3 ms·

Those elite, privileged liberal rubes in coastal cities primarily voted for a candidate who wanted to retain social programs that certainly helped those in rura

by colmvp 10y ago

Those elite, privileged liberal rubes in coastal cities primarily voted for a candidate who wanted to retain social programs that certainly helped those in rural areas. How many people in those rural areas voted for a party and leader who ran on repealing access to health care and social programs, who have no qualms about trying to reduce funding to Planned Parenthood and Meals on Wheels, and use the savings to provide significant tax cuts to the super rich and building a wall that everyone knew Americans would have to pay for? I mean, even Tucker Carlson effectively said to Trump, "The counties who voted for you will do far worse under your plan" and the Presidents response was "Oh, I know..."

jbhatab 10y ago
Just like the people who support planned parenthood trying to protect themselves, rural america voted for a person who had their interests in mind even if there were consequences. They were looking out for themselves because people in the cities certainly weren't.
- colmvp 10y ago
  I have nothing directly to gain from PP, Meals on Wheels, Medicaid, or the dozens of social programs that I don't have access to because of my gender, age, and income. I support them because as a society we all benefit when others can get access to help. In the case of PP, more than half of Planned Parenthood health centers are in rural or medically underserved areas. In the case of Medicaid, the ACA expanded coverage and federal funding to millions of Americans in rural America, specifically to states that enrolled. The states that chose to enroll experienced a decrease in patients skipping medications due to cost, a decline in difficulty paying medical bills and an increase in regular doctor visits for chronic illnesses. Their rural communities also had a lower rate of hospital closures as compared to rural communities in non-enrolled states. It is mind-blogging to read stories/interviews from rural Americans who benefited from this expansion, and yet in the same breath, will insult Obama and talk about repeal-and-replace, as if somehow the ACA didn't directly benefit them.

by colmvp 10y ago

jbhatab 10y ago

Just like the people who support planned parenthood trying to protect themselves, rural america voted for a person who had their interests in mind even if there were consequences. They were looking out for themselves because people in the cities certainly weren't.

colmvp 10y ago
I have nothing directly to gain from PP, Meals on Wheels, Medicaid, or the dozens of social programs that I don't have access to because of my gender, age, and income. I support them because as a society we all benefit when others can get access to help. In the case of PP, more than half of Planned Parenthood health centers are in rural or medically underserved areas. In the case of Medicaid, the ACA expanded coverage and federal funding to millions of Americans in rural America, specifically to states that enrolled. The states that chose to enroll experienced a decrease in patients skipping medications due to cost, a decline in difficulty paying medical bills and an increase in regular doctor visits for chronic illnesses. Their rural communities also had a lower rate of hospital closures as compared to rural communities in non-enrolled states. It is mind-blogging to read stories/interviews from rural Americans who benefited from this expansion, and yet in the same breath, will insult Obama and talk about repeal-and-replace, as if somehow the ACA didn't directly benefit them.