What really causes health care costs to rise

Who voted Obama in?

The poor younger inner city less educated people living off the system.

The only demographic that was even is gender, men and women were close to even.

The older the voters got the less they voted for him.
39% of whites, 93% of blacks, 71% hispanics and 73% asians voted for him.
64% without high school diploma as opposed to 47% of college grads voted for him
60% of people making less than 50K a year as opposed to 44% of those making over 100K voted for him.
69% of people living in areas with more than 500K population voted for him while only 37% of rural are voters did.


Anyone get the real picture here?


Here you go!
 
NOT me.........I worked hard to get people to vote the opposite. I am lucky to live in a county that is majority republican.
 
Who voted Obama in?

The poor younger inner city less educated people living off the system.

The only demographic that was even is gender, men and women were close to even.

The older the voters got the less they voted for him.
39% of whites, 93% of blacks, 71% hispanics and 73% asians voted for him.
64% without high school diploma as opposed to 47% of college grads voted for him
60% of people making less than 50K a year as opposed to 44% of those making over 100K voted for him.
69% of people living in areas with more than 500K population voted for him while only 37% of rural are voters did.


Anyone get the real picture here?


Here you go!


Yes. If you're white, have a college education, make over 100k, and live outside of a city, your numbers
aren't going to win an election like 2012, most likely. So what?

I'm not sure where you're going with that. For sure, as the talking heads have been mulling over the
past few weeks, Republicans have a real demographic problem. Having policies that insist on
government staying out of citizens' lives unless it's their most intimate personal decisions certainly won't help.
 
Where I was going with that was the people living off the system (ie unemployment, welfare, obamacare, foodstamps , childcare, free college , ect) are the ones who voted for him. The people that are in a demographic that understand you work for what you want and or need didnt. The gov right now is about creating a society of voters that NEED to live off the system so in turn they HAVE to vote for liberals to support them.
 
Where I was going with that was the people living off the system (ie unemployment, welfare, obamacare, foodstamps , childcare, free college , ect) are the ones who voted for him. The people that are in a demographic that understand you work for what you want and or need didnt. The gov right now is about creating a society of voters that NEED to live off the system so in turn they HAVE to vote for liberals to support them.

So you're equating people that are not white, don't have a college education, make
less than 100k, and don't live in a rural area with people that live off the system?

Where would you find proof of that?
 
Obama has that info.

Just ask him for his campaigning for dummy's book.

Name address. Prison and graveyard info on the voters.
 
Part of what you are looking for Sturd....


From: Click here



Demographic
Welfare dependence in the United States is typically associated with female-headed households with children.[25] Mothers who have never been married are more likely to stay on welfare for long periods of time than their counterparts who have ever been married, including women who became separated or divorced from their partners.[26] In her study using data from the 1984 Survey of Income and Program Participation, Patricia Ruggles found that 40% of never-married mothers remained on welfare for more than two years, and that while the median time spent on welfare for ever-married women was only 8 months, for never-married women it was between 17 and 18 months.[27] Statistics from 2005 show that while only 1% of people living in married-couple families could be classified as welfare-dependent as per the government definition, 14% of people in single-mother families were dependent.[28]

Teenage mothers in particular are susceptible to having to rely on welfare for long periods of time because their interruption in schooling combined with the responsibilities of childrearing prevent them from gaining employment; there is no significant difference between single and married teenage mothers because their partners are likely to be poor as well.[29] While many young and/or single mothers do seek work, their relatively low skill levels along with the burdens of finding appropriate childcare hurt their chances of remaining employed.[14]

Black women are more likely than their White counterparts to be lone parents, which partially explains their higher rate of welfare dependency. At the time of the Moynihan Report, approximately one-quarter of Black households were headed by women, compared to about one in ten White households.[30] Ruggles’ data analysis found that, in 1984, the median time on welfare for nonwhite recipients was just under 16 months, while for White recipients it was approximately 8 months.[31] One year earlier, Bane & Ellwood found that the average duration of a new spell of poverty for a Black American was approximately seven years, compared to four years for Whites. In 2005, official statistics stated that 10.2% of Black Americans were welfare dependent, compared to 5.7% of Hispanics and 2.2% of non-Hispanic Whites.[28]

William Julius Wilson, in The Truly Disadvantaged, explained that a shrinking pool of “marriageable” Black men, thanks to increasing unemployment brought about by structural changes in the economy, leads to more Black women remaining unmarried.[32] However, there is no evidence that welfare payments themselves provide an incentive for teenage girls to have children or for Black women to remain unmarried.[33]

There is an association between a parent's welfare dependency and that of her children; a mother's welfare participation increases the likelihood that her daughter, when grown, will also be dependent on welfare. The mechanisms through which this happens may include the child's lessened feelings of stigma related to being on welfare, lack of job opportunities because he or she did not observe a parent's participation in the labor market, and detailed knowledge of how the welfare system works imprinted from a young age.[34] In some cases, the unemployment trap may function as a perverse incentive to remain dependent on welfare payments, as returning to work would not significantly increase household earnings as welfare benefits are withdrawn, and the associated costs and stressors would outweigh any benefits. This trap can be eliminated through the addition of work subsidies.[35]

Other factors which entrench welfare dependency, particularly for women, include lack of affordable childcare, low education and skill levels, and unavailability of suitable jobs.[25] Research has found that women who have been incarcerated also have high rates of social welfare receipt, especially if they were incarcerated in state prison rather than in county jail.[36]
 
So now "living off the system" = unmarried black mothers?

That makes as much sense as saying corporations with huge R&D budgets are
"living off the system". Companies like DynCorp, Navistar Defense, United Technologies,
SAIC, and General Dynamics, all live off the american taxpayer.

Those "living off the system" companies employ millions. I'll bet slightly more than 50%
of their employees voted for Obama. Just because that's how many americans voted
for him. Would be interesting to see numbers showing how they vote.

If the republicans had a candidate that wasn't a liar like Mitt and wanted to protect *all*
of our freedoms, he/she would win. They all, at least all the ones right now, think
there is only one amendment to the constitution and the rest can be infringed, particularly
if it means he/she can tell you what to do in your bedroom.

And just because I think it's funny, nothing to do with this thread, how about
this dork:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/steve-katz-marijuana-possession_n_2885697.html
 
So how many people do Latisha and Quinisha (sp?) employ?

If either party had a candidate that was'nt a liar they could'nt win. Honesty and politics do not go together.
 
Peanuts 1.jpgPeanuts 2.jpgPeanuts Cartoon.jpg


This is a perfect name for liberals!!! There are three cartoons; it wraps


Everything up in a nutshell. Excuse the pun!!!
 
So now "living off the system" = unmarried black mothers?

That makes as much sense as saying corporations with huge R&D budgets are
"living off the system". Companies like DynCorp, Navistar Defense, United Technologies,
SAIC, and General Dynamics, all live off the american taxpayer.

Those "living off the system" companies employ millions. I'll bet slightly more than 50%
of their employees voted for Obama. Just because that's how many americans voted
for him. Would be interesting to see numbers showing how they vote.

If the republicans had a candidate that wasn't a liar like Mitt and wanted to protect *all*
of our freedoms, he/she would win. They all, at least all the ones right now, think
there is only one amendment to the constitution and the rest can be infringed, particularly
if it means he/she can tell you what to do in your bedroom.

And just because I think it's funny, nothing to do with this thread, how about
this dork:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/steve-katz-marijuana-possession_n_2885697.html


You really like to just argue for arguing dont you? Are you someones wife? Lol.....J/K for another stereo type....

No, living off the system doesnt mean unmarried black woman. The demographics show that this type of person has the highest instance of being on welfare.

Lets face it, the percentage of voters that put him in office were either doing for pride in his color or because they wanted handouts.
 
If the republicans had a candidate that wasn't a liar like Mitt and wanted to protect *all*
of our freedoms, he/she would win. They all, at least all the ones right now, think
there is only one amendment to the constitution and the rest can be infringed, particularly
if it means he/she can tell you what to do in your bedroom.
l

Why so cryptic? Exactly what are you talking about? Please enlighten us with details, explanations and examples. Remember this thread began with an arduous reading assignment and chastising replies to those who seemly failed in their task.
 
This will end the discussion of Why cost of healthcare is so high:

We in America provide surgery free of charge to an uninsured domestic/naturalized terrorist.

That bastard shouldn't get an ounce of pain medication or sedation. Hand him the belt to bite on and cut his legs off without anesthetic. Then drag him through the streets and publicly hang him. I don't care how extremist anyone in the world is, they see that......they're gonna think twice about being a terrorist in America. You want Virgins? You're gonna suffer for them. Besides, wouldn't you want a bunch of sluts anyway?


But no let's treat him civilly....just as his bombs were very civil to law abiding citizens at a sporting event.
 
This will end the discussion of Why cost of healthcare is so high:

We in America provide surgery free of charge to an uninsured domestic/naturalized terrorist.

That bastard shouldn't get an ounce of pain medication or sedation. Hand him the belt to bite on and cut his legs off without anesthetic. Then drag him through the streets and publicly hang him. I don't care how extremist anyone in the world is, they see that......they're gonna think twice about being a terrorist in America. You want Virgins? You're gonna suffer for them. Besides, wouldn't you want a bunch of sluts anyway?


But no let's treat him civilly....just as his bombs were very civil to law abiding citizens at a sporting event.

But let's not give him the right to counsel. Oh, and let's not call it that but let's
put the entire Boston Metro area under martial law for a day to catch one loon
job that didn't cause as much damage as a hundred other thugs. And the powers
that be in those cases (first trade center bombing, 9/11, Oklahoma city, list goes
on and on) didn't need to shut down a city and search every citizen's house.

I can't believe the "protect the constitution" folks aren't rising up in full song about
that.

How many people in Watertown respectfully declined to have their house searched?

And to Georgie's point, if one guy in a Boston hospital is the problem with rising
health care costs, then I'm King George III.
 
Im sure people did decline.

This isn't happening for one guy. Thugs get into shootouts daily and end up getting liver transplants or other organ transplants after they have been shot. Why should hardened criminals have access to this? So a cop can handcuff them to the bed and sit there on 24/7 surveillance for how many weeks as he spits kicks and curses the doctors, nursing and allied health staff?

Makes sense to me!
 
Sturd, so now you are defending the men in the Boston bombings? Its known they did it, the one left alive should be shot in the head on national news. Would make these idiots think twice before killing innocent people. So you love Obama, who is destroying this country day by day. And exactly as Hershey says helping the moochers and worthless freeloaders in this Country. He has and does nothing for the people that do well and work our a***s off other than increase taxes and help the freeloaders. And if you dont agree with Hersheys numbers on who voted him in you are out of your mind
 
The second amendment, the only one that seemed to be important to Mitt.

Even that one I didn't trust him on. He'd tell anybody anything to get elected.

They're all important to me.

You trust Obama on the Second Amendment. Ha ha ha ha!
 
I can't believe the "protect the constitution" folks aren't rising up in full song about
that.

Your media doesn't cover it. You don't hear about it. It never happened.

Amazing just how easy it is to be blissfully "low information" through selective media coverage.
 
Back
Top