a better way

Diversity is not Vermonts strength!

**Around 91-93% of Vermont's population is White, making it one of the least racially diverse U.S. states.**

### Key Figures (Recent U.S. Census Bureau Data)
- **White alone** (including Hispanic Whites): **93.2%**.
- **White alone, not Hispanic or Latino** (non-Hispanic White): **91.0%**.

Other sources align closely:
- Estimates for ~2024/2025 often show **~91.4% White** (including any Hispanic Whites) or **~90-92% non-Hispanic White**.
- Non-Hispanic White residents number around 580,000–590,000 out of a total population of roughly 645,000.
 
sturg33 said:
Diversity is not Vermonts strength!

**Around 91-93% of Vermont's population is White, making it one of the least racially diverse U.S. states.**

### Key Figures (Recent U.S. Census Bureau Data)
- **White alone** (including Hispanic Whites): **93.2%**.
- **White alone, not Hispanic or Latino** (non-Hispanic White): **91.0%**.

Other sources align closely:
- Estimates for ~2024/2025 often show **~91.4% White** (including any Hispanic Whites) or **~90-92% non-Hispanic White**. i
- Non-Hispanic White residents number around 580,000–590,000 out of a total population of roughly 645,000.
Click to expand...
Iowa, the Dakotas, West Virginia, Kansas all vewy vewy white too.

It is policy not skin tone that has allowed states like California and New York to add so may years to life while red states have fallen behind.

Life for white Americans in red states keeps getting shorter and shorter relative to blue states and European countries.

Keep those excuses coming.
 
Smoking and lung cancer rates are an interesting case study. Those thangs turn out to be highly amenable to policy.

States that raised tobacco taxes the earliest, that restricted indoor smoking first, that funded cessation campaigns most generously saw the biggest drops in smoking and lung cancer.

It is policy.

California, as is often the case, led the way. It was the first and most aggressive in launching anti-smoking campaigns.
 
More recently there is the Medicaid expansion under the ACA.

Compared to states that did not opt in, states that opted in have seen: 1) improvements in preventative care, 2) improvements in chronic disease management, 3) improvements in cancer detection, 4) improvements in financial stability, 5) more life.
 
nsacpi said:
Smoking and lung cancer rates are an interesting case study. Those thangs turn out to be highly amenable to policy.

States that raised tobacco taxes the earliest, that restricted indoor smoking first, that funded cessation campaigns most generously saw the biggest drops in smoking and lung cancer.

It is policy.

California, as is often the case, led the way. It was the first and most aggressive in launching anti-smoking campaigns.
Click to expand...
You are a proponent of policy of MAID but not a proponent of policy that allows people to snoke
 
This is not to say culture and social pathologies don't matter. They do.

But policy matters a great deal as well and is what has driven the divergence in outcomes when it comes to life expectancy and many other metrics.
 
It is not hard. Sometimes two desirable thangs come into conflict. In this case quantity of life versus quality of life.

My mother-in-law died a couple weeks ago. She was in her 90s. She suffered horribly. Her husband wanted her intubated to squeeze out a few more days of life. Fortunately, more compassionate voices prevailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top