General Question

josie's avatar

Why did you vote for Hillary Clinton?

Asked by josie (27264points) December 27th, 2016

To be fair, I asked the “antithetical” question as well. http://www.fluther.com/197635/why-did-you-not-vote-for-hillary-clinton/
Note, this is in General.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

111 Answers

cinnamonk's avatar

Because I value my rights.

josie's avatar

That’s a good answer.
Which ones are you talking about?

cinnamonk's avatar

My human rights.

If I am ever in a position to need an abortion but can’t get one, I will kill myself.

cinnamonk's avatar

I also “believe” in science, and think the president and his cabinet should, too. In fact, I think it should be a requirement. I know, controversial opinion.

filmfann's avatar

I thought Hillary was extremely qualified, and Trump wasn’t. HRC spent a lot of time and energy protecting and supporting women’s rights, while The Donald was well known for cheating his contractors, committing vile acts on women, and running a campaign based on ego, lies, racism, and greed.

josie's avatar

Nobody, not even Donald Trump, is going to stop you from having an abortion.

That train has left the station.

Just like nobody is going to make the a Second Ammendment go away.

cinnamonk's avatar

Mike Pence will. Take a look at what he’s done in Indiana.

cinnamonk's avatar

Do you truly think this administration will be benign to women? Especially low-income women, of whom I am and will probably always be one?

josie's avatar

@AnonymousAccount8
How is the VP of the United States going to block you from having an abortion?
Regardless of what they did as a governor of a podunk midwestern state

josie's avatar

My apologies to my friends from Indiana

cinnamonk's avatar

Donald Trump has promised to appoint a supreme court justice who will overturn Roe vs. Wade. Do you suffer from selective memory?

Are you also suggesting that we should just disregard everything Mike Pence did as governor of Indiana because it’s a “podunk midwestern state” of little overall significance?

cinnamonk's avatar

Donald Trump disgusts me, and so does everyone who voted for him.

josie's avatar

What is the pending Court Case that will over turn the law of the land?
That’s OK.
Enjoy your Kool-Aid

cinnamonk's avatar

So you think we shouldn’t take Trump’s campaign promises seriously? Why not?

cinnamonk's avatar

Enjoy your deluded ignorance.

josie's avatar

Hooyah. Will do.

Pachy's avatar

I appreciated her world-stage experience.

DominicY's avatar

Because I believed that she would’ve made a better president than Trump, one who was more in line with my own values and what I believed would be better for the country. Ultimately I preferred Bernie Sanders to Clinton, however. And in some ways I think the Democrats now deserve Trump after they elected the one candidate who couldn’t beat him.

JLeslie's avatar

I voted for Hillary because years ago when she tried to address healthcare she was digging into costs, and insurance rules that were illogical, I hope she would do the same now.

I voted for her because I believed her husband to be moderate to conservative on fiscal matters, and I hope by osmosis she is too.

I voted for her because I believe her to be very smart, and that she has an understanding about many parts of the world, and I believe she cares about America.

I voted for her because she will protect abortion rights.

I voted for her because she is a supporter of the public school system.

I voted for her because I can’t be sure what Trump is really going to do. He worried me that he would say something wild to some other country’s leader and really piss them off. I hold out hope that he in private is very good at dealing with leaders, knows a lot of people in power both politically and monetarily, and most of his schtick is just that, schtick.

Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with Hillary on more than one thing, butt he above are the main reasons I voted for her.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Somewhere is a place for delusional (Anti-Democrats). The incoming executive phalanx will take all of us back to the 1940’s,
~ ~Maybe you’ll notice the interment camps and GAS CHAMBERS.
Women and people of color will be negatively impacted.

Cruiser's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Somewhere this became a place for disgruntled scared Dems to cower and think the sky is falling…how about a group hug so that we all get crushed by the sky together. I would like to expect a more sensible responses to the situation we all are finding ourselves in…but Fluther is a fantasy land unto its own that I am none too surprised by the helpless hysteria pervasive in the answers offered here. Since when did American’s roll over and give control of their country to a President? Seriously! Get a grip people… take ownership of your lives. Trump is just your President….do yourself a favor and do not surrender your destiny to a Cheeto! You have a voice as I do….we may not agree on things but we still have a say in the direction this county heads. Quitecherbitchin and do something about it!

johnpowell's avatar

You have a short memory.

“Somewhere this became a place for disgruntled scared Dems to cower and think the sky is falling…”

That has been the last 8 years if you read Redstate. And if you go back further 2000–2008 on DemocraticUnderground. It always happens. The difference is Trump is a fucking lunatic. Bush never said shit like we have nukes so why not use them. I disagreed with Bush on nearly everything. But I didn’t think he would launch a nuke to see what would happen.

Cruiser's avatar

This “lunatic” just beat the pants-suit off the best of the best the Dems put forth to win the Presidency. He is owed a bit of respect for his achievement. He likes his toys more than you or I will ever know and IMO is extremely doubtful he would ever launch a nuke to jeopardize his ability to grab some pussy….go get some sleep.

Seek's avatar

He’s not owed anything. I look forward to his impeachment trial.

LostInParadise's avatar

I voted for Clinton because I despise Trump. Even apart from his political views, he is a crude narcissistic xenophobic racist misogynist. There is nothing in his talking that raises him above the crowd. He uses vocabulary suitable for a fifth grader. He is constantly bragging. He can’t keep from lying. For example, he said that his electoral college win was the greatest ever, when the historical record says it was below average. Obama bested him twice.

I am embarrassed to think that Trump is going to represent our country.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Voting is an illusion of power, that you don’t really have.

The electoral college could potentially vote to elect Hillary. It won’t happen, but the fact it could makes this NOT a democracy.

In the best country in the world a candidate won,by losing by 2 million votes….

Nuff said…....It’s all B.S.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“I am none too surprised by the helpless hysteria pervasive in the answers offered here”
I’m not either.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I voted for Clinton because her opponent was and remains clearly delusional. Those who believe the puffed up pomposity and trademark “verbal missteps” mere minor irritants or vote garnering techniques overplayed by a hostile press, those folks should consider the implications in a man who will lie blatantly and transparently to your face, invent preposterous facts at random, and preach interminably on a brilliance of genius visible only to himself. Trump either believes these pronouncements or he doesn’t. If he does believe the nonsense, he is clearly certifiable, and if he does not, then he may legitimately assume those gobbling it up to be the fools they undeniably are. The mistake common to most supporters of the puffed up gasbag is that they assume these tendencies but theatrics. They dismiss it all as antics aimed at the duller of their brethren while complimenting themselves on their exclusion from the crowd of dummies the rhetoric is designed to incite. But if a man plays to simpletons, what does it say about those who would reward him with their votes?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I still don’t think the left is hearing the “fuck you” being broadcast through the loudspeakers by poor factory workers, white middle class families, small buisiness owners, struggling rural communities and out of work rust belt auto union members. This was done over the voices of republicans. They have been saying fix the economy for decades and when neither party took it seriously they are now in the process of burning it down. Trump winning was no surprise and until politicians, pundits and activists start focusing on the economy wrenches like Trump will continue to be thrown into the political gearbox. Trump was them taking a big dump right in the center of it all. Using his words a Trump presidency is going to be a “disaster” and even people who voted for him know it. All the left can do is say look at what all of these idiots have done to us the right can’t even pick its jaw up off the floor yet the shock is so deep. I mean how much louder do these demographics have to yell to get people to stop focusing on who gets to use which bathroom when the godamn building is on fire? I cannot believe it is to this point but since this is likely to end pretty badly and likely with his impeachment perhaps the economy will not take a back seat as it has for thirty years or so when the next guy gets in office.

Dutchess_III's avatar

She was the only logical choice.

cinnamonk's avatar

She was the only qualified candidate. Nonetheless, I am none too surprised by the comments sticking up for Mr. Grab em by the Pussy.

rojo's avatar

I did not vote “for” Clinton. I voted “against” the Republican candidate and the ideals that he stood for. It didn’t hurt that I detested him as a person either.

Dutchess_III's avatar

One thing that made me comfortable with voting for her is that both Obama and Bernie backed her.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I voted for Hillary Clinton because, first and foremost, I vote for the platform, not the personality, and the Democratic platform aligns with my own views, convictions and principals much more so that the Republican platform has in my lifetime. That I consider Trump recklessly unfit for the office is another matter, but it’s not as if I would have voted for any other Republican candidate.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@DominicY “And in some ways I think the Democrats now deserve Trump after they elected the one candidate who couldn’t beat him.”

Except she did beat him. She beat him by more than two and a half million votes. The candidate who folks keep insisting was “unelectable” did, in fact, win the election of the American people by one of the largest margins in history.

@Cruiser “He is owed a bit of respect for his achievement.”

He is owed as much respect as conservatives have shown Obama. Don’t like it now that the shoe is on the other foot? Tough titty.

Cruiser's avatar

@Darth_Algar I completely disagree….Obama just had to beat the Conservatives….Trump had to beat not only the Liberals but his own conservative base. Quite the achievement that Obama could not hold a candle to. Tough Titty sir sucks to lose the way you did…I can only imagine how irritated, upset and pissed off you are…Get some rest….it will be a long eight years….trust me I know. ;p

Darth_Algar's avatar

You can presume upon how you imagine I must feel, but you are, as usual, dead wrong.

Cruiser's avatar

Well I accept that @Darth_Algar but your comments on this thread belie your last statement.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser

How do you figure?

Cruiser's avatar

@Darth_Algar “That I consider Trump recklessly unfit for the office is another matter, but it’s not as if I would have voted for any other Republican candidate.”

“Except she did beat him. She beat him by more than two and a half million votes. The candidate who folks keep insisting was “unelectable” did, in fact, win the election of the American people by one of the largest margins in history.”

She only beat him in the popular vote. I consider you a smart man…smart enough to know that if all we needed to do was count popular votes then California, New York, Florida and Illinois would be the only state a Democratic Presidential candidate would need to win the election. How is that fair to the other 46 states? Seriously now! Our Founding Fathers were incredibly smart…try giving them a little credit. Let’s continue…

“He is owed as much respect as conservatives have shown Obama.” Sounds to me like you are disgruntled, perhaps even disenfranchised and would like to see a bit of comeuppance to me!? Do you need a hug?

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Cruiser . If were you I wouldn’t brag about my own bad decisions.

JLeslie's avatar

@Cruiser What happens if CA, NY, FL, and IL are all close to 50/50 in the popular vote? FL this time is practically 50/50. How does that unfairly favor democrats or republicans? Except that all the elector votes go one way.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser

Is it not a statement of fact that she won the popular vote? Some folks keep insisting that she wasn’t electable, but the people did, in fact, elect her.

I do give the Founding Fathers credit. Much more so that you do with your revisionist history. Did you know when the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College that Illinois, Florida and California did not exist? That there were only thirteen states, that the vast majority of the population was rural, and that the nation’s major cities – New York, Boston and Philadelphia – were not that large. New York, the largest city in the United States was, at the time, around 30,000 people. Certainly nowhere near large enough to determine a national election (the entire population of the US was, even at that time, a few million).

Contrary to the modern practice the Electoral College was never intended by the Founders to merely rubber stamp their state’s vote. Were that the case then there would be no need for Electors. Nor for them to convene and cast their votes individually. Instead a state’s Electoral votes would simply be automatically assigned. No, it was intended that the members of the Electoral College would consider their choice and vote in accord to their own wisdom, regardless of how the people of their state voted.

Tell me – do you think it fair that a handful of counties in a handful of swing states should rule the election over the will of millions? If it’s such a great system then why is it not employed in other elections? Why only the presidential election? Why not, say, elections for state governorship as well? Afterall, why shouldn’t the 6,000 people of Pulaski County get a say in our governorship over the 5,000,000 people of Cook County?

For the record – I’ve been opposed to the Electoral College since I started voting two decades ago, not just since election day this year.

” Sounds to me like you are disgruntled, perhaps even disenfranchised and would like to see a bit of comeuppance to me!? Do you need a hug?”

Nah, I just find it funny to see the same folks who have spent the past 8 years slinging all manner of vitriol, disrespect and hatred towards Obama are now insisting that we should respect Trump because he is/will be the president. Tell you what – respect is earned, not owed, so I’ll accord Donald Trump the same respect that he gives to others.

And no, I don’t need a hug, but if his Twitter feed is anything to go by your president-elect might. He seems like a sensitive lad who’s feelings are easily hurt.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Trump’s all heart.~

Russia needs to hack and disable Twitter so their boy doesn’t talk his way out of office before he gets in…

Cruiser's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I admit I have made my share of lousy decisions….I have yet to see you do the same.

Cruiser's avatar

@Darth_Algar If you expose your disdain for the electoral college then I will have to bite my tongue as to how you factor in to a fair and equitable vote for the tiny states that deserve an equal voice in the election of our President who is assigned the responsibility to speak for both me and you. I am OK with this…why are you not?

JLeslie's avatar

@Cruiser Why such an obsession by state? I understand we are the United States and each state deserves representation and some autonomy, but when it comes to POV on issues why isn’t it about the people? I’m all for two senators per state to provide some balance for small states, but for the electoral college? It makes little sense to me. There is farmland in many states, there is rural land in many states, there are small towns in all states, there are large cities in more states than just CA and NY. Who should have the power in IL? Chicago or the Bible Belt part of the state? With the electoral college only one gets represented in the end. Most states have mixtures of people. With the popular vote the state border doesn’t matter. That seems like more fair representation. Congress gets to present issues for their state and fight for said issues.

Cruiser's avatar

Geeze @JLeslie of all people I thought you would have a grasp on the concept of the electoral college. It is not at all about the issues as it is about representation of each state feels reflect the issues that affect them individually. What is great for California may just suck for South Carolina.

If we had the Presidential vote today or a month ago what state would have yielded the most votes for either candidate? California for Hillary by millions more votes than the next 30 small state combined. Add in Florida, NY and my Dem State of Illinois and we have Hillary as the victor by a landslide. Tell me how is that fair to the other 46 states?

JLeslie's avatar

^^That’s this election. Some states go from red in one election to blue in another. What exactly are we talking about that the President should be elected by electors in a state? Federal money to the state? If you’re talking about laws like abortion, gay marriage, even back in the day Jim Crow laws, I find it pretty annoying that an individual citizen has different civil rights depending on what state they live in.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^We’ve debated the EC before. This is thread pollution. I’ll be writing you both citations…

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser

I posed a few questions to you. Could you do me the courtesy of addressing them?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser ” It is not at all about the issues as it is about representation of each state feels reflect the issues that affect them individually.”

That’s what the Congress is for.

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 We have both been on those Q’s. Save yourself the time.

rojo's avatar

I understand the electoral college and the supposed reason it exists. I just don’t agree with it. Why are the the votes of the voters in more populous states not counted or discounted? I am not going to insult your intelligence and point out that states don’t vote, people do. But you, and many others, keep making the argument about the representation of those persons in the smaller states but you don’t give a damn if the views of people in the more populous states are also represented.
Every other elected official from the dogcatcher to the members of Congress in the United States is elected by popular vote. It is about time the President was too. And, to my way of thinking, we should also get a separate vote on the VP too,. Why does the person running for president get to choose who will succeed him in case of accident? Why not the people?

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’ve said it before. I think we should have three presidents with equal power. Congress does very little checking and balancing. Maybe a change at the top would even things out…

Cruiser's avatar

@Darth_Algar I have distanced myself from your apparent disregard or stubborn refusal to understand and/or accept the nuance and genius of the electoral college.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m pretty sure if Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote this conversation would be very different.

JLeslie's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me You think both sides would be different? I know a lot of Democrats who have argued for a direct popular vote since way before Gore/Bush and Hillary/Trump.

Strauss's avatar

Back to the OP:

There are several reasons why I voted for Hillary Clinton. I did not drink the Kool-Aid that her detractors have been passing out for the last decade or two. She is an experienced politician and diplomat who, despite millions spent on investigations, has never been found guilty, or even brought to trial on any charges.

I also did not drink the Kool-Aid that was being handed out about Donald Trump. For years I’ve seen his actions as the actions of an egotistical megalomaniac whose first allegiance is to himself.

I’ve seen the “American ship of state” steered so far to the conservative right that we’re in danger of losing whatever social and political progress we’ve made in the past century and actually becoming a regressive society.

When business is run by the government it’s called Communism. When business runs the government it’s called Fascism. Capitalism is that narrow path, the high ground between two slippery slopes

Mariah's avatar

Because the ACA saved my life, and Trump said he was going to repeal it and replace it with “something terrific.” That’s an actual quote, look it up if you want. Since “something terrific” is not a lot of information to go by and seems to indicate that he had no actual plan, I could only assume the benefits that are keeping me alive were going away if Trump won. I had to vote for Hillary for my life. I did not have the option to consider a third party conscience/protest vote. I have major problems with all the third party candidates anyway.

I voted for Bernie in the primary and wish he would have won it, but Hillary would have been a fine president and I was happy to support her.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Trump will be impeached. He’s been sneaking around behind the law for so long, and getting away with it as a private citizen, that he thinks he can keep doing it now.

I second Maria ”....Hillary would have been a fine president and I was happy to support her.”

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I strongly suspect the ACA will become very expensive for consumers in the long run. Certain prescription drugs are already going up to insane levels. The ACA does little to curtail insurance and big pharma corruption and abuse. I don’t really want a single payer system but what we have now is going to choke us out eventually.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The ACA isn’t what is going to become expensive. People don’t pay into the ACA. They pay into their insurance companies, and no, the new laws don’t put a cap on premiums. But rising rates is not the fault of the ACA. It’s what the insurance companies decided to do. Some of them, anyway. I didn’t notice any increase in my insurance premiums.

@Cruiser….have you priced out other insurance companies? Your rates seem ridiculously high.

LostInParadise's avatar

This article suggests that the reason the Republicans are so anxious to repeal the ACA is that it is gaining momentum. The site is left wing but the numbers speak for themselves.

Mariah's avatar

The ACA is expensive and can be improved, but simply tearing it down will kill people and is unconscionable, and Trump demonstrated zero indication of having a plan to replace it. The ACA should be improved upon, not destroyed.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Trump NEVER seems to have a plan. He just makes up stupid shit he thinks people want to hear,then stumbles out of the subject.

The VAST majority of his claims are completely unfeasible. And whenever he’s been asked to explain how he plans to accomplish them,he usually gets angry,or tries to change the topic .

For someone who lied and deceived his entire life, he’s really bad at it….

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“People don’t pay into the ACA”
Ahhh yes they do. The ACA mandates how funding flows in the healthcare system.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The country has to pay for the poor. One way or the other. Either something like the ACA or by money having to be spent on uninsured ER visits,surgeries, or hospital stays.

It’s not a choice…. When will people get over that.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Can you be more specific, @ARE_you_kidding_me? How does it do that?

Cruiser's avatar

@Dutchess_III The rich pay for it through an additional Medcare tax rate of .9% on their higher income over $250,000.00

Strauss's avatar

@Cruiser How is that a bad thing?

Cruiser's avatar

@Strauss I never said it was a bad thing. I am very grateful to be one of the lucky ones who pay this tax.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Medicare and Medicaid have always been funded through taxpayers, since they came into being in the 60’s. And it’s not just paid for by the rich. Even the very poorest paycheck has SS and FICA deducted. Their extremely low income may exempt them from paying state and federal income tax but they ALWAYS pay SS and FICA. Doesn’t matter if the check is $50 or $500,000, they pay SS and FICA.

@ARE_you_kidding_me suggested we fund the ACA. We don’t. We fund Medicare and Medicaid, always have, but we don’t fund private insurances. That’s what the individual premiums do.

The ACA is a set of laws, anyway. We don’t fund it any more than we fund the Constitution.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Edited by me.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Dutch, we do fund it. We pay insurance premiums. Every last one of us with a healthcare plan. The ACA has been a mixed bag but mostly caused a lot of red tape, increased costs for some but decreased costs for others. Long-term it cannot stay as is, not until we wrestle control from big pharma and insurance giants.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser

Or you could just be honest and admit that you have no rebuttal.

Strauss's avatar

@Cruiser I am very grateful to be one of the lucky ones who pay this tax.

I like your attitude toward that. Although you and I many times see each other from opposite sides of many issues, we seem to agree that this is a way that we “promote the general welfare”, to quote the preamble to the Constitution.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Yes, we pay insurance premiums. We fund our own insurance. In my case, we fund BCBS. Always have.

We do not NOT fund the ACA! That’s like saying we fund the Constitution. We don’t fund the constitution. We do fund the results of it though, such as laws and jails and things. But we don’t fund the Constitution itself.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They don’t even know WHY they want to repeal it. They just do. God @Mariah. I’m so sorry. I doubt it will affect me, but I know it will affect you and millions of others.

JLeslie's avatar

I just watched the movie Sicko again, it happened to be on TV, and it was a reminder of how horrible our system was, and continues to be. The movie obviously is very biased and very edited to show the good everywhere else, and the crap system in the US, but for me one of the very telling scenes was a clip from a doctor who worked for an insurance company admitting she basically let people die.

It’s a short clip.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Mariah . You won’t be the only one affected by losing the ACA with no replacement plan.

I too will have to figure out how to live without it. And it’s going to be really hard… I had almost put myself in position to start to open my own business, and get ahead for once(where I could afford my own insurance ). If they take the ACA ,at best I’ll be further behind. At worst…I don’t want to think about it.

I do take some comfort however in the fact that they (McConnell & Republicans )
have been trying to derail the ACA from before it was even passed. Hopefully that means that they already have several ideas of how to proceed without 24 million people getting cut off…

Hope is all we have now. Keep hope alive and we have a chance.

You and I, and others like us will get through this somehow….

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Dutch, the ACA mandates that certain things are covered for certain people. This money is not paid out of insurance company profits it comes from insurance premiums from other people or employer paid premiums. If people don’t get insurance they are taxed. This cashflow makes up what the ACA is. Here is a fair assesment of where we are with the ACA in very basic english.

I really, really don’t like how this works through insurance companies. Five years ago I would have never, ever, ever imagined I would have been for a single payer system. I think we need to consider something like it with the caveat that people can still opt to pay out of pocket or a plan external to it. We don’t want to be where some countries are that have a system that is essentially bogged down in claims and red tape. If someone needs an MRI or cancer treatment they need to get it as soon as they can. We need to look at why certain costs are so high because it is obvious some things are waaaay out of line. Prescription drug gouging is a blatant example. There is no real direct solution to healthcare.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I know that @ARE_you_kidding_me! Why do you keep repeating yourself? The ACA is a set of laws. Insurance companies have always been governed by laws. But the way you’re approaching it is odd. It’s like saying we “fund” the Americans With Disability act, or we “fund” the 1st Amendment. We don’t fund them directly, because they’re just laws. We may fund the outcome in some ways.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Dutch, understand that after the ACA insurance has changed in a fundamental way. Your premiums are not based on your actuarial assesment the way they used to be. They are using you to subsidize members or you are being subsidized by other members at a much higher degree thanks to the ACA.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That’s fine.

MrGrimm888's avatar

When you have no insurance, you get charged EXPONENTIALLY more than an insured person in an ER. (LOOK IT UP.)

The hospital charges more to the uninsured because of the reduced likelihood that the bill will be paid statistically. THE POOR PAY FOR THE POOR,and the taxpayers pay for the poor.

Either we ruin lots of people’s lives with medical bills from afflictions they didn’t ask for ,or we pay for their care,one way or the other…

Dutchess_III's avatar

That wasn’t my experience during the years I spent as an uninsured adult. Everything from the doctor’s visits to the prescriptions were charged under some rule for the uninsured, and I paid less. I still paid more than those with insurance paid for, but not as much as I would have had I had insurance and just didn’t use it.

And I think it’s the other way around. They stick it to those with insurance, because they know the majority of the bill will be paid.
When I went into the hospital for 2 weeks in November of 2012, the bill was $250,000. I had insurance. The hospital was charging $35 for an aspirin!
I was sure I was going to end up with a $20,000 out of pocket expense bill…but I didn’t. I only had to pay $1,900!

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I have paid for prescriptions out of pocket before because it was cheaper not to use insurance. These new rules are making healthcare cheaper for people who could not otherwise afford it but it’s making it more expensive for the middle class across the board.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t see a change in my rates.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Mine doubled but they were very low to begin with. My employer paid portion though was a substantial increase. Shortly after that we lost our pension benefit.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Boeing quit their pension program in the late 80’s I believe. I think my sister is grandfathered in, though. She’s one of the lucky few. I don’t think anyone has pension programs any more.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m certain that was all the excuse they needed to give it the axe.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What excuse is that?

Strauss's avatar

The excuse that St. Ronald’s “trickle down” theory failed added to the fact that regulations governing pension funds were relaxed to the point of non-existence.

To paraphrase Rev. Al Sharpton: We never got the trickle, but we sure got the down!

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Dutchess_III The ACA increasing their costs for employee benefits.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course pensions have been eliminated while executive compensation packages rocket through the stratosphere. ALL of it comports to the prime directive. WHICH class has the most to gain from the elimination of (fill in the blank). ACA, social security, unions, school lunch programs, public education——. Who stands to gain if you “privatize” the Grand Canyon?

Dutchess_III's avatar

The ACA wasn’t around in the 80’s when Boeing cut pensions out @ARE_you_kidding_me.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Sometimes I wonder what you are talking about. I was not even working in the 80s, my pension was cut shortly after the ACA rules went into affect.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I said, Boeing quit their pension program in the late 80’s I believe. I think my sister is grandfathered in, though. She’s one of the lucky few. I don’t think anyone has pension programs any more..

You said, I’m certain that was all the excuse they needed to give it the axe.

I asked “What excuse is that?”

You said, @Dutchess_III The ACA increasing their costs for employee benefits.

I pointed out that Boeing cut pensions long before the ACA.

Cruiser's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Boeing cutting pensions whenever they did was a survival move that had nothing to do with health care costs and more to do with Unions and the higher Union wages and legacy costs and trying to stay competitive and survive. It is a stark reality very few Liberals are willing to accept. The Auto workers accepted this reality when the Big 3 faced bankruptcy and the ACLU bent to accept a deal that mean new hires had wages in line with foreign competition as well as reduced benefits. It worked for all involved and I suspect a similar outcome transpired with Boeing.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Fuck. I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Boeing.

My employer used increased benefit costs as an excuse to cut my pension.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me If you didn’t work for Boing-Boing than you didn’t have your pension ending in the 1980’s.

If you lost a pension in the last ten years you still didn’t work for Boing-Boing.

Cruiser's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Take a breather…I was using Boeing and the big 3 as a classic and now cascading example of what has and is happening all around us. The steel mills laid off 10,000 jobs because the unions refused to budge which left the mills no choice but to lay off all those workers. Their only hope on their horizon is Trump’s overture to reduce regulations which should reduce the mills overhead which should then allow the mills to honor their benefits agreements with the steel workers unions. Unions and meaty retirement benefits are proving to be very toxic to many industries who are faced with competition and lousy trade deals over the past decade. Foreign entities have gleefully devoured our non-competitive manufacturing. Truly sorry your pension was a victim of this trend and let’s hope the trend reverses.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me “My employer used increased benefit costs as an excuse to cut my pension.”

Quite right. Your employer used the ACA as an excuse. Blame your greedy employer, not the ACA.

Strauss's avatar

@Cruiser The steel mills laid off 10,000 jobs because the unions refused to budge.

If you look a little further back, you will find that the steel mills originally laid off workers in 1999 due to imports. When the tariffs on steel and other goods was lifted it was the death knell for industry in the United States.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Most large companies aren’t forced to lower,or eliminate benefits. They do it to maintain profit margins. Most can still do just fine,but they’re too greedy,or run by inept people.

Sometimes circumstances dictate that you’re going to make less profit. CEOs and other leaders refuse that reality. They’d rather let their employees take the hit. An understandable, but unethical strategy…
Many of those corporations could absorb most problems by laying off a few of their CEOs with multimillion dollar salaries,instead of mass layoffs.

Most blame external circumstances, but don’t be fooled. Most of those industries and companies could handle these obstacles, and treat their employees well. But that would mean making less money. Even though that less money would still be plenty, they do things like layoffs,or cutting benefits.

Those greedy, actions get people’s attention. It’s an effort by these large companies to pressure the government (by pressuring the people ) to stop whatever may be causing their profits to be less. The steel industry doesn’t like having to pay to adhere to pollution control. So ,instead of simply lowering profit expectations ,they take from their employees.

So, now Trump will relax the EPA standards,and the steel industry may hire more people. That’s great, but when the environment goes to shit ,where are those people’s children supposed to live? Dozens of large coastal cities will be under water. Billions will be fighting over what usable land is left,leading to wars. Cancer rates will increase due to air and water quality. Disease will spread easier on the congested remaining land. Mosquitoes will run rampant in the new warmer ,wetter climate, so the diseases they spread will also get worse.

All as a direct result of corporate greed.

Greed is what led to the bailout.

Greed is how Trump rose to power.

Greed is Trump and his new cabinet’s primary motivation.

Greed is why many of the rich will die wondering how their offspring will survive in the world they created,about 50 years from now….

Greed is the reason for the fall of almost every empire to have ever risen… If America falls, greed will again be the culprit…

Strauss's avatar

@MrGrimm888 They do it to maintain profit margins.

That’s what corporations are supposed to do. In any way that they are permitted or can get away with. And that’s why corporate regulation by government is so important.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Correct.

Capitalism has to be checked. Otherwise it cannot be self sustained.

I’ve said before. It grows too top heavy,and eventually falls over….

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther