:
State …………….. Vote 2012 …. TFR 2010
Rhode Island ……… Obama 62.7% …………. 1.63
Vermont ……………. Obama 62.8% …………. 1.66
Massachusetts ……. Obama 60.7% …………. 1.67
New Hampshire ….. Obama 52.0% …………. 1.67
Maine ……………….. Obama 56.3% …………. 1.70
Utah ………………….. Romney 72.8% ………. 2.45
Alaska ……………….. Romney 54.8% ………. 2.35
South Dakota ……… Romney 58.3% ……….. 2.27
Idaho ………………… Romney 64.5% ………. 2.24
Texas ………………… Romney 57.2% ………. 2.16
TRF is total fertility rate — the average number of lifetime births per woman, based on annual birth rates — and you see that the top five states as measured by TFR all went for Romney, while the five lowest-fertility states all went for Obama. The average rate of the high fertility states (2.29) is 38% higher than the low-fertility states (1.67 average), which tells you that the political differences reflect profound differences in culture and lifestyle. Nationalizing policies favored by the low-fertility states can therefore be seen as an attempt to abolish these differences, to force the high-fertility states to abandon their culture and lifestyle.
No problem. Obama just signs an executive order mandating abortion for all Republicans.
For, you know, the children.
The fertility factor on healthcare! If we can’t beat their ideas, we will stop them from breeding.
You are all a bunch of anti Semites too!
[…] TOM: The Fertility Factor on Obamacare […]
The fertility rates in blue states are self regulating. Take one look at liberal women and you’ll know why.
To be fair, liberal men do their share of the, uh… whatever.
Liberal men don’t really contribute that much to fertility rates. Just ask Phil Robertson about it.
[…] Facts the ‘Experts’ Never Mention : The Other McCain. […]
But, what if it really is the juice?
What I meant was their share of self regulating. But I had a hard time making it sound positive and dynamic.
A TFR of less than two means declining population unless immigration is increased…
This is a foolish debate because if liberals outnumber conservatives in large amounts (and they do in America), you can’t actually outbreed teh librulz. 100k conservative women having a TFR of 5 is only 500k kids over their entire lifetimes. This is trumped by 1 million liberal women having a single IVF darling over their lifetimes. You can’t breed your way to political victory, math says no. Sorry!