Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):Please explain further.
Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.
That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.
Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.