SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We know that about 10 million more people have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act but until now it has been difficult to say much about who was getting that Obamacare coverage — where they live, their age, their income and other such details. Now Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz report in the NYT that a new data set is providing a clearer picture of which people gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The data is the output of a statistical model based on a large survey of adults and shows that the law has done something rather unusual in the American economy this century: It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income — in the form of health insurance or insurance subsidies — to many of the groups that have fared poorly over the last few decades. The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas. The areas with the largest increases in the health insurance rate, for example, include rural Arkansas and Nevada; southern Texas; large swaths of New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia; and much of inland California and Oregon.
Despite many Republican voters’ disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 31 2014, @09:37AM
I'll get hate for saying this but as someone who is damned near a communist as well as an agnostic living smack dab in the bible belt I can say that while I never vote for 'em (I vote green most of the time, what little good it does) at least the reps stay on message! Sometimes stereotypes are true and the Dems with all their infighting and waffling are frankly they're their own worst enemy. And can we all admit now that with the exception of Obamacare (which is so much like Romneycare old Mittens should be getting royalties) what we got with Obama was a Bush third term with even MORE fascist bullshit, MORE backroom graft (seriously look up what the top 20 donors to Obama got, they got as much as a 1000% return dollar for dollar, even Nixon didn't kick back that much cash) and MORE outright ignoring what he ran on than Dubya ever did?
I swear if you got 10 reps in a room you'd get 10 copies of the same speech, put 100 dems in a room and they wouldn't be able top agree on what to have for lunch! Between that and backing crap the American people have said loud and clear they DO NOT WANT like yet another amnesty program with ZERO improvements to border security? The ONLY reason dems even have the White House is because the old money keeps picking "winners" like John "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McSame and Mittens "we were so poor we had to live on our stock dividends!" Romney The Third. But if the dems don't come up with a resonable centrist platform, stick to it, and quit waffling? We could very easily end up with another decade of the dems sitting on the sidelines like we had in the 80s.
Lord we need a viable third party BAD folks!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday October 31 2014, @09:54AM
Show me a political party that doesn't have visible infighting, and it'll almost certainly be a fascist dictatorship with a completely totalitarian leader. Even the Communist countries of the world have/had significant differences of opinion amongst their leadership - which in some cases have been ended with purges, but that's not really the point.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:04AM
Because the tea party will "hold their nose" and vote for somebody like Mittens, hell they'd vote for Thurston Howell The Third running on a big government ticket as long as he had an R after the name whereas the Dems just won't bother, see how lousy the turnout for midterms is among the dems.
But someone below nailed it, dems in red states are all city folk and VERY patronizing, they come off as talking down to the voters. Its not like dems can't win if they take a more centrist tone, hell look at Clinton which is loved in AR to this day or the outgoing governor Mike Bebee. But you can't bring hard left politics while talking down to the voters in red states if you ever hope to win, that shit just won't fly.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:16AM
Actually, you got it roughly wrong way round.
The Occupy movement adherents either sulked home (you got that right) or voted for a D (with a few outliers voting G or S).
The Tea Partiers actually put up their own candidates, went RINO-hunting, and rather threw away the chances of an R winning a race than voting for an R they didn't like. Witness: the number of red state D officeholders who are now desperately greasing up their buttholes in preparation for election day.
Voila, the Tea Party gets (grudging) respect in republican circles, while with a few exceptions (Warren springs to mind) the democrats carry on, confident that the livestock will line up for the slaughter in presidential years, at least.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday November 01 2014, @11:53AM
The bit about the city folk does touch on an interesting point though. The split between the two main parties isn't really a state-by-state thing, it's a rural vs. urban thing. A far better split currently would be to say that most Democrats tend live in urban areas while Republicans seem to prefer the countryside, something backed up by the purple heat maps of how people vote across the US on a county by county basis, even if that doesn't align with how the Electoral College works. Those states that have more urban voters tend to be those than swing Democract while those that are more rural tend to swing towards the Republicans, although how long it will stay that way is anyone's guess.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 31 2014, @10:45AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:58PM
No they are very efficient at being corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @03:48PM
No, I think he's saying that the republicans are so corrupt its hard to tell if they could govern competently, and the democrats are so incompetent it's hard to distinguish from corruption.
(Score: 1) by schad on Friday October 31 2014, @12:27PM
It's just the echo chamber. Democratic candidates in Republican states tend to come out of the cities, which are usually Democratic strongholds. That means that they genuinely don't understand the things that matter to rural conservatives, and they have no idea how to relate to them. They want to appeal, but they end up pandering. Usually hilariously transparently. Hey, if you never have to learn how other people think, why would you? It requires challenging your own beliefs, which nobody likes doing. Far easier to write off those few people who don't agree with you, and instead spend all your time with the great many who do.
It's not like Republicans are immune to it either. But mostly they seem to have decided that certain demographic groups will never, ever, ever vote Republican. That if it were Hitler running against Jesus, those groups would vote for Hitler as long as he had a (D) after his name. Not saying that's actually true, but it seems to be the assumption under which they're operating. With that said, though, if the Republicans ever decide to try to win the Latino vote, you're going to see some shit that will make you laugh until you pee your pants.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday October 31 2014, @01:54PM
I'm what the average Republican would characterize as a left-wing nutjob (e.g. I'll probably volunteer for Bernie Sanders' campaign if he tries to run for president), so take this as you will.
But from what I can see, the Republicans are in fact correct that certain demographic groups will never vote for them until they stop catering to their bigots. Republican candidates and office-holders have repeatedly made statements that strongly suggest a belief that these kinds of people should be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight white Christian men:
- African-American
- Hispanic/Latino
- Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc
- Poor and working class
- Women
- Muslims, Sikhs, pagans, Unitarians, and just about all other minority religions except Jews
- Scientists
As far as how rural white voters think, here's my understanding of the fundamental story they've been told, and in many cases believe: "For centuries, your ancestors built America into something wonderful. Over the last 40 years, you and your family and your town have lost everything except your pride, your faith, and your weapons. You have gone from being independent homesteaders with your own land and a freedom to do as you please, to now being employees of big corporations if you're lucky (and unemployed and broke if you aren't). The reason you lost everything is that the minorities, women, and irresponsible hippie types convinced the federal government to take your wealth from you and give it to them. They then used this money, stolen from you at gunpoint, to be able to spend their time enjoying drugs, extramarital sex, nice cars, and all sorts of other luxuries."
The first part of that story is completely true: Rural communities have indeed become impoverished over the last 40 years, and many former independent business owners are now employees or unemployed. The second part, though, is mostly a lie: the primary beneficiary of that impoverishment of rural America wasn't urban America, but Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Monsanto, John Deere, Dow Chemical, Walmart, and a few other major corporations. Because the first part is true, and white rural people rarely come into contact with non-white urban people, it's very easy to believe the second part. And believing that story leads naturally to the conclusion that rural prosperity depends on urban poverty and vice versa.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @05:46PM
Republican candidates and office-holders have repeatedly made statements that strongly suggest a belief that these kinds of people should be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight white Christian men
There are bigots everywhere. You are an example of one from the "left-wing nutjob" side as your above quote illustrates. So what? Should you be completely politically marginalized just because you are a bigot? Democracy means bigots get to play too.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 31 2014, @05:52PM
I didn't say bigots didn't get to play, I said that if candidates are going out there and saying bigoted things, then they shouldn't be surprised that the people they're bigoted against overwhelmingly vote against them.
If somebody like KKK leader David Duke wants to run for president, he can go right ahead, and anybody who agrees with him is allowed to vote for him. But if the Duke campaign is sitting around wondering why he's not getting more votes from African-Americans, then they're a bunch of complete idiots.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @09:35PM
If somebody like KKK leader David Duke wants to run for president, he can go right ahead, and anybody who agrees with him is allowed to vote for him. But if the Duke campaign is sitting around wondering why he's not getting more votes from African-Americans, then they're a bunch of complete idiots.
If he really cared, he could just do a public about face like Senator Robert Byrd did. Very few people care about racism when the racists are on their side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:31PM
Could you please explicitly point out the part of the quoted sentence that implies bigotry? Because I'm not seeing it. Unless you're claiming that anyone who thinks that minorities shouldn't be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight WASPs is a bigot, or that stating facts makes one a bigot.
Believing and preaching false stereotypes over the truth is bigotry. Speaking the truth is not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @09:31PM
Believing and preaching false stereotypes over the truth is bigotry.
Exactly. Note the first of the quote: "Republican candidates and office-holders". And the accusation is moderately over-the-top with a list of people (every group mentioned overlapping with the Republican party membership, I might add) "should be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight white Christian men". This is a typical false stereotype. I don't consider the accusation any more serious than someone stating that the Oakland Raiders (an America football team based in Oakland, California) eats babies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:25AM
Oh, now I understand, it "suggests bigotry" because its a strawman - you're twisting the poster's words to say something they're not.
You intentionally left out the words " have repeatedly made statements", which change the entire meaning of the sentence. If you remove those words then the statement might convey bigotry, but they're there, so it doesn't.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:07PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:51AM
Because stating observed facts is bigotry, right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 02 2014, @05:27AM
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday October 31 2014, @06:30PM
To illustrate your point, take the uproar about the poor getting free cell phones. This has turned into a conservative war cry. Even though it has died down, it is still prevalent. This is exacerbated because rural areas have horrible cell phone coverage, and it still remains ridiculously expensive in some areas (where I live you have one option, and it will cost you nearly $100/mo for an average plan that I could get in a city for $65/mo). But the reality is that poor people have been getting free phone service for years. It was just recently that it became more logical and economical to do it with cell phones than land lines. It is also lost on the rural folks that if it were not for big government they would have never had a phone line in the first place.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday October 31 2014, @01:08PM
that is because "right" wing politics is all about "simple" solutions...no detail. "Abortion bad. God good."...
"left"wing politics is all about filling the cracks, so by definition it is more complex and hence less easy to capture.
The problem with modern politics is that it is neither "left" or "right" but the messages that have been paid for by the biggest donors...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:16PM
I vote green most of the time, what little good it does
Please keep doing so! I really wish that the Libertarians and the Greens would supplant the existing Republicrats and Dempublicans so that we might have some actual debates [freeandequal.org] about shit that matters.
I was almost thinking about wonking out next Tuesday because honestly nothing on my state's ballot matters to me at all. I think I'll still go if only to cast a straight Libertarian ticket. All that the Libertarians and Greens need is 5% of the vote (each) to really get things moving. Let's try to make this happen!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @02:01PM
I think of myself as libertarian, but on my ballot this year they are almost all religious whackjobs. So I'm voting for all the independents, who look a lot more like the libertarians did 20 years ago.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:23PM
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. -- Will Rogers
It was true in the 1930's, and still true today. If nothing else, we stick to our roots. And we need more like Will Rogers today - the closest we have are Colbert and Stewart and Oliver and I'm sure each would say they're very pale imitations of the man.
Here are a few more of his more notable quotes for your enjoyment:
That is all.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday October 31 2014, @04:42PM
You're a communist??? As the prominent Windows user on this forum, you'd have a very good claim against being a communist.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:37PM
What does one's choice in OS have to do with their political views? What one does in private, like use on their computer, has nothing to do with how they'd like to see society function.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 31 2014, @09:43PM
One CAN support actually buying products and believing that every person has the right to a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their backs, and medical treatment. those two views aren't mutually exclusive.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:13AM
You're describing a champagne socialist. A communist believes that surplus labor should go to the commons.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 01 2014, @03:35AM
It is called "cognitive dissonance". There are other, less sophisticated words one might use.