Interesting article about why people voted for Trump

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

(profanity warning ... there's a lot ... but I thought the article was very interesting)

www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

(Before commenting, you might find it useful to actually read the linked article)

[toshmanta]

Fairly astute piece, but i am rather surprised it did not mention the religious factor, if one looks at coastal cities belief in Creationism(25% approx)  is on a par with most developed countries, however go inland and it soars off the charts to nearly two thirds, figures normally associated with the uneducated 3rd world.

This suggests large swathes of America have a disposition that suspends critical thinking under duress,plus religion has been the main promoter of chauvinism for a few thousand years, add the two together and you get a male anti establishment saviour figure called Donald Trump.

[buystoys]

Why do you believe it's religion that drove DJT's win?  Maybe it was policy.  I'd be more than willing to read any information you may have that would indicate religion or chauvinism was the driving force.

[Deleted]

Well, locally I keep asking people to explain to me the policy they hope is enacted, because I want to understand. They haven't said yet? But there was a lot of Vote for the unborn, Amen, Thank Jesus and Jesus showed up! On my Facebook this week...

[buystoys]

I can only answer for myself, oped.  (Well, really for DH because I voted third party, but I hope you will accept my explanation.  )

Repeal and replace ACA.  That's a big one for him.  Our medical costs alone are the single biggest budget item for us.  It's been more than double our mortgage, property tax and insurance combined.  This year we're looking at almost triple.  Maybe the replacement won't be any better, but what we have is truly a mess. 

Jobs, jobs, jobs.  This is an area that both candidates had proposals for, but DH and I both saw that HRC didn't perform in NY.  His reasoning is that if she couldn't do it for a single state then he questioned her ability to do it for the whole country. 

I would say that those were his two biggest issues as those were the ones he spoke of most frequently.

[toshmanta]

Nov 12, 2016 9:34:44 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Why do you believe it's religion that drove DJT's win?  Maybe it was policy.  I'd be more than willing to read any information you may have that would indicate religion or chauvinism was the driving force.

I never suggested religion or chauvinism was the only factor, and i never knew DT had any policies.

Addendum, my point was more about how some think under duress..

[buystoys]

Nov 12, 2016 9:48:16 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Nov 12, 2016 9:34:44 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Why do you believe it's religion that drove DJT's win?  Maybe it was policy.  I'd be more than willing to read any information you may have that would indicate religion or chauvinism was the driving force.

I never suggested religion or chauvinism was the only factor, and i never knew DT had any policies.

I never said that you said religion or chauvinism were the only factor.  I was just asking if you had anything that supported this statement:

This suggests large swathes of America have a disposition that suspends
critical thinking under duress,plus religion has been the main promoter
of chauvinism for a few thousand years, add the two together and you get
a male anti establishment saviour figure called Donald Trump.

I like to see multiple arguments before drawing a conclusion and this is not one I've really seen much on.  That's all! 

[toshmanta]

I never said that you said religion or chauvinism were the only factor. I was just asking if you had anything that supported this statement:

=====================================================

Belief in Creationism is not normal, one has to ignore incontrovertible evidence to believe in it, this suggests a certain mindset under duress, and i doubt it switches off when it comes to looking for a solution to duress.

It is only my theory, and i am rarely wrong.

[mmhmm]

Nov 12, 2016 10:00:20 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

I never said that you said religion or chauvinism were the only factor. I was just asking if you had anything that supported this statement:

=====================================================

Belief in Creationism is not normal, one has to ignore incontrovertible evidence to believe in it, this suggests a certain mindset under duress, and i doubt it switches off when it comes to looking for a solution to duress.

It is only my theory, and i am rarely wrong.

This is not the forum for that discussion, Tosh. That needs to be in the Religious Discussion forum. You're welcome to start a thread there, if you like -  as long as it's presented in a civil and respectful manner.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[buystoys]

Thanks toshmanta!  I appreciate your response.

[Tiny]

Nov 12, 2016 9:34:44 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Why do you believe it's religion that drove DJT's win?  Maybe it was policy.  I'd be more than willing to read any information you may have that would indicate religion or chauvinism was the driving force.

This is a reply to all - because of the 'religion peice' of this....

The thing the article didn't show was that the 2008 map was almost entirely RED as well - when Obama was first elected.   I think this might indicate that "more moderate" traditionally republicans voted for Obama.  

Why I think it might have been 'religion' that pushed people to vote for Trump:
the diehard always voting republican - voted republican  no lost or gained votes there. 

Trump represents ALL the things the rural counties referenced in the article are a against (he's Big City, he's rude, He's Big Business)  I would think that at least some of the people in these rural counties realize that.   I would think a feeling of alienation/not being served/this election is Bull Crap would cause people to not vote (Neither president will help them.)    Hillary needed these people to vote for her OR stay home.   I suspect they voted - and they opted for what was familiar - and voted republican.

Trump had the support of the Christian Evangelicals (the religious).   And what do you think is a bonding point for all the people in those big swathes of red on the map?  Family and their religious affiliation.  I think their local politicians kept that upfront and foremost in their minds - so that the sound byte they got was "Trump will Make America Great" like it was in the "Good Old Days"  - meaning women in the kitchen, men at work, and everyone constrained by the 'moral values' of whatever flavor of Christianity is local.  
I think THAT's why many people in the sort of blue-ish areas  (that voted for Obama) have  flipped back to Red.   And THAT got Trump the election.   OK, the voters might not have been voting 'religiously' but they voted with what was familiar - if everyone around you is Pro Trump or just Die Hard Republican - when it's assumed if you are voting it will be Republican - and you don't often vote or just follow the sound bytes - then you vote what you "know" or what is "familiar" or how you are 'expected' by the people around you to vote. 



I suspect that the next presidential election the same areas will decide who is elected.   The very states aren't suddenly going to go blue.    

I think this is the election that the WEALTHY extreme view Christians won (the ones that have worked their way into government positions over the last two decades.)  This isn't a change that happened over night.     The people in the rural areas may feel like they've won- but not much economically is going to change for them.     And I think that's what they really want.
 

ADDED:  I personally don't like Trump - I couldn't watch him on TV in his reality shows - and I wouldn't want to have a beer with him (I'm an old, fat, white woman).  But, I feel that it doesn't really matter who's in the presidency - they are just a puppet of EVERYONE behind them.   THAT"S what I care about.   And the people BEHIND Trump who will be running the country (making/facilitating the changes/dictating what I can and can not do as woman) is what FRIGHTENS me.    All I can say is Mike Pence.   If that doesn't send shivers down your spine - you need to google.     He and the other extreme Christians in positions of power - Terrify me.  


ADDED somesome more -  I'm not against the religious (even the 'crazy religious' get a pass)  I'm just against ME having to live with their morality/ideals/traditions - when some of their morality/ideals/traditions seem to be compassionless, unjust, and maybe don't match up with modern knowledge.

[buystoys]

Nov 12, 2016 10:18:38 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Nov 12, 2016 9:34:44 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Why do you believe it's religion that drove DJT's win?  Maybe it was policy.  I'd be more than willing to read any information you may have that would indicate religion or chauvinism was the driving force.

This is a reply to all - because of the 'religion peice' of this....

The thing the article didn't show was that the 2008 map was almost entirely RED as well - when Obama was first elected.   I think this might indicate that "more moderate" traditionally republicans voted for Obama.  

Why I think it might have been 'religion' that pushed people to vote for Trump:
the diehard always voting republican - voted republican  no lost or gained votes there. 

Trump represents ALL the things the rural counties referenced in the article are a against (he's Big City, he's rude, He's Big Business)  I would think that at least some of the people in these rural counties realize that.   I would think a feeling of alienation/not being served/this election is Bull Crap would cause people to not vote (Neither president will help them.)  

Trump had the support of the Christian Evangelicals (the religious).   And what do you think is a bonding point for all the people in those big swathes of red on the map?  Family and their religious affiliation.  I think their local politicians kept that upfront and foremost in their minds - so that the sound byte they got was "Trump will Make America Great" like it was in the "Good Old Days"  - meaning women in the kitchen, men at work, and everyone constrained by the 'moral values' of whatever flavor of Christianity is local.  
I think THAT's why many people in the sort of blue-ish areas  (that voted for Obama) have  flipped back to Red.   And THAT got Trump the election.

I suspect that the next presidential election the same areas will decide who is elected.   The very states aren't suddenly going to go blue.    

I think this is the election that the WEALTHY extreme view Christians won (the ones that have worked their way into government positions over the last two decades.)  This isn't a change that happened over night.     The people in the rural areas may feel like they've won- but not much economically is going to change for them.     And I think that's what they really want.
 

Tiny, I appreciate your point.

All I can say is that I live in one of those states in the big swath of red.  I don't know anyone who voted for DJT to go back to the "Good Old Days" but I also don't know every single voter even on my own block.    That's why I keep asking if anyone has seen exit poll information or articles that support your point.  I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, it's just that it doesn't match what I see.

[Tiny]

Nov 12, 2016 10:26:08 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Nov 12, 2016 10:18:38 GMT -5 Tiny said:

This is a reply to all - because of the 'religion peice' of this....

The thing the article didn't show was that the 2008 map was almost entirely RED as well - when Obama was first elected.   I think this might indicate that "more moderate" traditionally republicans voted for Obama.  

Why I think it might have been 'religion' that pushed people to vote for Trump:
the diehard always voting republican - voted republican  no lost or gained votes there. 

Trump represents ALL the things the rural counties referenced in the article are a against (he's Big City, he's rude, He's Big Business)  I would think that at least some of the people in these rural counties realize that.   I would think a feeling of alienation/not being served/this election is Bull Crap would cause people to not vote (Neither president will help them.)  

Trump had the support of the Christian Evangelicals (the religious).   And what do you think is a bonding point for all the people in those big swathes of red on the map?  Family and their religious affiliation.  I think their local politicians kept that upfront and foremost in their minds - so that the sound byte they got was "Trump will Make America Great" like it was in the "Good Old Days"  - meaning women in the kitchen, men at work, and everyone constrained by the 'moral values' of whatever flavor of Christianity is local.  
I think THAT's why many people in the sort of blue-ish areas  (that voted for Obama) have  flipped back to Red.   And THAT got Trump the election.

I suspect that the next presidential election the same areas will decide who is elected.   The very states aren't suddenly going to go blue.    



I think this is the election that the WEALTHY extreme view Christians won (the ones that have worked their way into government positions over the last two decades.)  This isn't a change that happened over night.     The people in the rural areas may feel like they've won- but not much economically is going to change for them.     And I think that's what they really want.
 

Tiny , I appreciate your point.

All I can say is that I live in one of those states in the big swath of red.  I don't know anyone who voted for DJT to go back to the "Good Old Days" but I also don't know every single voter even on my own block.    That's why I keep asking if anyone has seen exit poll information or articles that support your point.  I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, it's just that it doesn't match what I see.

The "good old days" is my euphemism for what we romanticize about the 50's - there's well paying jobs, there's new material things to buy for one's home, women were women and knew their responsibilies/place, men were men and knew their responsibilies/place, every one in was the "same" across the US.

and it wasn't the Red votes in the traditionally Red States that got Trump the presidency - it was the previous Blueish areas (sometimes bordering very Blue places) shifting to more reddish that got him elected.

I do think people vote 'religiously' - Indiana, Tennesse, Kentucky,  parts of Illinois - are all very motivated to vote for the candidate who strongly imply they will enact laws that mirror their own religious views.  

I think our social media - TV, the internet - bring all sorts of 'horrors' into households and then pound those images into our heads.  Unfortunately the media doesn't show the whole picture and is most certainly biased (to get and keep viewers).    

My face book is constantly bombarded with "keep the Under God and In God we Trust" in the Pledge and on money.  And then there's the never ending stream of "OMG! Let's keep Prayer in our schools! We're being FORCED to NOT PRAY!!!!"   and  the more subtler homophobic fears of "Family Values" posts... and then there's all those (implied:  trillions) of American babies being aborted (implied:  by thoughtless women having free sex with any man that wanders by).   And I live in a very Urban Blue place but have friends relative in very Red places.  I'm sure the family/friends in the Red places are just liking and sharing to "blend in"<-- I don't mean that in a bad way.  Everyone "blends in" it's tough always being the "outcast".

[buystoys]

Sorry!  I misread the red votes point.... 

[dezailoooooo]

Nov 12, 2016 9:45:55 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I can only answer for myself, oped .  (Well, really for DH because I voted third party, but I hope you will accept my explanation.  )

Repeal and replace ACA.  That's a big one for him.  Our medical costs alone are the single biggest budget item for us.  It's been more than double our mortgage, property tax and insurance combined.  This year we're looking at almost triple.  Maybe the replacement won't be any better, but what we have is truly a mess. 

Jobs, jobs, jobs.  This is an area that both candidates had proposals for, but DH and I both saw that HRC didn't perform in NY.  His reasoning is that if she couldn't do it for a single state then he questioned her ability to do it for the whole country. 

I would say that those were his two biggest issues as those were the ones he spoke of most frequently.

ok  his reasoning and yours makes sense to me for why he and u voted as u did. I will sa that from what I remember...one of the driving points of the ACA was the spiring , seemingly, monthly, increases in medical insurence..businesses were stopping contributing to employees costs or passing larger shares on to them..those with out insurence were swamping emergency rooms..I wonder what the costs would be now if ACA had not been passed...and it's not like one can blame increases all on what Doctors charge..all of my Doctors are not happy with ACA..what govenment actually pays when they are billed , the cost of paperwork demanded...

I do have a problem with the one who was elected biggest positive from the publics standpoint was his statement.."Trust Me"...lol...sheeeet.u got to be kidding...

[buystoys]

Nov 12, 2016 11:12:53 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

Nov 12, 2016 9:45:55 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I can only answer for myself, oped .  (Well, really for DH because I voted third party, but I hope you will accept my explanation.  )

Repeal and replace ACA.  That's a big one for him.  Our medical costs alone are the single biggest budget item for us.  It's been more than double our mortgage, property tax and insurance combined.  This year we're looking at almost triple.  Maybe the replacement won't be any better, but what we have is truly a mess. 

Jobs, jobs, jobs.  This is an area that both candidates had proposals for, but DH and I both saw that HRC didn't perform in NY.  His reasoning is that if she couldn't do it for a single state then he questioned her ability to do it for the whole country. 

I would say that those were his two biggest issues as those were the ones he spoke of most frequently.

ok  his reasoning and yours makes sense to me for why he and u voted as u did. I will sa that from what I remember...one of the driving points of the ACA was the spiring , seemingly, monthly, increases in medical insurence..businesses were stopping contributing to employees costs or passing larger shares on to them..those with out insurence were swamping emergency rooms..I wonder what the costs would be now if ACA had not been passed...and it's not like one can blame increases all on what Doctors charge..all of my Doctors are not happy with ACA..what govenment actually pays when they are billed , the cost of paperwork demanded...

I do have a problem with the one who was elected biggest positive from the publics standpoint was his statement.."Trust Me"...lol...sheeeet.u got to be kidding...

One of our biggest issues/problems/complaints (not really certain what the best word is) with ACA was that choices such as catastrophic coverage were taken off the table completely.  So, even though I don't have any major health issues and would have purchased that type of plan for myself, I couldn't.  Yes, there are subsidies and yes, we benefit(ed) from those subsidies.  If we were over the 400% FPL MAGI though, there's just no way.  We'd have been paying almost 50% of our income this year for coverage.  I understand that it was possibly an unintended consequence, but ACA removed all competition from my area.  I also understand that DH's health issues would still have cost us more than the average person, but we have been locked into additional costs we could have shed prior to ACA.

I get that you don't care for DJT.  DH doesn't care for him either.  The volunteers at our polling place gave him a strange look when he walked into the building with a clothes pin on his nose!    This is also why I've been saying that it's important to look at WHY people voted for DJT rather than assume they want to emulate, glorify, or accept his antics. 

[Deleted]

I don't know a single DT voter that voted for him hoping for a return to "the good old days" either.

With ZERO exceptions, everyone that I personally know and talked to that voted for him did so for one of three reasons: "Tired of more of the same from politicians, wanted a different option", "Can't vote for Hillary, she's a bought and paid for, perjurer that doesn't give a damn about national security", or "We must get rid of Obamacare at all costs, before it bankrupts the country and completely destroys our healthcare system".

That's it. Not a single one wanted to get rid of gay marriage nor roll back the clock on women's rights, nor overturn Roe v. Wade, et ctera... Nope... Just those three things.

[Deleted]

I don't personally know them either (at least I certainly hope not), but some Trump supporters took his slogan to "Make America Great Again" and changed it to "Make America White Again" and printed it on signs, posted it on their property and wore it on t-shirts. I'm not sure what exactly they're longing for, and I figure it wouldn't have ended well for me to be the one to approach anyone displaying those words and ask them.

The article was interesting. And I think a lot of it was true for a lot of people that voted for him. I can see how residents of dying small towns would feel like they've been forgotten.

I live in a red state. My county usually votes blue, black people are the majority in the city and they tend to vote Democrat. I think their votes are mostly taken for granted, which concerns me. What are they really getting in return for their loyalty to the Democratic tickets if their votes are taken for granted? Besides acknowledgement that there are problems in their communities in the occasional speech? Then what? Because as the author of the article says, the elite (and Democrat politicians) at least pretend to care about the inner cities, but do they really? There is hopelessness there also, just like in small town America. The reasons may be different and the way it manifests itself may be different, but hopeless is hopeless. 

Anyway, does Donald Trump really care about small town America? Can/will he do anything to help them? Maybe, but I think not.

Just like I believe that the police can only do so much about crime, that individuals and communities have to do more to address the problems that lead to crimes being committed in the first place, I also believe that change in troubled communities has to start on a local level, the President needs to focus on the big picture and local politicians need to focus on improving the communities that elected them.

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 12, 2016 9:39:22 GMT -5 oped said:

Well, locally I keep asking people to explain to me the policy they hope is enacted, because I want to understand. They haven't said yet? But there was a lot of Vote for the unborn, Amen, Thank Jesus and Jesus showed up! On my Facebook this week...

Same here, Jesus is getting a lot of praising on my FB too.

My deeply religious cousins explained it to me. Trump was God's imperfect tool to put the SC in conservative hands for a generation.  It was all about control of the SC.  So they were willing to accept the hateful rhetoric, the blatant sexism, the sexual assaults, the racism, multiple affairs andmarriages, the immature childish revengful tweeting.  

The irony is that I don't believe DT is a social conservative. I don't think he gives a rip about the issue that cannot be mentioned. I do believe his priority for a SC nominee is someone friendly to corporate interests.  

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 12, 2016 9:45:55 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I can only answer for myself, oped .  (Well, really for DH because I voted third party, but I hope you will accept my explanation.  )

Repeal and replace ACA.  That's a big one for him.  Our medical costs alone are the single biggest budget item s him  himfor us.  It's been more than double our mortgage, property tax and insurance combined.  This year we're looking at almost triple.  Maybe the replacement won't be any better, but what we have is truly a mess. 

Jobs, jobs, jobs.  This is an area that both candidates had proposals for, but DH and I both saw that HRC didn't perform in NY.  His reasoning is that if she couldn't do it for a single state then he questioned her ability to do it for the whole country. 

I would say that those were his two biggest issues as those were the ones he spoke of most frequently.

"Repeal and replace ACA. That's a big one for him. "

I may have been a big one for him, but based on his comments since Tues, he is already walking it back to "ammend" rather than repeal.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs. This is an area that both candidates had proposals for, but DH and I both saw that HRC didn't perform in NY. His reasoning is that if she couldn't do it for a single state then he questioned her ability to do it for the whole country."

Wondering what you think he will actually do? Bring factories back to the US? 

[grumpyhermit]

City People Are From A Different Goddamned Planet

If you want to contend that DT is an "outsider" from a beltway perspective, fine. I don't understand how someone looks at one of the ultra elite and can come to the conclusion that he is for the little people. Trump has literally built his brand on lavish extravagance and catering to the ultra rich. How does this reconcile? 


The Rural Areas Have Been Beaten To Shit

Rural areas have been decimated because their factories and industry have been shipped overseas. That isn't going to change. How high would a tariff have to be to make it financially beneficial for a company to bring their production back? Adapt or die. When all of the jobs leave your area, you have a choice; stay and go broke, or move and follow the jobs. 

The overall takeaway I got from this is that rural American's are continuing to cling to a lifestyle that is no longer sustainable. I get the urge to rage against that, to try to scratch and fight to keep things the same, but time marches on.

Coming from a place in rural Maine I saw for years communities trying to fight to keep the paper mills open. They would find new buyers, go on for a while, hit financial trouble, downsize, go on for a while, hit financial trouble, rinse repeat. End of the day most of the mills shut down eventually. 

There is no magic tonic to fix their woes, and instead they just bought a four year supply of snake oil. 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I put this in another thread but it fits well here.  I think he makes a lot of good points that I think are valid issues with the liberal establishment...and have been for some time.  Just a warning, it does have some profanity in it.

[Lizard Queen]

In my corner of this rust belt state, it's a lot about NAFTA.

[Deleted]

This

"Yes, Trump ran an often ugly campaign. Yes, I am among those worried about his unpredictability. But the left has work to do, not only on policy and organization but also on attitude. Too many of my progressive friends seem to have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ -- and those who disagree are cast into the outer political darkness. In short, the left has lately been dripping with hubris, which in classic literature always portends a fall.
My friends on the left have come to resemble a little too closely my friends on the right, and the Republican Party has also received well-justified kicks in the pants from time to time. But it’s liberalism that has thought itself ascendant of late, while conservatives have found themselves scrambling for an identity."

www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-11/trump-and-the-fall-of-liberalism

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 13, 2016 15:04:08 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

This

"Yes, Trump ran an often ugly campaign. Yes, I am among those worried about his unpredictability. But the left has work to do, not only on policy and organization but also on attitude. Too many of my progressive friends seem to have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ -- and those who disagree are cast into the outer political darkness. In short, the left has lately been dripping with hubris, which in classic literature always portends a fall.
My friends on the left have come to resemble a little too closely my friends on the right, and the Republican Party has also received well-justified kicks in the pants from time to time. But it’s liberalism that has thought itself ascendant of late, while conservatives have found themselves scrambling for an identity."

www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-11/trump-and-the-fall-of-liberalism

That's really similar to what the guy shown in reply #25 said too.  I've been saying it for a while, but get told "that' just your opinion" on the issues with the left and their argument tactics that are nothing more than hate-filled and fear-mongering.  

[973beachbum]

Nov 12, 2016 11:48:21 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Nov 12, 2016 11:12:53 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

ok  his reasoning and yours makes sense to me for why he and u voted as u did. I will sa that from what I remember...one of the driving points of the ACA was the spiring , seemingly, monthly, increases in medical insurence..businesses were stopping contributing to employees costs or passing larger shares on to them..those with out insurence were swamping emergency rooms..I wonder what the costs would be now if ACA had not been passed...and it's not like one can blame increases all on what Doctors charge..all of my Doctors are not happy with ACA..what govenment actually pays when they are billed , the cost of paperwork demanded...

I do have a problem with the one who was elected biggest positive from the publics standpoint was his statement.."Trust Me"...lol...sheeeet.u got to be kidding...

One of our biggest issues/problems/complaints (not really certain what the best word is) with ACA was that choices such as catastrophic coverage were taken off the table completely.  So, even though I don't have any major health issues and would have purchased that type of plan for myself, I couldn't.  Yes, there are subsidies and yes, we benefit(ed) from those subsidies.  If we were over the 400% FPL MAGI though, there's just no way.  We'd have been paying almost 50% of our income this year for coverage.  I understand that it was possibly an unintended consequence, but ACA removed all competition from my area.  I also understand that DH's health issues would still have cost us more than the average person, but we have been locked into additional costs we could have shed prior to ACA.

I get that you don't care for DJT.  DH doesn't care for him either.  The volunteers at our polling place gave him a strange look when he walked into the building with a clothes pin on his nose!    This is also why I've been saying that it's important to look at WHY people voted for DJT rather than assume they want to emulate, glorify, or accept his antics. 

I'm a little confused.  Your DH has medical issues right?  So he is mad that the ACA requires insurance companies to sell him insurance policies without rating him for his medical issues while also getting a subsidy?

I do understand you being forced into coverage you didn't want is an extra expense but from an insurance standpoint only having the people who are sick really is the root of the problem. 

I will say I used to work in health insurance and it is a TOTALLY different thing than life or auto.  For health insurance to work people have to not use it like life insurance.  If you are really lucky you pay into your life insurance for decades and never have them payout.   That is how health insurance would be priced if the group insured was a total cross section of society.  But in reality people only want it if they are sick and will get it to pay more than they think they will rack up in bills.  Seriously that won't work for long from the insurance companies stand point.

I remember when all the health insurance companies started pulling out in the 90's .  Then other business' came in and were going to do things differently.   It turns out it isn't so easy.

maternity coverage is a prime example of this.  In states that didn't require it as part of all health insurance it literally cost as much or more than an average childbirth.  The reason was simple the only people who wanted it were going to have a baby in the next year basically. 

[buystoys]

------post deleted as too much personal information was given

[buystoys]

Nov 13, 2016 19:58:40 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Nov 12, 2016 11:48:21 GMT -5 buystoys said:

One of our biggest issues/problems/complaints (not really certain what the best word is) with ACA was that choices such as catastrophic coverage were taken off the table completely.  So, even though I don't have any major health issues and would have purchased that type of plan for myself, I couldn't.  Yes, there are subsidies and yes, we benefit(ed) from those subsidies.  If we were over the 400% FPL MAGI though, there's just no way.  We'd have been paying almost 50% of our income this year for coverage.  I understand that it was possibly an unintended consequence, but ACA removed all competition from my area.  I also understand that DH's health issues would still have cost us more than the average person, but we have been locked into additional costs we could have shed prior to ACA.

I get that you don't care for DJT.  DH doesn't care for him either.  The volunteers at our polling place gave him a strange look when he walked into the building with a clothes pin on his nose!    This is also why I've been saying that it's important to look at WHY people voted for DJT rather than assume they want to emulate, glorify, or accept his antics. 

I'm a little confused.  Your DH has medical issues right?  So he is mad that the ACA requires insurance companies to sell him insurance policies without rating him for his medical issues while also getting a subsidy?

I do understand you being forced into coverage you didn't want is an extra expense but from an insurance standpoint only having the people who are sick really is the root of the problem. 

I will say I used to work in health insurance and it is a TOTALLY different thing than life or auto.  For health insurance to work people have to not use it like life insurance.  If you are really lucky you pay into your life insurance for decades and never have them payout.   That is how health insurance would be priced if the group insured was a total cross section of society.  But in reality people only want it if they are sick and will get it to pay more than they think they will rack up in bills.  Seriously that won't work for long from the insurance companies stand point.

I remember when all the health insurance companies started pulling out in the 90's .  Then other business' came in and were going to do things differently.   It turns out it isn't so easy.

maternity coverage is a prime example of this.  In states that didn't require it as part of all health insurance it literally cost as much or more than an average childbirth.  The reason was simple the only people who wanted it were going to have a baby in the next year basically. 

I believe you have misunderstood.  DH wants ACA repealed and replaced.  Extreme modification may work, but we are both concerned that it will start to look like our tax code if that is done.

Yes, we both are fully cognizant that having on those who are really sick purchasing ACA plans is the root of the problem.  I have stated on other threads on this board that there is a whole wish list or list of suggestions or whatever you want to call it that could be enacted to improve the legislation.  One is to change the way insurance companies compile their groups.  Why not have the whole state be a group instead of a single county?  Why NOT have the group be a total cross section, or at least a bigger cross section, of society? 

The current mandate took away competition and choices in our area.  There are many other areas, Arizona for example, that are in the same boat.  When you are forced to purchase an item from only one seller, they control the price.  You can't shop for other options because there are none.  In our county, there aren't any other options even off the exchange.  That's a HUGE change from just three years ago when you could purchase insurance from at least five different companies.  DH is concerned that, since we are down to a single insurer, we will see 100%+ increases for 2018.  That's not an unreasonable concern as it's already happening elsewhere.

[zibazinski]

Amen to that. Last year I had two choices. This year I have one. My payment went up $155 a month.

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2016 22:46:48 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Amen to that. Last year I had two choices. This year I have one. My payment went up $155 a month.

I've only got one as well.