WSJ: Trump Counties Among Those That Have Benefited Most From Obamacare

[DonViejo]

By TIERNEY SNEED Published DECEMBER 19, 2016, 10:31 AM EDT


A Wall Street Journal analysis of counties that have seen the biggest coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act found that those that supported Donald Trump were among those that benefited most.

Using Gallup data alongside the county typology from the American Communities Project, the Journal zeroed in on the eight county types where the level of insurance coverage had seen a bigger increase than the national levels.

"Six of those types — representing about 77 million people or 33 million votes, a quarter of the total cast — sided with Mr. Trump, some by very large margins," the Journal said.

Native American lands, which supported Trump by a 5 percent margin, saw a 14.8 percent increase in their insured, according to the Journal, compared to a 3.9 percent national average increase in insured. Working class country saw a 6.8 percent increase, while supporting Trump overwhelmingly, by a 46 percent margin. The other Trump supporting communities where coverage increased above the national average were "graying American," rural middle America, African American South and evangelical hubs.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wall-street-journal-trump-communities-obamacare

[marybourg]

1. Native Americans?

African American South ?

Supported Trump?

I was under the impression that these were Dem voters.

[hollowdweller]

2. Thing is poor people don't really vote, so those helped can't totally be blamed for the high % age

So really, when you think seriously about it, there isn't any real penalty for repealing Obamacare for the GOP because the majority of people who are actually helped by the medicaid expansion, which are the majority of newly insured are in the income bracket that does't vote



In the 2012 election, 80.2 percent of those making more than $150,000 voted, while only 46.9 percent of those making less than $10,000 voted. This “class bias,” is so strong that in the three elections (2008, 2010 and 2012) I examined, there was only one instance of a poorer income bracket turning out at a higher rate than the bracket above them. (In the 2012 election, those making less than $10,000 were slightly more likely to vote than those making between $10,000 and $14,999.) On average, each bracket turned out to vote at a rate 3.7 percentage points higher than the bracket below it.

This class bias is a persistent feature of American voting: A study of 40 years of state-level data finds no instance in which there was not a class bias in the electorate favoring the rich—in other words, no instance in which poorer people in general turned out in higher rates than the rich. That being said, class bias has increased since 1988, just as wide gaps have opened up between the opinions of non-voters and those of voters.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/income-gap-at-the-polls-113997

[uponit7771]

3. More proof this wasn't about economics, when there's a racist running a lot of people will vote for

... racist tribal reasons period.

I don't think its most... its enough and that's what would turn an election

[DeminPennswoods]

4. Then they have a surprise in store

I know there will be a lot of collateral damage, but I'm still on board with Trump voters having less access to healthcare and shorter lifespans.