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: 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.