Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is such an outdated argument. It isn't like poor people make up the most sizeable demographic of the Democratic voting block these days. How do you explain Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas, and rural Georgia ALWAYS voting Red despite having a remarkably low income as compared to the rest of the nation? In fact, a stronger argument could be made to support the opposite is true.
Our voting base is made up primarily of members of academica, minorities, working class people (not poor people), LGBT people, women, members of organized labor, young people, and *gasp* those with an education which include a majority of professional scientists and medical students.
1. Federal policy designed to create more poverty
2. Cultural and ethnic demographics of a region
3. availability of natural resources in a region
4. quality of education and emphasis on education in the region
Hard to face, isn't it? Your democrat party is built to impoverish the nation and create more poor people- that is what they do. Witness policy designed to keep inner city blacks "on the plantation" and the eagerness to legalize 30 million poor, illegal immigrants.
Wake up
What do you think NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status (the bastard children of Bill Clinton) were designed to do?
By income <$50,000
41% of the group fits into this category
60% Obama voters
38% Romney voters $50,000-90,000
31% of the group fits into this category
46% Obama voters
52% Romney voters $100,000 & over
28% of the group fits into this category
44% Obama voters
54% Romney voters
By education Some HS
3% of the group fits into this category
64% Obama voters
35% Romney voters HS graduate
21% of the group fits into this category
51% Obama voters
48% Romney voters Some college
29% of the group fits into this category
49% Obama voters
48% Romney voters College graduate
29% of the group fits into this category
47% Obama voters
51% Romney voters Postgraduate study
18% of the group fits into this category
55% Obama voters
42% Romney voters
So Democrats only 'win' in the postgraduate demographic and not with a big of majority as in the lower educated groups. But yes, the large majority of your party is lower educated, poorer people. That's simply the facts.
Now prove that Democrats are intentionally attempting to keep people less educated and poor.
Now prove that Democrats are intentionally attempting to keep people less educated and poor.
I didn't make that claim. Do I feel their policies contribute to the problem? Sure but that's my personal opinion. I simply disproved the claim that the Democrat voting base isn't largely populated by less educated and poorer people.
Health insurance costs set to go through the roof, right after the election.
Health insurance rates have ALREADY been announced for next year - and the increases are REALLY modest (lower than the 10 year average). November is typically sign-up month and rates are always announced BEFORE THAT.
Ken
Last edited by Oldhag1; 10-29-2014 at 11:06 AM..
Reason: Discuss the topic only, not other posters
You seem to be pretty ignorant on this subject.
Health insurance rates have ALREADY been announced for next year - and the increases are REALLY modest (lower than the 10 year average). If you had any clue about any of this you would know that November is typically sign-up month and rates are always announced BEFORE THAT.
Ken
Eh - small bit of misleading wording there. Some insurance companies have released their rates but hardly all of them.
Eh - small bit of misleading wording there. Some insurance companies have released their rates but hardly all of them.
The majority have. My wife works in health insurance and the majority of her competitor comanies have already rolled out their 2015 enrollment numbers.
The data set for 2015 is far from complete. Maybe its just a coincidence that we won't have the full picture until after the midterms. This is directly from Healthcare.gov:
"Plans and estimated prices for 2015 coverage will be available to preview in early November. You can update your application or change plans between November 15, 2014 and February 15, 2015."
I'm guessing early November means on or after the 5th.
We do know what happened last year. The net effect:
In 2014, premiums in the non-group market grew by 24.4% compared to what they would have been without Obamacare.
With regard to employer health coverage, how/why would that be affected by the ACA? None of the core mandates affecting employer plans are in place... yet.
I would be happy to continue this conversation about non-group premiums after November 15th and to discuss the employer sponsored market in the second quarter of 2015. Keep the faith.
That's a [MOD CUT/profanity] article that's DEAD WRONG on a number of facts - most importantly the "Estimate" that out of 13.5 million people, only 7 million qualify for subsidies (leaving 6.2 million that the author claims didn't qualify - and thus paid MORE for their insurance). That's the AUTHORS "estimate" - but it's just made up crap. There is NO NEED to "estimate". We KNOW how many people qualified for subsides. Heck Rightwing sites are trying USE that data to attack Obamacare. The numbers tell us that 94% of silver-plan buyers received tax credits, and 87% overall got subsidies - so the "estimate" by the articles author that just over half of those folks got subsidies - and that nearly HALF ended up paying MORE is provably FALSE.
Here's a R/W article stating those percentages and trying use them against Obamacare:
Did overall policy costs go up last year? Of course they did - in part because they go up EVERY YEAR, but also in part because we are now covering people who COULDN'T GET COVERAGE BEFORE. That's the WHOLE point of Obamacare - to provide coverage for MORE of those people. If your only concern is to make rates as low as possible, then just boot off ANYONE who's in the higher risk of needing health care - but of course if you do that you eliminate the REASON for having health care coverage to begin with.
Health care coverage doesn't exist to "do nothing for people who don't end up needing it", it exists to "provide coverage for those people WHO DO NEED IT" - otherwise, why even both HAVING SUCH A THING AS HEALTH INSURANCE (or car insurance or any other kind of insurance)?
Any time you bring more sick people into the system, health insurance costs are going to rise and therefor so will premiums. That's part of the reason that subsidies were put into place - to help offset that for the vast majority of the people. DUH!!!!!!!
Now that those folks are IN the system (and those costs have already been factored in) premium price increases this year are ALREADY showing that they are going to be modest - and any claims to the contrary are not backed up by the facts. We're already seeing enough premium rates published to see the trend for this coming year - rate increases are going to be really small (lower than the 10-year average).
1. Federal policy designed to create more poverty
2. Cultural and ethnic demographics of a region
3. availability of natural resources in a region
4. quality of education and emphasis on education in the region
Hard to face, isn't it? Your democrat party is built to impoverish the nation and create more poor people- that is what they do. Witness policy designed to keep inner city blacks "on the plantation" and the eagerness to legalize 30 million poor, illegal immigrants.
Wake up
What do you think NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status (the bastard children of Bill Clinton) were designed to do?
What is "hard to face?" I'd imagine it's more difficult to face as a Republican. The states that are most consistently red are usually the poorest, usually the most uneducated, and usually the most impoverished. Further...how are federal policies designed to "create" poverty. You throw out NAFTA and China and then attach some conspiracy theory grade accusations behind it with no evidence. The states with the higest educational attainment have very diverse populations (NJ, MD, FL) and tend to be either deep blue, or blue leaning. Natural resource abundance isn't a direct correlator to poverty either. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Appalachia is rich in natural resources but is one of the most impoverished regions in the country. Likewise, Maryland has fewer natural resources yet it's the wealthiest state in the country per capita. And back to quality of education....the "quality" seems to be lower in states that are consistetly red, consistently ran by the GOP, whereas states that tend to be more liberal have higher educational attainment numbers, higher graduation numbers across the demographic table, and better test scores.
Hard to face, isn't it? Your Republican Party is built to loft blame at people that have enacted policies designed to help people break out of poverty under the accusation of dependence. And they have done a lot to help. From 1970-2011 the percentage of African Americans making 100-200k has grown from 2% to 9%. The percentage of people making between 35k-100k has flucturated between 35%-47%. The number was at its highest percentage and experienced it's highest growth during the Clinton Admin. going from 37.1% in 1990 to 47% in 2000. This exemplifies that active policies help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.