The Affordable HealthCare Decision

[dusty]

VAP: Number of votes as a percentage of the "voting age population" in the US.
VEP: Number of votes as a percentage of all "eligible" voters in the US (subtracts non-citizens, ineligible felons, etc).

Interesting Data - what is the source?

Would like to see this same metric for "first time voters" and college age voters" with an indication of party affiliation. I think I know what it would show but "I might be surprised".

[joshh]

Would like to see this same metric for "first time voters" and college age voters" with an indication of party affiliation. I think I know what it would show but "I might be surprised".

I'll bet you will see a large portion of that voting bloc with NO party affiliation. The only times we see bipartisanship in Congress is when their owners/bankers "need" a bailout. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. As long as they can get people to say crap like, "communist", "teabagger", "derstroyin Merika", "Kenyan", "Bush's fault", etc...the politicians win.



Oh and about Rush: His comments calling for public executions were made on December 24, 2003 with his lawyer present after his arrest. Comments were made to Andy Grainger.

"It's the only way to stop this scourge from infecting America," he said. "If there were no drug users, the dealers would be out of business. Am I right?"



He went on to say that rich people should be exempt from executions because they won't have to rob and steal to feed their addiction. (Of course he only wants to kill poor people).

"Say, for example, a rich white talk-radio host isn't going to knock over a liquor store, is he? He just needs a little help with back pain!" he boomed. "Now folks, that's not the same as some inner-city kid stealing to buy crack, is it? He's dangerous!"


He also said that if Obamacare became law, he would move to Costa Rica. So Mr. Limbaugh...I await your public execution and the sending of your corpse to Costa Rica. I bought two of your books and listened to you for years. Time I'll never get back, sadly.

[dickg1]

I believe the results of elections on both sides of the aisle since 2008 ARE the results of more people VOTING. Which is why some folks are trying their best to make it harder for certain folks to vote

I have heard this argument many times and still don't understand it. If all citizens in a state are required to present a valid id in order to vote how does it only affect some individuals? Some arguments I have heard cite a difficulty in obtaining an id, could be but others do it. Maybe a birth certificate is required? Could that be a problem? If a person can make it to a polling place, could not that person make it to a location to obtain an id? Where is the problem here and why is it implied that only a certain segment of the population is affected? Please enlighten me.

Unfortunately, stating that requiring an id disenfranchises some people really sounds like a political gambit. I sincerely doubt that a truthful and valid case can be made for that argument. I need an education here. Tell me why I need an id to drive a car, but not one to identify who I am so that I may vote.

Dick

[dusty]

I'll bet you will see a large portion of that voting bloc with NO party affiliation. The only times we see bipartisanship in Congress is when their owners/bankers "need" a bailout. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. As long as they can get people to say crap like, "communist", "teabagger", "derstroyin Merika", "Kenyan", "Bush's fault", etc...the politicians win.



Oh and about Rush: His comments calling for public executions were made on December 24, 2003 with his lawyer present after his arrest. Comments were made to Andy Grainger.

"It's the only way to stop this scourge from infecting America," he said. "If there were no drug users, the dealers would be out of business. Am I right?"



He went on to say that rich people should be exempt from executions because they won't have to rob and steal to feed their addiction. (Of course he only wants to kill poor people).

"Say, for example, a rich white talk-radio host isn't going to knock over a liquor store, is he? He just needs a little help with back pain!" he boomed. "Now folks, that's not the same as some inner-city kid stealing to buy crack, is it? He's dangerous!"


He also said that if Obamacare became law, he would move to Costa Rica. So Mr. Limbaugh...I await your public execution and the sending of your corpse to Costa Rica. I bought two of your books and listened to you for years. Time I'll never get back, sadly.

I knew there was a reason why I had been resisting comment. You have just reminded me. I'll now return to that practice.

[frank81]

Yah, si, uh-huh, and so froth. But, the use of terms "always", "all", "all" taint the position when talking about individual human beings. Then throw in "clearly", "doped up", & "distraught", topping it all off with "profit motive", and good grief what a poser!

Looks like the onliest sane thing to do is to get and keep the Fed Gummint the heck OUT of it, altogether.

It's ironic. The Left has waged the somewhat successful campaign against the Family, ethics, morality and responsibility for decades and now that they've mainly destroyed the mainstay of comfort care for that dopey 80 year old cancer patient and his deranged (or was that distraught?) spouse, they grab the microphone and screech "we are here to help you!"

Yeah. Right.

My point here is...when one person in a pool of insured consumes more than their fair share everyone else pays for it. And the health care industry puts effort into you consuming more, so its a fact that it will happen and should not be ignored.

If we are forced to participate in a nationwide public insurance pool, it should be bare bones and cover the necessities. That way unwilling participants are not paying for high-risk, high-cost, low-reward procedures that are not necessary.

If you want more than that plan offers, buy supplemental insurance which is subject to market forces.

[frank81]

"Say, for example, a rich white talk-radio host isn't going to knock over a liquor store, is he? He just needs a little help with back pain!" he boomed. "Now folks, that's not the same as some inner-city kid stealing to buy crack, is it? He's dangerous!"

I have a few police officer friends that would beg to differ with Rush on that one. Pain pills skew up the tax brackets, and people you would never expect to commit theft do. Pain pills aren't expensive they are just harder to access. Pill poppers may not be committing armed robbery, but they do break in to doctor's offices and pharmacies and usually they are quite the opposite of an inner-city kid.

[joshh]

I have heard this argument many times and still don't understand it. If all citizens in a state are required to present a valid id in order to vote how does it only affect some individuals? Some arguments I have heard cite a difficulty in obtaining an id, could be but others do it. Maybe a birth certificate is required? Could that be a problem? If a person can make it to a polling place, could not that person make it to a location to obtain an id? Where is the problem here and why is it implied that only a certain segment of the population is affected? Please enlighten me.

People these laws effect:

Any student with an out-of-state ID. The laws as written specifically say it must be issued in the state they wish to vote in. This eliminates college students. Many states will not issue ID's to "non-permanent residents".

Anyone who can not afford to pay for an ID. It may not seem like much, but most states fees are over 3 times the hourly minimum wage. Should someone have to work 3 hours to pay for the right to vote?

Anyone over 67 that never had a need before now. They may not have a birth certificate and therefore are unable to get an ID, ever.

Anyone born at home in rural America that never needed a drivers license. They also won't have a birth certificate (blame their parents) and therefore can't get an ID.

Here is a website that helps show regular people prevented from voting. http://www.866ourvote.org/pages/think-g ... hink-again

[frank81]

I have heard this argument many times and still don't understand it. If all citizens in a state are required to present a valid id in order to vote how does it only affect some individuals? Some arguments I have heard cite a difficulty in obtaining an id, could be but others do it. Maybe a birth certificate is required? Could that be a problem? If a person can make it to a polling place, could not that person make it to a location to obtain an id? Where is the problem here and why is it implied that only a certain segment of the population is affected? Please enlighten me.

Unfortunately, stating that requiring an id disenfranchises some people really sounds like a political gambit. I sincerely doubt that a truthful and valid case can be made for that argument. I need an education here. Tell me why I need an id to drive a car, but not one to identify who I am so that I may vote.

Dick

The part of the voter ID arguement no one has yet to publically call BS on is...why is getting a photo ID so difficult but you have no problem registering to vote? Anywhere I've lived they've either been at the same location and done at the same time, or you had to go down to the court house to register to vote which was less convenient than the DMV.

[frank81]

When I was in college, as I understood it if you had an out of state ID you were still a resident at your parent's address and voted absentee. I didn't know anyone who registered locally to vote unless they decided to live their year-round.

And the unaffordable ID is a moot point...all you have to do is make the state ID's (DL without driving privelages) free. A lot of states already give you the first one for free and you only pay for replacements before the expiration date. I'm questioning where the true state ID and not the full DL is close to $30.

People these laws effect:

Any student with an out-of-state ID. The laws as written specifically say it must be issued in the state they wish to vote in. This eliminates college students. Many states will not issue ID's to "non-permanent residents".

Anyone who can not afford to pay for an ID. It may not seem like much, but most states fees are over 3 times the hourly minimum wage. Should someone have to work 3 hours to pay for the right to vote?

Anyone over 67 that never had a need before now. They may not have a birth certificate and therefore are unable to get an ID, ever.

Anyone born at home in rural America that never needed a drivers license. They also won't have a birth certificate (blame their parents) and therefore can't get an ID.

Here is a website that helps show regular people prevented from voting. http://www.866ourvote.org/pages/think-g ... hink-again

[dusty]

Photo ID's are not free in most locations

http://dmvanswers.com/questions/419/How-much-do-state-ID-cards-cost

nor are driver's licenses.

http://dmvanswers.com/questions/247/How-much-does-it-cost-to-get-a-drivers-license