Obamacare just ruined my life

[Vandalshandle]

In the USA, Group health insures require employers to pay at least 50% of the single health insurance premium, which has cost Ford Motor Company more than they pay for steel, per car, since 1979. This, of course, is added to the cost of the car. This puts them at a trememndous disadvantage to competitors in places like Japan, where employers do not pay for any of the employees' health care:

Health care system in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturally, Ford looks for opportunities to outsource all manufacturing jobs to countries where they do not have health care expenses. I live 35 miles from the Mexican border, and a train load of new Fords comes up the Santra Cruz River Valley every other night, from where they were assembled in Mexico.

And this is just fine with Republicans, who believe that our present sytem should NOT be changed.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And yet you pander to the ACA saying it's a good law.

As it turns Americans into Part Time Employees because it is written by a bunch of dolts who have forgotten what it means to write a law that is ACROSS THE BOARD. Equal to all citizens.

They had to pander to the Welfare State, so everyone else has to pay for this Free shit. Then you applaud the low rates to the Poverty Levels.

Why don't you simply call it another Welfare Program...........

I think the ACA is a decent law, given we can't abolish big insurance all in one fell swoop and replace it with universal medicare, which is what we SHOULD do.

But please take note of who is making their employees part time. It's the McDonalds, the Trader Joe's, the companies that were already paying too little and abusing too much.

So shitty people will do shitty things no matter what the law is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Wow. This thread is a Rorschach test which illuminates how much the leftoids Hate People.

Well said.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow. This thread is a Rorschach test which illuminates how much the leftoids Hate People.

Well said.

Not really. It was kind of awkward, actually.

Are you regretting the thread title yet? At the tender age of 23.....is your life ruined?

Why not begin your ascendance toward being an honest person right now....and retract that dopey thread title?

 

[MeBelle]

Some of you need to read this book.

Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It's Necessary, How It Works: Jonathan Gruber, Nathan Schreiber: 9780809053971: Amazon.com: Books

Or....at least read some of what this guy has to say.

MIT Economics : Jonathan Gruber

The misinformation that you have accepted as fact is extensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)
During 2009-2010 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the Administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


Jonathan Gruber wrote:
The Cost and Coverage Impact of the President?s Health Insurance Budget Proposals ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Whoops!

Jonathan Gruber wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04gruber.html?_r=0

Darn....

Excellent post.

The second link you provided was written in 2006. Psssst........different POTUS.

The third one was written in 2008.....and is not critical of Obamacare.

I love it when people do not read their own links. It brings me such joy.

Oops!

You missed the gist of the links in my post.

Your assumption I didn't read the links before I posted is ridiculous.

Oops!

 

[LoneLaugher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)
During 2009-2010 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the Administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


Jonathan Gruber wrote:
The Cost and Coverage Impact of the President?s Health Insurance Budget Proposals ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Whoops!

Jonathan Gruber wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04gruber.html?_r=0

Darn....

Excellent post.

The second link you provided was written in 2006. Psssst........different POTUS.

The third one was written in 2008.....and is not critical of Obamacare.

I love it when people do not read their own links. It brings me such joy.

Oops!

You missed the gist of the links in my post.

Your assumption I didn't read the links before I posted is ridiculous.

Oops!

I missed the gist of "whoops" and "darn"?

Damn....you really ARE complex.

What was the gist? Neither one had anything in them to counter the gist of my links. Show me the light.

 

[MeBelle]

The only problem you and others on the right have with the ACA is it was signed into law by a democratic president you despise solely because he’s a democrat.

Conservatives whine about the ACA but offer nothing to replace it.

If it’s such a ‘terrible’ law then you should have no problem developing an alternate plan to ensure all Americans are insured.

And doing nothing, as most on the right advocate, is no ‘solution.’

Tell that to Harry who lets bills gather dust on his desk rather than bring them to the Senate floor for a vote.
Why is Reid afraid to bring House bills to a vote?

Anyhow, looks like you're wrong.

Can GOP 'Replace' Obamacare? The RSC Has a Plan | 218

 

[MeBelle]

Excellent post.

The second link you provided was written in 2006. Psssst........different POTUS.

The third one was written in 2008.....and is not critical of Obamacare.

I love it when people do not read their own links. It brings me such joy.

Oops!

You missed the gist of the links in my post.

Your assumption I didn't read the links before I posted is ridiculous.

Oops!

I missed the gist of "whoops" and "darn"?

Damn....you really ARE complex.

What was the gist? Neither one had anything in them to counter the gist of my links. Show me the light.

Ummm "whoops" and "darn" are my comments, not links.

Your economist is biased. Republican/bad (2006 link)...Democrat/good per your own comment!

The third one was written in 2008.....and is not critical of Obamacare.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You missed the gist of the links in my post.

Your assumption I didn't read the links before I posted is ridiculous.

Oops!

I missed the gist of "whoops" and "darn"?

Damn....you really ARE complex.

What was the gist? Neither one had anything in them to counter the gist of my links. Show me the light.

Ummm "whoops" and "darn" are my comments, not links.

Your economist is biased. Republican/bad (2006 link)...Democrat/good per your own comment!

The third one was written in 2008.....and is not critical of Obamacare.

Failure to communicate. Boring as hell.

 

[dblack]

[

And yet you pander to the ACA saying it's a good law.

As it turns Americans into Part Time Employees because it is written by a bunch of dolts who have forgotten what it means to write a law that is ACROSS THE BOARD. Equal to all citizens.

They had to pander to the Welfare State, so everyone else has to pay for this Free shit. Then you applaud the low rates to the Poverty Levels.

Why don't you simply call it another Welfare Program...........

I think the ACA is a decent law, given we can't abolish big insurance all in one fell swoop and replace it with universal medicare, which is what we SHOULD do.

But that's expressly NOT what ACA does. It takes the optional, and increasingly dysfunctional, habit of financing the bulk of our health care expenses through insurance and makes it a requirement. It cements big insurance in place via legal mandate. Even the wet dream of 'single payer' doesn't do away with insurance - it simply makes it that much bigger and that much more monolithic as a government run institution.

ACA is the final battle between freedom and corporatism regarding health care.

 

[dblack]

Why doesn't the OP have any venom for his employer?

Because employers are always right.

Because employers didn't pass the stupid laws. They just follow them in the way that is the most profitable. If a rule encourages this kind of thing, something is wrong with the rule.

The GOP offered plans. These plans were totally ignored by the Dems.

The GOP warned the Dems that the way they wrote the bill would cause massive issues in the very areas that are going to shit right now.

All ignored.

They proposed legislation that would have given Tax Credits to ALL AMERICANS irregardless of Status.

They proposed no rule for time worked to get these credits. aka You could work 5 hours and still get the credits for insurance and businesses were not given loop holes, so the 30 hour work week wouldn't be an issue.

They proposed Subsidies to target HIGH COST MEDICINE which drive the costs for all up. Kind of like a Wind Pool in Hurricane areas to lower these costs.

They proposed exchanges that could cross state lines. Just like the Unions do already so they can pool large groups of people to get lower rates. But alas that isn't worthy of the non Union workers.

They proposed tort reform, which would stop the ambulance Chasers from driving up Malpractice Insurance.

Riddle me this...............................

Would the Unions be crying now had some of this been passed instead...........................

As ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AN INSURANCE TAX CREDIT, irregardless of the hours they work................................Yeah, that's right. They would have gotten a pre-tax voucher that would have made their insurance cheaper than it already is now.

Finally, THE LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUAL TO ALL. Kinda like justice for all. No one, except those in poverty would have gotten any special consideration and all would have gotten a way to reduce their costs.

But alas, THE STATIST HAD TO HAVE THEIR WAY, and the law is a POS.

None of these ‘proposals’ would have ensured that every American have access to health insurance and healthcare.

Right. Because that's a foolish goal.

Just lowering the cost of health insurance does nothing to help those who can’t afford insurance, regardless how ‘inexpensive.’

What does this even mean?

And there’s no evidence that tax credits, exchanges, and tort ‘reform’ would even help to lower costs, particularly tort ‘reform.’

Agreed.

The partisan irony of this is that the ACA is a republican plan, rejected by the right for purely political reasons.

So why in the world did Democrats pass it?

So, indeed, there were no proposals from republicans to address the need for comprehensive health insurance coverage.

Yep. Republicans stunk the place up. No doubt about it. But that doesn't address the fact that ACA is a sellout and an embarrassing bait and switch. Democrats should be ashamed.

 

[daws101]

Why doesn't the OP have any venom for his employer?

Because employers are always right.

Because employers didn't pass the stupid laws. They just follow them in the way that is the most profitable. If a rule encourages this kind of thing, something is wrong with the rule.





Right. Because that's a foolish goal.



What does this even mean?



Agreed.

The partisan irony of this is that the ACA is a republican plan, rejected by the right for purely political reasons.

So why in the world did Democrats pass it?

So, indeed, there were no proposals from republicans to address the need for comprehensive health insurance coverage.

Yep. Republicans stunk the place up. No doubt about it. But that doesn't address the fact that ACA is a sellout and an embarrassing bait and switch. Democrats should be ashamed.

the american camping association is embarrassing?

 

[Snookie]

The only problem you and others on the right have with the ACA is it was signed into law by a democratic president you despise solely because he’s a democrat.

Conservatives whine about the ACA but offer nothing to replace it.

If it’s such a ‘terrible’ law then you should have no problem developing an alternate plan to ensure all Americans are insured.

And doing nothing, as most on the right advocate, is no ‘solution.’

Tell that to Harry who lets bills gather dust on his desk rather than bring them to the Senate floor for a vote.
Why is Reid afraid to bring House bills to a vote?

Anyhow, looks like you're wrong.

Can GOP 'Replace' Obamacare? The RSC Has a Plan | 218

Wishful thinking. The republicans are to ideologically splintered to agree on anything. They are worse than the Muslim religious factions.

 

[MeBelle]

The only problem you and others on the right have with the ACA is it was signed into law by a democratic president you despise solely because he’s a democrat.

Conservatives whine about the ACA but offer nothing to replace it.

If it’s such a ‘terrible’ law then you should have no problem developing an alternate plan to ensure all Americans are insured.

And doing nothing, as most on the right advocate, is no ‘solution.’

Tell that to Harry who lets bills gather dust on his desk rather than bring them to the Senate floor for a vote.
Why is Reid afraid to bring House bills to a vote?

Anyhow, looks like you're wrong.

Can GOP 'Replace' Obamacare? The RSC Has a Plan | 218

Wishful thinking. The republicans are to ideologically splintered to agree on anything. They are worse than the Muslim religious factions.

The challenge was to refute CCJ's claim, which I did.

Will it be allowed to come to fruition, who knows?

 

[MeBelle]

I missed the gist of "whoops" and "darn"?

Damn....you really ARE complex.

What was the gist? Neither one had anything in them to counter the gist of my links. Show me the light.

Ummm "whoops" and "darn" are my comments, not links.

Your economist is biased. Republican/bad (2006 link)...Democrat/good per your own comment!

The third one was written in 2008.....and is not critical of Obamacare.

Failure to communicate. Boring as hell.

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dblack. . . .

C Clayton Jones had written

And there’s no evidence that tax credits, exchanges, and tort ‘reform’ would even help to lower costs, particularly tort ‘reform'

To which you replied

Agreed.

Disclaime: These two comments were excerpted from much longer posts offered by both of you.

Having worked with medical insurance claims, I would respectfully disagree.

There does need to be a limitation on the size and type of lawsuits that can be filed by opportunistic legal sharks. Pharmaceuticals and the cost of various kinds of testing equipment have skyrocketed purely because if a new drug or procedure does any harm to the victim, these days they can almost always sue and receive damages.

We need laws protecting the pharmaceutical companies who do the R&D and provide a drug with the potential to help millions of sufferers but that contains side effects as all drugs do. Yes, there should be adquate testing and yes, the government should review and approve the drug for sale and use. And THEN, if somebody takes the drug and suffers a known side effect, they have no legal leg to stand on. Only withholding known hazards from the public or other forms of dishonesty or gross negligence should be grounds for legal compensation.

It is positively obscene that you can't turn on your television these days without seeing an ad from some law firm fishing for a class action suit. It is costing we the consumers billions in unnecessary costs while the plaintiffs in the suit collect pittances and the law firms collect mega millions.

And doctors and hospitals should be able to give medically accepted treatment to their patients and not have to order dozens of non-medically indicated tests and procedures to avoid being targeted for lawsuits. That too is costing we consumer billions in the costs of the unnecessary tests and increased insurance premiums while lining the pockets of opportunistic attorneys and helping the patients little or not at all.

There has to be a better way short of denying patients just compensation when there is gross negligence and without restricting our unalienable rights.

 

[Snookie]

Dblack. . . .

C Clayton Jones had written

And there’s no evidence that tax credits, exchanges, and tort ‘reform’ would even help to lower costs, particularly tort ‘reform'

To which you replied

Agreed.

Disclaime: These two comments were excerpted from much longer posts offered by both of you.

Having worked with medical insurance claims, I would respectfully disagree.

There does need to be a limitation on the size and type of lawsuits that can be filed by opportunistic legal sharks. Pharmaceuticals and the cost of various kinds of testing equipment have skyrocketed purely because if a new drug or procedure does any harm to the victim, these days they can almost always sue and receive damages.

We need laws protecting the pharmaceutical companies who do the R&D and provide a drug with the potential to help millions of sufferers but that contains side effects as all drugs do. Yes, there should be adquate testing and yes, the government should review and approve the drug for sale and use. And THEN, if somebody takes the drug and suffers a known side effect, they have no legal leg to stand on. Only withholding known hazards from the public or other forms of dishonesty or gross negligence should be grounds for legal compensation.

It is positively obscene that you can't turn on your television these days without seeing an ad from some law firm fishing for a class action suit. It is costing we the consumers billions in unnecessary costs while the plaintiffs in the suit collect pittances and the law firms collect mega millions.

And doctors and hospitals should be able to give medically accepted treatment to their patients and not have to order dozens of non-medically indicated tests and procedures to avoid being targeted for lawsuits. That too is costing we consumer billions in the costs of the unnecessary tests and increased insurance premiums while lining the pockets of opportunistic attorneys and helping the patients little or not at all.

There has to be a better way short of denying patients just compensation when there is gross negligence and without restricting our unalienable rights.

There is a health care monopoly here called Sentara. If you want to sue them you have to get a lawyer from a place away from here. The lawyers here are afraid of them because of their power.

Personal experience.

 

[Bfgrn]

Dblack. . . .

C Clayton Jones had written

And there’s no evidence that tax credits, exchanges, and tort ‘reform’ would even help to lower costs, particularly tort ‘reform'

To which you replied

Agreed.

Disclaime: These two comments were excerpted from much longer posts offered by both of you.

Having worked with medical insurance claims, I would respectfully disagree.

There does need to be a limitation on the size and type of lawsuits that can be filed by opportunistic legal sharks. Pharmaceuticals and the cost of various kinds of testing equipment have skyrocketed purely because if a new drug or procedure does any harm to the victim, these days they can almost always sue and receive damages.

We need laws protecting the pharmaceutical companies who do the R&D and provide a drug with the potential to help millions of sufferers but that contains side effects as all drugs do. Yes, there should be adquate testing and yes, the government should review and approve the drug for sale and use. And THEN, if somebody takes the drug and suffers a known side effect, they have no legal leg to stand on. Only withholding known hazards from the public or other forms of dishonesty or gross negligence should be grounds for legal compensation.

It is positively obscene that you can't turn on your television these days without seeing an ad from some law firm fishing for a class action suit. It is costing we the consumers billions in unnecessary costs while the plaintiffs in the suit collect pittances and the law firms collect mega millions.

And doctors and hospitals should be able to give medically accepted treatment to their patients and not have to order dozens of non-medically indicated tests and procedures to avoid being targeted for lawsuits. That too is costing we consumer billions in the costs of the unnecessary tests and increased insurance premiums while lining the pockets of opportunistic attorneys and helping the patients little or not at all.

There has to be a better way short of denying patients just compensation when there is gross negligence and without restricting our unalienable rights.

Total propaganda. Turn on the television and be inundated with drug pushers.

Tort reform IS government intervention. It's bureaucrats dictating what a jury of our peers can or can't do. It undermines our justice system and gives the big guy a baseball bat he can use to beat the final measure of injustice into the little guy. Not only does the person or family suffer from the results of the doctor mistake or negligence, or the corporate toxins or dangerous product, the person and family must also endure the measure of the final insult: 'Yes, you were gravely wronged, but you will not justly compensated'

Almost 250 human beings die every DAY because in a 'decade of education and training' theses doctors can't even learn to wash their hands? My mother taught me that as a kid.

Not only don't you know what tort reform is, you don't even understand our justice system and what a jury of our peers means. It does NOT mean a jury of citizens with a vested interest, bias or conflict of interest. It means a fair trial by a jury of citizens withOUT a vested interest, bias or conflict of interest.

Tort reform is an effort to LIMIT or CAP the amount of compensation a person or family can receive, no matter how egregious and devastating the MALpractice is to a patient. I remember watching on C-Span in 2005 as Republicans argue on the floor of the Senate to limit the amount of compensation a person or family can receive to $250,000 as a lifetime amount. THAT is bureaucrats dictating what a jury of our peers can or can't do. It means no matter the circumstances and REAL cost to a family who would have to take care of a child or family member from birth to grave, bureaucrats dictate they can only receive $250,000, a measly amount if you amortize that over a human beings lifetime and the exorbitant costs that can be incurred. A JURY should decide the amount of compensation based on the facts of the case, not some Politburo. THAT is how our justice system is supposed to work, every citizen has the right to a FAIR trial.

It amazes me how you folks on the right say you are against government intervention into people's lives; then you embrace the most egregious and overbearing government intervention into people's lives and bureaucrats dictating that is right out of the Soviet Union.

BTW, the same doctors have no problem taking HMO's and insurance companies to court.

Take a look at the record of a host of state medical societies, often joined by the American Medical Association (AMA), who complain about lawsuits and argue that compensation to injured patients should be severely limited. Yet when an HMO, a health insurer or even an auto insurance company has treated doctors unfairly, these doctors go straight to court. And to top it off, while lobbying to limit patients’ ability to sue and collect compensation from doctors who commit malpractice, they say it is unfair to limit their right to sue and collect compensation from HMOs and health insurers.

What’s more, ask most doctors and they’ll tell you they want to limit compensation for injured patients to $250,000 for non-economic losses like permanent disfigurement, loss of a limb, blindness, or pain and suffering. Yet doctors are among the highest paid professionals in the country. When one looks at publicly available annual salary records for some of the critics of injured patients who sue, one finds that they earn well over $250,000 a year –without any pain or suffering at all.
More - http://www.centerjd.org/archives/issues-facts/MDHypocrites.pdf




Tort reform is an issue continually raised by conservative pundits and angry anti-health reform hoards. Indeed, if you do a news google for "health care reform" you will no doubt find a bounty of recent editorials, like this one in the Nevada Appeal, and on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, thundering that tort reform must be part of any federal health care reform package.

But there are some facts about health care the Right doesn't want you to know. In fact, most righties won't admit the truth about tort reform to themselves. These are:

* Tort law is mostly a state, not a federal, issue. Some proposals for federal tort reform would amount to a federal takeover of state authority and would also run afoul of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.

* Most of the states already have enacted tort reform laws. There's very little proposed for federal tort reform that all but a few states haven't enacted already. In other words, in large parts of the country, tort already is "reformed."

* State tort reform laws have had no impact on health care costs. In some cases, states with the strongest limitations on tort actually have had bigger increases in health care costs than states which have mostly left tort alone.

* "Defensive medicine" seems to be a sham. The argument that physicians order more tests and procedures to protect themselves from lawsuits is not borne out by physician behavior. There is no data showing that a significant number of physicians change their procedure- and test-ordering policies after state tort reform substantially protects them from malpractice. On the other hand, there is copious documented evidence that physicians who make extra income from the procedures they order, do order more procedures than physicians who don’t.
More...

 

[emilynghiem]

The only problem you and others on the right have with the ACA is it was signed into law by a democratic president you despise solely because he’s a democrat.

Conservatives whine about the ACA but offer nothing to replace it.

If it’s such a ‘terrible’ law then you should have no problem developing an alternate plan to ensure all Americans are insured.

And doing nothing, as most on the right advocate, is no ‘solution.’

HI CCJones: You bring up several good points worth addressing

A. With Roe V. Wade, the issue of lack of due process in criminalizing abortion was STRUCK DOWN FOR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
***WITHOUT REPLACING IT WITH ANYTHING.****
So if you are going to criticize, PLEASE BE FAIR.

NOTE: I am a liberal progressive Democrat.
But I'm a Constitutionalist first. I recognize that the Health Care Bill is EQUALLY
unconstitutional for denying "free choice" as the issue of abortion legislation
denying free choice.

B. About alternatives, I HAVE proposed solutions AS A DEMOCRAT AND HAVE NOT BEEN FU HEARD. What makes you think Dems will listen to Reps if they won't listen to THEIR OWN DAMN PARTY AND CONSTITUENTS:

1. Residents and leaders in a DEMOCRAT BLACK DISTRICT passed FEDERAL LEGISLATION
creating a sustainable campus for interns in health and human services to be integrated
in public housing. DEM CONGRESS WOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE COSIGNED the
agreements on this to be implemented in a historic BLACK District in DEMOCRAT
PRECINCT 30. AND YET THIS PLAN WAS DEMOLISHED and RESIDENTS EVICTED.
ALL UNDER DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP. SO WTFFFFF?????!!!!!

Here: the plans are here: http://www.houstonprogressive.org
and Guiding Principles SJL signed are linked here: Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

And I'm a FU DEMOCRAT AND I'M SAYING THIS IS BS

Sorry, but my point is if Democrats won't listen to their own constituents
who even passed federal laws to protect constitutional rights and PLANS
that would have created alternative ways of providing health care services

Then WHY BLAME REPUBLICANS for not providing an alternative???? WTF x 1000???

2. Teh solution IS There: to invest in EXPANDING medical schools hospitals and
clinics to provide services through internships and medical education programs.

Bethesda MD already had a program where medical students get their education
paid for by working off their credits serving in public health HMO's.

So that IS the solution

It was ALREADY THERE

Also USAA health insurance company, a high rated company, ALREADY testified
before Congress that they didn't NEED more regulations to serve their members.

Again the solutions were ALREADY THERE.

But because Obama wanted to prove himself politically, he had to push
symbolic legislations that "stands for health care reform" when it
A. is unconstitutional as a distortion of federal govt authority
that is clearly not given or meant in the Constitution
B. pushes things on a federal level that are better handled on state or private levels
C. provokes and distracts opponents that COULD BE FOCUSING on solutions
then BLAMES THEM FOR NOT "having solutions to offer"
when Democrats are equally if not more guilty of not listening to constituents

the Democrats I know who wanted health care reform were still SCREAMING
for single payer and did not want corporate insurance or lobbies involved
in this scheme to crash the system first to shift all control to govt in order
to avoid fines and penalties. So it was indirectly a step to push for single payer.

And that means fighting over the unconstitutionality in the meantime
so the investment that could have gone into solutions goes into political campaigns!!!

CCJ AT the VERY LEAST blame both parties. I would accept that
equally as my own fault in not doing more to stop this nonsense.
But do not dare blame the Republicans who at least have a clue
about Constitutional principles and rule of law. The Democrats I
support for constitutional inclusion, but they don't practice that either.

So you can blame both, to be fair, but the Democrats deserve their fair share of that.
If you are truly constitutionally inclusive and not a onesided hypocrite like those you blame.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.