Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.
And you are showing your little kid insolence.... all that shows is you obviously don't know SQUAT about insurance either!You stupidity is SHOWING!!! It is "accept it"... not "EXCEPT it"."Amazing!
Not ONE Obamacare pro/con evidently contradicted or agreed with the below FACTS.
Is the simple gross 1,000% exaggerated number too hard to swallow?
Folks especially those against Obamacare, do you realize if MORE Americans totally comprehended the enormity of this exaggeration i.e. Obama said before ACA passed: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men,women and children.”
This totally fabricated, grossly overstated number 46 million is what EVERYONE including critics use BUT IT IS SO WRONG!!!!
1) 10 million were NOT legal citizens.... - The Census admits 10 million of the "46 million uninsured" ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Proof:10 million are not citizens Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009 - Income Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Please I ask you go check this out ... The 46 million used by the Census includes 10 million people NOT eligible for insurance i.e. not citizens!
2) 14 million per the CENSUS were eligible for Medicaid but didn't know it! Again the Census tells us they UNDERCOUNTED those that should have been enrolled in Medicaid. But where was Obama's administration on getting them enrolled?
Proof:14 million due to Medicaid ineptness eligible before ACA: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf
3) 18 million Americans that are under 34 didn't need health insurance but could afford (they make over $50,000) but don't want employers health plan were counted as "uninsured"! They don't want it and more importantly need it!
Proof:18 million never wanted or need health insurance: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED 2009
Add these numbers up and it is 42 million people of the supposedly 46 million that are either illegal, don't know, or don't want!
Do you think ACA would have passed if the "YES" voters knew there with just 4 million people really needing health insurance?
Where were the Congressional investigations on the 14 million that were eligible BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but Obama didn't get them registered?
Where were the news stories explaining these 3 simple facts .. 10 million not citizens..14 million Medicaid eligible..18 million don't want!
WHY don't more people recognize this PHONY number exaggerated the uninsured by over a 1,000%!
10 million are not legal citizens!
14 million simply don't know they are covered by Medicaid!
18 million don't want, don't need, can afford employers' health plans!
42 million supposedly "uninsured" that are legal, are already eligible for Medicaid and DON"T want insurance !!!
Obamacares is law. Except it
Millions of People Have Health Insurance Thanks to Obamacare
"Millions of people"
FACTS you stupid idiot-poor-grammar-user!
of those "millions of people" 14 million are people that were already eligible for Medicaid! It didn't take another monstrosity of a 2,000 page bill to get them enrolled! JUST do the job CMS that manages Medicaid didn't do! Enroll the 14 million that thought they didn't have insurance when asked by the Census BUT were qualified under poverty levels for MEDICAID!
Of course that means that other people are paying more. “My old plan was canceled under Obamacare,” an exasperated Californian told me last week. “The new Obamacare plan costs twice as much, and the deductibles are higher. And yet Obama is counting me as one of his 8 million people!” But hey—at least he has maternity coverage.
New McKinsey Survey 74 Of Obamacare Sign-Ups Were Previously Insured - Forbes
Oh goodie, the grammar police is out, lol
You meant Corps cancelled plans or the 'coverage' people had was NOT really Good, Quality health insurance
Thanks for playing dummy
Dummies like you have NO idea how health insurance works.
Idiots like you don't seem to realize that 80¢ of ever $1 of premium is paid out in CLAIMS you dummy!
So health insurance companies are most likely paying the duplicate tests etc., that 90% of doctors surveyed say they do simply out of fear of lawsuits of which 94% are settled out of court,...i.e. insurance companies pay... premiums go up!
Dummies like you are so ignorant of the REALITIES of health that $850 BILLION that's BILLION is spent each year because of fear of lawsuits!
But dumb f...ks like you don't know that and so you don't know what the f...k you are talking about!
Just in case you might have a scintilla of curiosity here are the links to the ABOVE facts... NOT guesses which is what idiots like you do but FACTS!
1)What percent of premiums do insurance companies pay out in health claims?
According to an April 2010 report prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the nation's largest health insurers in 2009 had medical loss ratios ranging
from 68 percent to 88 percent in the individual market;
78 percent to 84 percent in the small-group market; and
83 percent to 88 percent in the large-group market.
Health Policy Briefs
NOW dumb f..ks like you don't seem to understand what means but with the majority of companies ALSO having to register with states that require RESERVES for future claims... HOW the f...k are insurance companies suppose to make a profit when 80% of their revenue goes back out in claims? This leaves 20%. Of this 20% 10 to 15% goes to operations, rent, taxes, salaries, computers etc... leaving less then 4 to 5%
net profit BEFORE federal taxes!
So Idiots like you with such a shrift of knowledge complain about high premiums? Then dummies figure out like I did and 90% of the follow doctors did that $850 billion a year is paid out BY insurance companies out of FEAR of LAWSUITS!
90% of physicians say they order $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate tests, referrals all out of FEAR of being SUED!
Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year
Health News Observer rsaquo Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles
Does your pea brain understand this???
Insurance companies pay this wasted money because it is cheaper then going to court which less then 6% of health care lawsuits end up!
What can stop this because you and I are paying the premiums directly or indirectly!
Of course the above discussion went over your head, most of the Obamacare lovers' heads and even some conservatives who don't understand
the implication of the puny tort reform that was symbolically placed in ACA!
$850 billion a year! Wasted per the doctors and paid out in claims by insurance companies that collect more premiums to cover!
What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?
Did we rescind the Civil Rights Act in 1976?
National Review. LOL!
You have data to refute this:
Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
No, we ran a southerner who didn't sign the 1964 civil rights act. What's your next stupid question? Why did blacks vote for a black president?What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?
Did we rescind the Civil Rights Act in 1976?
A Southerner ran in 1980 too.
Because the voters there opposed the human rights violation at the heart of the Democratic platform.Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?National Review. LOL!
You have data to refute this:
Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
You understand that what happened in 1964 predated "the Southern Strategy" don't you?
Yet the north (east and west, that is) is more Democrat while the south is more Republican. In Congress and the White House, Democrats elected 43 blacks. Republicans? One. But sure, the confederate south, which fought to secede to retain slavery, is not as racist.You have got to be a "special" kind of stupid if you think the [confederate] south isn't more racist than the north.
The North has less diversity and only racists want to live in areas with low diversity. The North has the most segregated schools in the nation. Only racists don't want their kids to go to school with black children.
FROM LESS THAN 50% TO 70% IN THE 1960'S? LOL
Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment RealClearPolitics
Because the voters there opposed the human rights violation at the heart of the Democratic platform.Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?National Review. LOL!
You have data to refute this:
Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
You understand that what happened in 1964 predated "the Southern Strategy" don't you?
The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.[9][10]) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.............. That's a quote from the following link.
Southern strategy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Um, yeah? You repeating "A Big Lie" doesn't make it so. You need to account for this:
You also need to account for Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia voting differently than Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Were there no longer black people living those states or were they no longer part of the South?
Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
What kind of sure fire strategy has only a 50% success rate?
FROM LESS THAN 50% TO 70% IN THE 1960'S? LOL
Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment RealClearPolitics
You think that this graph actually supports your argument? Starting in 1940 the Republicans gained share with every election, 25 years before liberals concocted their BIG LIE. Look at the slope of the line in 1948, identical to the slope of 1968.
That's the problem with your Big Lie - the data doesn't support it. All you have is narrative.
Yet the north (east and west, that is) is more Democrat while the south is more Republican.
In Congress and the White House, Democrats elected 43 blacks. Republicans? One.
FROM LESS THAN 50% TO 70% IN THE 1960'S? LOL
Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment RealClearPolitics
You think that this graph actually supports your argument? Starting in 1940 the Republicans gained share with every election, 25 years before liberals concocted their BIG LIE. Look at the slope of the line in 1948, identical to the slope of 1968.
That's the problem with your Big Lie - the data doesn't support it. All you have is narrative.
Yes, going from 20% to less than 30% is the same as going from almost 50% to 70% , lol'
Oh those conservatives from the South, today's GOP base. Weird you don't know the GOP/Dems switched sides a few times the past 150+ years?
I find it odd that so many liberals attack the racists of the South, whites who live in communities where blacks constitute 30% or more of the population, while they live in whiteopias like, say Monterey, CA, where blacks constitute only 2.8% of the population.
You'd think that the racists would move to Monterey and the diversity loving liberals would move to the South where they could drink deep of the fabulous diversity that they so value with their uttered words, but remarkably not with the way they actually choose to live their lives.
Yep, Cali isn't diverse *shaking head*
But thanks for agreeing the Southern states are generally regarded as the least tolerant!
I'm saying that you're intolerant for choosing to live in a city where blacks constitute only 2.8% of the population. Shame on you. Big Talk, No Action.
found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.
Is that supposed to surprise anyone? It's well known around the world that liberal totalitarians are eager to trample on people's human rights. It's totally expected that the liberalism of a politician would correlate with an assault on human rights.
Yet the north (east and west, that is) is more Democrat while the south is more Republican.
Do you have any inkling of how silly that complaint is? It's fine for you, a Democrat, to believe that this is wrong, just like I, a Republican, think it's wrong for the North to be so Democrat, but our personal preferences are not indicative of objective right and wrong.
In Congress and the White House, Democrats elected 43 blacks. Republicans? One.
Correction. Black voters elect 43 black Democrats, not white voters. White Republicans elect black Republicans.
Give me 11 black Democrats in office, only 25% of the total of 43 black Democrats, who were elected in MAJORITY WHITE districts. That should be a piece of cake, right?
Percent black in District
15.4% Keith Ellison
20.9% Barbara Lee
29.2% Maxine Waters
25.3% Karen Bass
31.8% Charles B. Rangel
32.6% André Carson
35.9% Gwen Moore
36.8% Sheila Jackson Lee
35.8% Al Green
22.0% Laura Richardson
25.3% Emanuel Cleaver
41.5% Eddie Bernice Johnson
FROM LESS THAN 50% TO 70% IN THE 1960'S? LOL
Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment RealClearPolitics
You think that this graph actually supports your argument? Starting in 1940 the Republicans gained share with every election, 25 years before liberals concocted their BIG LIE. Look at the slope of the line in 1948, identical to the slope of 1968.
That's the problem with your Big Lie - the data doesn't support it. All you have is narrative.
Yes, going from 20% to less than 30% is the same as going from almost 50% to 70% , lol'
1948 had Republicans at about 25% of the Southern vote and by 1952 they captured 48% and by 1980 they were down to 45%. I thought that the Civil Rights Act flipped everything down there. The data doesn't support your Big Lie.
Percent black in District
15.4% Keith Ellison
20.9% Barbara Lee
29.2% Maxine Waters
25.3% Karen Bass
31.8% Charles B. Rangel
32.6% André Carson
35.9% Gwen Moore
36.8% Sheila Jackson Lee
35.8% Al Green
22.0% Laura Richardson
25.3% Emanuel Cleaver
41.5% Eddie Bernice Johnson
Percent white in District
73.5% Keith Ellison
34.2% Barbara Lee
15.1% Maxine Waters
24.3% Karen Bass
29.0% Charles B. Rangel
63.0% André Carson
54.8% Gwen Moore
36.9% Sheila Jackson Lee
32.9% Al Green
24.3% Laura Richardson
60.9% Emanuel Cleaver
16.8% Eddie Bernice Johnson
That's only 4 black Democratic Congressmen elected by majority white districts form a total of 199 Democratic Congressmen.
Of the 43 black Democrats, you could only come up with 4 who owe their office to the liberal whites. And that's presuming the district didn't cast any votes for the opponents. If most whites in each district voted for Republicans, it's really an open question whether there are ANY black Democrats elected by a majority of white votes. Pathetic. I though you liberals weren't racists, so why only 4 majority white districts from the 199 you currently hold have elected blacks to represent them.
In the 2012 election, there were 65,455,010 votes cast for Obama and 60,771,703 votes cast for Romney for a total of 126,226,713 votes.
Whites cast 72% of the total votes, 90,883,234 and 39% of whites, 35,444,461, voted for Obama. This means that 45.8% of Obama voters were minorities.
So I don't understand why a party where 45.8% of supporters are non-white is doing this:
In the 71 races they are contesting, 66 of the 71 candidates the Democrats are running (93%) are white, 56 of the 71 (79%) are male, and 53 of 71 (75%) are white males.
I don't think you guys are living up to your own BS rhetoric.
