Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Flopper]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

 

[Conservative65]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

That always just blows me away.

RWs voting for Repubs is like cockroaches voting for Raid. Even if one does not care about one's own self, what about their children? And the country? Its like they purposely look for what will do the most harm to America and Americans and that's the way they vote.

WTF is up with that?

As to the OP - We've been paying 100% of bills incurred at hospitals ever since Ronnie RayGun's EMTALA (including births and abortions for illegals) and the result has been job loss, loss of employee benefits, hospitals closing, the end to trauma and burn centers. ObamaCare ends that.

It has also meant runaway costs in care and incredible profits for insurance companies. ObamaCare address that as well and we're already seeing lowering costs.

Needs work though. Let's hope the damn Repubs will stop trying so damn hard to take affordable care away from the very Americans who pay for theirs. (Yeah, I know they'll do whatever they can to harm Americans.)

It's your view that someone voting differently than you is doing that. Typical Liberal who thinks they know what's better for everyone else.

I care about my children and the country. That's why I vote the way I do. If you don't think that's what I should be doing, tough shit. It's worked for me for many years. Why would I vote for someone who would take more of what I've earned to hand it to someone else for whatever cause they feel gives them compassion?

 

[dblack]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

 

[Arianrhod]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Maybe it's because it defies common sense. The term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind. Although I'm inclined to think it's more a result of lack of information.

This is confirmed on message boards hundreds of times a day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

Even enough to trudge 10 miles. Each way. In the snow. Which is apparently what Nitwit thinks is involved in getting to the polls.

Frankly, one of the worst things about traveling by city bus, when it's necessary to do so, is having to listen to some half-crazed semi-homeless person holding forth - loudly - on their political views. So yeah, they have them and quite strongly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

 

[Flopper]

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Maybe it's because it defies common sense. The term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind. Although I'm inclined to think it's more a result of lack of information.

This is confirmed on message boards hundreds of times a day.

Back in the days when government assistance went to just those that weren't employed, you could pretty well count on these people voting for whoever promised more help from the government. However, today things have changed. Half the people getting government handouts are working and most of the rest have had someone in the family working in last 12 months. They are just as concerned about job growth as middle income workers are. This means as a group, those with low income are far less predictable as how they will vote than years past.

When a candidate can't convince a voter that his or her policies will clearly be of financial benefit then the voter is likely to be swayed by other issues. It often depends on the campaigning ability of the candidate as much as it does his policies.

 

[LOki]

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

 

[Arianrhod]

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

Like all those people who claim "there was nothing wrong with the old health insurance system."

Back in the days when government assistance went to just those that weren't employed, you could pretty well count on these people voting for whoever promised more help from the government. However, today things have changed. Half the people getting government handouts are working and most of the rest have had someone in the family working in last 12 months. They are just as concerned about job growth as middle income workers are. This means as a group, those with low income are far less predictable as how they will vote than years past.

When a candidate can't convince a voter that his or her policies will clearly be of financial benefit then the voter is likely to be swayed by other issues. It often depends on the campaigning ability of the candidate as much as it does his policies.

Agreed, and it's those other issues that one-issue voters concern themselves with - abortion, guns - and ignore everything else. This has certainly been the mainstream Republicans' problem for some time now.

 

[dblack]

That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.

 

[Arianrhod]

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.

Sometimes, when the jobs go overseas and the local economy tanks, it's the only game in town.

 

[Flopper]

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.

Most people that are 100% dependent on government support, certainly wish they weren't. However, most people aren't 100% dependent. They have part time jobs, temp jobs, or they have members of the family that work. Some are getting help from relatives, or local charities, and some have small retirement checks or child support.

Then there are those that have income that places them between the poverty line and 133% of the poverty line. For these people, Medicaid, free or reduced lunch programs, and other such programs are seen as supplement to their income.

 

[SAYIT]

Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Maybe it's because it defies common sense. The term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind. Although I'm inclined to think it's more a result of lack of information.

This is confirmed on message boards hundreds of times a day.

Back in the days when government assistance went to just those that weren't employed, you could pretty well count on these people voting for whoever promised more help from the government. However, today things have changed. Half the people getting government handouts are working and most of the rest have had someone in the family working in last 12 months. They are just as concerned about job growth as middle income workers are. This means as a group, those with low income are far less predictable as how they will vote than years past...

Job growth in America is a function of business expansion and Private INVESTMENT. So when a low skill/low pay employee joins the eat-the-rich cabal (OWS, unions, socialists, etc.) and the result is fewer jobs, is that not cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

 

[SAYIT]

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

Like all those people who claim "there was nothing wrong with the old health insurance system."...

Lame Straw Man. No one has ever claimed "there was nothing wrong with the old health insurance system" but O-Care is a poorly conceived and poorly launched stab at fixing the problem.

Shoving Obamacare down the throats of Americans has not only had serious negative unintended consequences, it is running into resistance, rejection and cost-overruns at its most basic level.

Furthermore, early data shows many of those who have bought into it already had health insurance meaning many of those it was intended to help - the uninsured - are still uninsured.

Shoving Obamacare down the throats of Americans has not only had serious negative unintended consequences, it is running into resistance, rejection and cost-overruns at its most basic level.

Furthermore, early data shows many of those who have bought into it already had health insurance meaning many of those it was intended to help - the uninsured - are still uninsured.

"Nearly half of the 23 non-profit insurance plans created under Obamacare in 2011 at a cost of $2.4 billion have announced they will close by the end of the year.

Utah’s Arches Health Plan on Tuesday became the 10th health insurance co-op to announce that it was closing its doors. The move comes soon after the Obama administration’s decision on Oct. 1 to provide just 12.6 percent of the $2.87 billion that insurers were seeking to offset losses caused by unexpectedly high coverage costs."

Nearly half of Obamacare co-ops are closing

 

[SAYIT]

Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.

Sometimes, when the jobs go overseas and the local economy tanks, it's the only game in town.

Rather than throw more money - either borrowed or confiscated by our gov't - at the problems resulting from America's job losses, perhaps we should look at the gov't policies that encourage or even force companies to take such drastic action. The anti-biz POV of the very peeps who can't find work - and that of elected officials who can see only as far as their next election - is often the cause of the exodus.

 

[Arianrhod]

"The Co-ops Are Closing! Dogs and Cats Living with Each Other!"

For credibility, y'all should coordinate with each other

"Did you cover Colorado?"
"Yeah, me and three other posters."
"Better give that one a rest, then."

Either that just add it to your signatures. "The co-ops are closing...the co-ops are closing..."

Few of you understand that it's the Republicans in your state that are responsible, and that (A) alternatives will be found for the people who lost coverage and (B) the next time your state Republicans need money - oh, let's say because 24 inches of rain fell in less than 24 hours and your whole state is under water - their "co-operation" will be noted.

 

[dblack]

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.

Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.

Most people that are 100% dependent on government support, certainly wish they weren't. However, most people aren't 100% dependent. They have part time jobs, temp jobs, or they have members of the family that work. Some are getting help from relatives, or local charities, and some have small retirement checks or child support.

Then there are those that have income that places them between the poverty line and 133% of the poverty line. For these people, Medicaid, free or reduced lunch programs, and other such programs are seen as supplement to their income.

What does this have to do with anything we're talking about? We were discussing that fact that it's not irrational for a person to oppose, and vote against, government policies that nominally benefit them.

 

[LOki]

 

[LOki]

 

[Flopper]

And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".

Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health. My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate. Self interest means different things to different people.

Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.

Maybe it's because it defies common sense. The term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind. Although I'm inclined to think it's more a result of lack of information.

This is confirmed on message boards hundreds of times a day.

Back in the days when government assistance went to just those that weren't employed, you could pretty well count on these people voting for whoever promised more help from the government. However, today things have changed. Half the people getting government handouts are working and most of the rest have had someone in the family working in last 12 months. They are just as concerned about job growth as middle income workers are. This means as a group, those with low income are far less predictable as how they will vote than years past...

Job growth in America is a function of business expansion and Private INVESTMENT. So when a low skill/low pay employee joins the eat-the-rich cabal (OWS, unions, socialists, etc.) and the result is fewer jobs, is that not cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

Legal immigrants into the US are not necessarily low skilled. 30% are in management, professional or related occupations. 17% are sales and office workers. 15% work in production and transportation. 13% have occupations in construction and maintenance. The remainder, about 25% have service related occupations. 28% have bachelors degree's are higher.
Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States