Poor bastards are going to get screwed.
Everyone in this video will die as a result of their Trump vote.
Clinton, for all her faults, desperately tried to put through real healthcare reform in the 90's. Bill told her to stop because it was haemmoraging them votes.
Why didn't she run on that, at least in these places?

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Vox-Interview-with-President-Obama-about-Obamacare

Vox Interview with President Obama about Obamacare has been added as a related post - related requested by iaui.

Red states almost always vote against their own interests. They take more tax money than they give and rail against the programs that they themselves take the most advantage of. How they convince themselves that 'the other' is the welfare queen is beyond me.
What's crazy is, if Trump is to be believed (he's not) he's suggesting something like single payer, what else could 'everyone will be insured' mean? It can't possibly mean the subsidies and discounts go away, but the requirement for insurance remains, can it?
No sympathy for these people. They voted against having health care for the needy, then realized they ARE the needy. Karma's a bitch.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

Don't even try to imagine a world where Trump is coming up with a plan where "everyone is [actually] insured" aka a public-option for health insurance.

You're forgetting that Trump is a sociopathic liar in the purest sense of that psychological diagnosis. He will say n̶e̶a̶r̶l̶y̶ anything to get his way.

Hence the qualifier "IF Trump is to be believed (he's not)".
I have not forgotten who and what he is....but I also know he's capable of being goaded into trying to do almost anything with the smallest provocation....just like president Garrison.
Someone just needs to tell him he's not man enough to do single payer because he's afraid of the right, he'll start pushing it right away. ;-)

To quote Trump, "Sad!".

Don't bite a gift horse in the hand that feeds the mouth. Or some similar proverb.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Would be crazy if Trump plan is single payer healthcare ala expansion of Medicare. But nah, probably not - will be savings accounts ... and awful.

I suspect it'll be Obamacare without statelines, as the Kushner's (aka Ivanka) own Oscar Health, which is an ACA-exchange based company that would greatly benefit from such a policy.

It's not that hard. Copy Australia and have free public health for everyone.

Trump said he will "repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing".

These people bought into that. The average sifter (myself included) did not.

However, as someone who wants to see health care improve in the US, I think that a Trump presidency is likely to lead to things getting better (long term). Even if he massively screws up. Actually, sorta especially if he massively screws up.

These people had deductibles in the multiple thousands of dollars range. With a median family income of $16k per year. According to CNN, the premium for the standard package will be $296 per month on average. So for the people in the video, they'd pay about 20-25% of their yearly income on premiums, with another 12-15% out of pocket before they hit their deductible for any needed care. Sure, some insurance is better than no insurance, but these people have been living dangerously with no insurance for a LONG time. Thirty plus percent of your yearly wages vs rolling the dice? A bunch are gonna roll the dice.

So, option A -- a miracle occurs, and Trump actually follows through and replaces Obamacare with something that actually is better. My money isn't on this one, but if he pulls it off more power to him.

Option B -- the people in the video are right, and Trump and the GOP will lose interest in actually repealing the ACA when they realize that they are going to have a hard time actually making something better. I don't think this one is likely either, because I don't think they really give a shit. But you never know. This one would represent a slow stagnation and likely eventual death for the ACA (without any intervention in 2018 or 2020) as more and more people decide to roll the dice and go back to living uninsured.

Option C -- whatever "plan" Trump and the Republican Congress come up for to "replace" the ACA with is a trainwreck. The people in the video that did benefit from the ACA get screwed, at least short term. But the thing is ... "fool me once". Some of them would be pissed, and wouldn't forget. Some would blame Trump and the GOP. Some would remember Trump's answer to Kathy in the video -- that the ACA isn't perfect, but it could be improved. But that her Senator (a Republican) isn't talking about doing that, he's talking about dumping it.

Maybe a bunch of people get fooled again, and eat up whatever excuses Trump, the GOP, and Fox News feed them. But some will remember. And it doesn't take a whole lot to shift the balance of power -- popular vote totals are often just a few percentage points apart. I think it will be extremely hard for the GOP to avoid a major shakeup in midterms and/or 2020.

I wish I agreed, but the average right wing voter has absolutely zero memory when it comes to politics, and blames whoever Limbaugh or Jones tell them to....they blamed Obama for the recession that started well before he was elected, and the bailouts of Wallstreet that happened under Bush at Bush's behest (no, it also wasn't a Democrat idea, Bush went on TV and lambasted them for not supporting it and they caved) and the base just went 'oh yeah, it's Obama's fault and he did it on purpose....and he raised the debt in his first year more than all presidents before him combined'. Their willingness to blame their own failings on others means whatever Trump screws up, they'll gladly believe it's the left's fault and not Trump's.

This place (videosift) seems to be filled with a plethora of liberal ideals and videos about liberal ideals.

This is all just my opinion, but here it is none the less:
The simple reason these people voted Trump is these people don't WANT hand-outs and government cheese. But what they do want is someone who they feel will put the USA first and bring back jobs. They, for whatever reason, felt that would Trump over Hillary. If they had to hang Obamacare on a cross and sacrifice it to improve their long-term economic standing, then so be it.

It isn't like they really LIKED Obamacare, they were just FORCED to buy it.

For a group that CLAIMS they don't want handouts, they sure do have their arms outstretched, palms up constantly. Of course, they say a tax break isn't a handout (unless it's a tax break for, say, installing solar), they say social security isn't a handout, Medicare isn't a handout ('keep your government hands out of my Medicare' was my favorite tea party slogan).
True, the ACA wasn't voluntary, but all those other programs they use (and usually use more than they contribute, and more than "blue" states) are voluntary, so that argument falls flat.

Social security isn't a hand out. It is a HORRIBLE investment program that has been warped and disfigured from it's original purpose. At least people HAVE been paying into it for a LONG time. I'm not exactly surprised that they want to reap SOME sort of benefit for it.

Tax breaks (that favor specific companies or markets) are government handouts. Speaking of solar, how did our government handout for Solyndra do? Must have been a Red state... no?

Medicare as well is something that has been taken out of people's checks (you know, people with actual jobs) for a long long time. Again, not surprising that people expect to get something for that...

In my experience, in general country folk are very independent folk and are generally self reliant. If you want to find locations in the USA where people thrive off of governmental handouts, pick up a map that shows all the blue counties/parishes/districts/etc.

You cant fix stupid for voting for stupid.

Every social program is taken out of people's checks (unless those checks come from investments or inheritance), that's how they work, otherwise they would be called charities.
Yes, people have paid into those programs, some for a long time, but they want to contribute at 1970's rates and collect at 2016 rates, while defunding the programs. You see the problem, right? They were social insurance programs that now everyone wants to have pay out for them....this type of insurance is for those in need when they need it, not for the rich to use to pay every day expenses, it simply doesn't work when used that way.
Speaking of solar, how did the government programs we tried to keep all solar production from going to China work....not so bad. You can find a few failures, but there were far more successes for a net gain.
Again, if everyone takes from the social safety net as if it had been a savings account, it doesn't work. It's for the poor, there really needs to be a means test to collect, or it's doomed to fail.
In my experience, they like to say that, but then they raise goats for tax breaks, not for any product, and grow corn (or don't) for government handouts, and expect free or near free water at government expense, or use government land without paying (stealing from us all), etc. They are not nearly as reliant as they claim...and I come from Texas where we raised cattle and goats for exactly those reasons, not as livestock but as tax dodges, and that was the norm not the exception. Of course, my family would never in a million years have admitted that that was a handout, but it was.

And the argument is hilarious when paired with the accusations that 'others' that get government assistance are "takers" and welfare queens, but not them, they're just taking back what they think they put in (with interest and inflation added) when in reality they put in far less than they think and take far more than they admit.

It's a very subtle distinction, as far as I can tell. It's about hating the other who is less deserving. So---they can accept Obamacare/Kentucky Connect, but be furious about others because they feel that the other people accepting some sort of government benefit are LESS DESERVING...

I think.

And like the very nice lady who had her breast cancer treated says: "I didn't know the government was subsidizing my insurance"...

They tend not to know their own state's economic balance sheets and cash flow statements

Sequentially we just saw; an average member of the public certain that a bill would stay, followed by someone who works in media who said that she had utmost faith in the bill staying.

Am i Lord Stupid of Stupidville for thinking that there might be a connection there which should make sirens and alarm bells go off in our brains?

With respect to the senior correspondent at Vox, how in the name of Zeus' arsehole did someone so naive get to be in that position?

If she was so sure and casual about it, then probably the articles and/or people that she oversaw would have been just as flippant in their reporting, which in turn gave the reader the impression they didn't have to be concerned with keeping what they needed.

Holy cow!

So anyone with a history of having health insurance over the past decades knows the pain of annual rising costs and plan changes that offer less and less coverage.

But here we have people newly signed up on health care through the ACA, who experience rising costs and deductibles for the first time and believe it's because the program is no good.

It never even occurred to me that all the pre-existing problems in the health insurance industry would be viewed as unique to ACA.

We are ALL unhappy with what's been happening to our health insurance for the past couple of decades...you're experiencing the same pain we've all been dealing with for long before the ACA was created. This didn't start the day you first qualified for health insurance. How did the message get so mixed up?

And wtf!
You've never had a car...here's a car.
"The cost of gas keeps going up....the car you gave me is horrible."

Not that i doubt your very charming old-timey anecdotal evidence, but spending a few minutes on google and you'll find... you know... actual data.

Conservative sites will point to how much 'blue' states spend on welfare, ignoring entirely the differences in population, as well as the fact that far and away the poorest counties with the highest percentage of welfare recipients are indeed in red states. As well as states in general, who per capita have the most welfare recipients. It really isn't even close.

Don't take my word for it...

We took a gamble on Obama and his plan and it is collapsing under its own weight.

Cheep for the poor and not that affordable for for what you get. Not to mention deductibles are way higher under the current plan.

I don't know the true fix but this current plan is not working.

To be sure Obama wants a singer payer plan and the AFA is suppose to collapse so the next democrat ( Hillary) would finish the deal. But she lost .

Um, deductibles are way up from 100%? The uninsured had a 100% deductible, the insured had a steadily rising deductible before the ACA. It's true, cost and deductible have gone up....just as they have since the insurance industry began.
The true fix is single payer, where you remove the useless insurance industry that does nothing but raise cost and get in the way of treatment (all the talk of death panels back in the day, what do you think insurance adjusters that deny treatment are?). Without the insurance industry we instantly save 10-20% on healthcare, remove numerous roadblocks to treatment, and offer everyone good healthcare, saving more by keeping people healthier. Yes, some people's taxes would rise, others not, but overall it would be a HUGE savings that only costs us red tape.

Not that I doubt your old-timey anecdotal evidence either (since you failed to actually POINT to evidence). A simple google pulled up this:

[url redacted]Ugh - Nevermind. I see we can't post links.
www usgovernmentspending com / compare_state_spending_2016b40a
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2016b40a

Hmmmm.... California and New York, followed by Texas.

Now I haven't been able to find a welfare spending by County yet in Texas, but I would be willing to BET that the majority of that is in the major metropolitan areas, which happen to also be quite blue... I wouldn't be surprised if that were true in New York and California too, but I don't know those people like I know Texas.

Hahaha... he said a government program would be a huge savings. He made a funny. We could just run the whole Country's medical system like the VA!

@worm
you do realize that you literally just made @Januari 's point...right?

and i get it...government spending BAD.
government can't do anything blah blah blah...gotcha.

but instead of using the VA as an example of government malfeasance and incompetence,why not use medicare/medicaid?

the VA is run by the DoD and considering that during rumsfelds tenure they lost over a trillion american dollars..POOF..where is that money? nope..can't find it.the pentagon is a mess.

medicare/medicaid is run by the dept of health,which runs on a 3% overhead,has the ability to negotiate with pharmacuticals,and is a system that is already in place AND we all already pay in to.

see,
i am not a fan of obamacare.
i think single payer is the way to go,and the only way to go.
people like to make the comparison of obamacare insurance with car insurance.
forgetting that driving is a privilege...
breathing is not.

so if we take the "profit motive" out of health care.then the majority of people NOT covered would not wait until something dire or life threatening was going down with them to head to the doctor.preventive care has been shown to reduce medical costs dramatically.
see:norway
see:denmark
see:france
see:britain

while i understand many liberals defense of obamacare,i see it only a half measure that can easily be remanded and/or gotten rid of all together.however unlikely that may be.the threat will be enough.

people forget that obamacare was basically written by the heritage foundation in 1992.a right wing think tank and not much was changed (though the pre-existing clause was a positive).

they forget that then Governor mitt romney implemented a similar health care system in massechusetts.which saw steady increases in premiums yearly.

and here is the thing that really eats at me.
it is mandatory.

so here is my prediction:
obamacare is not going anywhere.
while it may be used as apolitical football and health insurance companies will use (and already HAVE used) the threat of leaving due to little or no money (this is a lie) in order to force the government to raise their subsidies.

this is corporate welfare on a scale that over-shadows the bank bailouts of 2007.which at final tally was over 17 trillion.

so obamacare is going nowhere because it is the goose that lays the golden egg,and the gift that keeps on giving.

oh there will threats,and over-politicizing,and wringing of hands,and committee meetings.

but that will be just for show.
we put the fox in charge of the henhouse,and the fox is gonna make damn sure it is going nowhere.

I'm all for free markets and free market solutions. My only problem with that as it applies to the medical industry is emergency and catastrophic situations, where you cannot price-shop and compare hospitals on the way to the emergency room.

In THOSE cases, the only way you can shop free market style, is insurance (or single payer I suppose, if you believe in Government products).

I still say if you want to get medical insurance costs down then the number one priority should be to find a way to make suing the medical industry for EVERYTHING not so profitable. I honestly don't know the solution to this, but it MUST be figured out and solved. As long as every patient walking through the door is a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit liability, medical costs are just going to keep climbing.

Figure that out, and allow the insurance industry to offer Catastrophic-only insurance policies. People really should be paying for their own doctor visits for the little things. The only way to make the free markets work is by knowing what you are paying for...

@worm
tort reform.
which is not unreasonable,considering it spawned its own cottage industry:ambulance chasers.
and i can agree,in principle,for catastrophic insurance.

but i still think if you are going to do it,don't be a pussy about it.
single payer all the way and we already have a system in place to accommodate single payer.

You might note that insurance is incredibly bad at paying for emergency room bills, even in one's they contract with (in network), because there's no incentive/requirement for the doctors to be under contract, so their bills are rarely covered at all, just like all the other departments in the hospital the emergency room doctors might use to treat you. That means you can't be an informed consumer of insurance, the hospital won't tell you what's covered and what's not until after they bill you.

A simple google search shows that lawsuits and insurance against them make up 2-2.5% of healthcare costs, health insurance, at least 20% . You don't even break even with tort reform (it's not free) but you make it FAR more dangerous by removing any incentives for doctors to follow good practices instead of the fastest most profitable treatments that make more money with no worry if it kills or mains you through malpractice, but you save >20% removing the insurance industry and only lose red tape and roadblocks against any expensive treatments one might need to live.

so are you saying that most of the over 20 million people that now have health care were forced? personally I don't think the vast majority of them are unhappy; there's only a very small part of the people that are seeing above average rate increases (about 3% if I remember correctly) and rate increases have been slowing overall; I know it's more complicated, but I would say focus on fixing that 3% and quit trying to burn it down

I do think there are a lot of liberal leaning people on here, but I don't think the door is closed meaning I'd be fine with more people and more varied ideas; I think most of the conversations are pretty respectful except for this one guy and he says some pretty crazy things; I think he may be just a troll anyway

That site is conservative run and compiled, and even so, just do the math, divide by population. Start with Alaska, firmly red.
But, much better, look at REAL numbers instead of that rabid Trump supporter's totally unverified numbers, these with the math already done for you at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

California spends $8,967 per person while taxing $7690 (honestly worse than I thought),
New York spends $9,940 and taxes $10,279.27,

Alabama spends $11,743 taxes $4,330,
Alaska spends $14,375 taxes $6,697 (I think only DC is worse),
Arizona spends $10,157 taxes $5,318,
Arkansas spends $9,635 taxes $8,578
(and because you mentioned them, Texas which spends $8,865 and taxes $8,421.59, not so bad)

....and that's just comparing the A's to what you would expect to be the most social service friendly firmly democrat states. Clearly, looked at per capita (the only way it makes sense) red states take far more than they give on average, then complain that they're supporting the inner city with their farm taxes, it's just not correct.

EDIT: and as mentioned above, I also know Texas, and the country folk are just as big welfare queens as the city folk, they just convince themselves that a corn subsidy isn't welfare, putting some pet goats on the property so you don't pay taxes isn't welfare, getting free water for their crops paid for by the government isn't welfare....it's just bullshit. If you take what you don't need, or don't pay your fair share, you're a taker, and that describes a HUGE portion of the right....largely your country folks.

So what your saying is... the places where the people are... have the most people on welfare...

MInd.... BLOWN...

Course they have the most people not on welfare too... and the most people who drink water and breath air... its almost like this was my exact point... as enoch pointed out.