41% Support Health Care Legislation, 53% Oppose

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you in the individual insurance market or do you have insurance through your employer?

I have been self employed since 1980......I have BC/BS's Flex Blue policy with a $5000 deductible and a max $10,000 family co-pay and a HSA.....it covers myself, wife and two college students over the age of 18.....it costs me $573 a month

 

[TuTu Monroe]

you're joking, right?......

No, just ignorant of the facts.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The politicians understand it. It's retarded to suggest otherwise.

LMAO.... I would bet there isn't even ONE that understands everything in that bill. Hell, I bet not ONE has even READ the entire 2000 pages on their own.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Other polls are saying the same thing, so what is your excuse for that?

Exactly. No legitimate poll works that way, even taking into account the different ways questions are phrased, the population, etc.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

and there are many that know we are getting screwed agian by the elitist rich.
Doctors make $250,000 net annually, no cut for them but my 20something healthy kids are going to be mandated to buy these tools products.

Yea but your 20 something kids will oneday, god willing, be 70 something seniors, not to mention the odd 20 something that does a face plant hang gliding or rock climbing who doesn't have insurance that the rest of us carry the cost for.

You probably will see a standardizations in salaries coming as part of price control which would be part 2 of health reform and though certainly controversial it's a major element of what most other wealthy nations have done to control cost. There are some plusses to that. Specialist would make less income then they presently do but primary portal physicians would see an increase given their proven affectiveness in prevention and wellness that also reduce cost.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's not the case apple. Most people in the U.S. are happy with their health care service. The issue is the escalating cost and this reform being offered doesn't really address it.

You and others have claimed the reason people don't support this reform is because of lies. It's more people see what the reform is suppose to be and don't like it and don't want it. You (those who support this reform like Obama and Congress) have failed to sell the American people on why there proposal is so good.

This idea that people should just sit back and be told what's good for them because certain politicians know best doesn't cut it. That's the beauty (or downside depending on who you ask) of America.

That's not entirely correct Cawacko, you're only getting the half of it. Most Americans are happy with what they presently have but a huge number of Americans have nothing and therefore, no access and not only are they very, very unhappy but that are a big part of what is causing the cost to escalate.

There's also the fact that until you address the issue of financing access for those who do not have health care you can't really begin to address the issue of cost. You can't put the cart before the horse.

By the way. I'm not one of those that are happy. I work for a fortune 500 company and I'm well paid but my health insurance sucks. It only covers a major disaster, excludes most pre-existing conditions and pays next to nothing for most entry level primary services, has caps for catastrophic illnesses and costs me more now then it ever has for substantially lower level of service then in previous years and it's costing my company about 15% of it's gross expenditures. A rediculous sum and if I do have a catastrophic illness in my family it could cost me everything I've worked my whole life for. Something needs to be done and sticking your head in the sand aint the solution.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There's also the fact that until you address the issue of financing access for those who do not have health care you can't really begin to address the issue of cost. You can't put the cart before the horse.

.

That has to be the biggest pile of horseshit ever tossed upon this board.

The complete stupidity of it rivals Ditzies 1/3 'argument'.

You do NOT try to finance something until you know WHAT you have to finance.

If you have $1mm in revenue and $1.2mm in expenses, do you finance your 200k first or do you look to see if you can reduce expenses first?

If you KNOW you have $100k in expenses that are due to inefficiencies... do you go ahead and finance those? Or do you make the adjustments to cut those expenses?

Financing first before addressing the costs IS putting the cart before the horse.

 

[christiefan915]

Whether you trust Rasmussen or not, most polls are saying the same thing.

http://www.gallup.com/tag/healthcare.aspx

Gallup and Rasmussen aren't most polls, and Rasmussen skews to the right consistently. You're probably going to trot out the SOS about the 2004 presidential election, but any pollster has its share of successes and failures in calling results.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Gallup and Rasmussen aren't most polls, and Rasmussen skews to the right consistently. You're probably going to trot out the SOS about the 2004 presidential election, but any pollster has its share of successes and failures in calling results.

HAHAHAHA, you are quickly becoming the board's spinmaster. Total BS and you know it.

 

[christiefan915]

HAHAHAHA, you are quickly becoming the board's spinmaster. Total BS and you know it.

I don't have to spin. The facts speak for themselves. Furthermore, they admit that they've screwed up.

The Numbers Rasmussen Was Hiding

by Jonathan Singer, Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:44:25 PM EST

Last month I called out Rasmussen Reports for skewing questions in its Minnesota polling to make it seem as though the state's Republican Governor -- and seeming Presidential aspirant -- Tim Pawlenty was more popular than he actually was relative to the state's well-known Democratic Senator, Al Franken. After Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com got on Rasmussen's case, the pollster fessed to have run a bad poll. Now, via pollster SurveyUSA, we have an indication of what Pawlenty's numbers look like relative to those of Franken -- and not too surprisingly, when the same question is asked about both elected officials, they show Pawlenty in a significantly weaker position.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Tim Pawlenty is doing as Governor?

Approve: 45 percent
Disapprove: 52 percent

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Al Franken is doing as United States Senator?

Approve: 49 percent
Disapprove: 44 percent

Rasmussen claims that it was all a big mistake, that the different questions for the two candidates was unintentional. Fair enough. Let's take them at their word. Nevertheless, what we do know is this: When Rasmussen asked two separate questions gauging approval -- one that tends to show higher approval numbers for Pawlenty, one that tends to show lower approval numbers for Franken -- the numbers came out as expected, with Pawlenty scoring 15 points higher than Franken. When SurveyUSA asked the same question about both Pawlenty and Franken, Franken came out ahead. So much for the notion of Pawlenty being popular in his home state, let alone more popular than other elected officials there.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/10/6/122315/539

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't have to spin. The facts speak for themselves. Furthermore, they admit that they've screwed up.

The Numbers Rasmussen Was Hiding

by Jonathan Singer, Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:44:25 PM EST

Last month I called out Rasmussen Reports for skewing questions in its Minnesota polling to make it seem as though the state's Republican Governor -- and seeming Presidential aspirant -- Tim Pawlenty was more popular than he actually was relative to the state's well-known Democratic Senator, Al Franken. After Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com got on Rasmussen's case, the pollster fessed to have run a bad poll. Now, via pollster SurveyUSA, we have an indication of what Pawlenty's numbers look like relative to those of Franken -- and not too surprisingly, when the same question is asked about both elected officials, they show Pawlenty in a significantly weaker position.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Tim Pawlenty is doing as Governor?

Approve: 45 percent
Disapprove: 52 percent

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Al Franken is doing as United States Senator?

Approve: 49 percent
Disapprove: 44 percent

Rasmussen claims that it was all a big mistake, that the different questions for the two candidates was unintentional. Fair enough. Let's take them at their word. Nevertheless, what we do know is this: When Rasmussen asked two separate questions gauging approval -- one that tends to show higher approval numbers for Pawlenty, one that tends to show lower approval numbers for Franken -- the numbers came out as expected, with Pawlenty scoring 15 points higher than Franken. When SurveyUSA asked the same question about both Pawlenty and Franken, Franken came out ahead. So much for the notion of Pawlenty being popular in his home state, let alone more popular than other elected officials there.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/10/6/122315/539

The telling part of that poll is that Franken has only been a Senator for 4-5 months and ALREADY his job approval is below 50%.... kind of sad for Franken.

 

[Canceled2]

The telling part of that poll is that Franken has only been a Senator for 4-5 months and ALREADY his job approval is below 50%.... kind of sad for Franken.

Comments from the link:

Re: The Numbers Rasmussen Was Hiding (none / 0)

"You say "when the same question is asked about both elected officials, they show Pawlenty in a significantly weaker position." The difference in approval ratings is 4%, and the margin of error on both polls is 4%. The word "significantly" in a statistical context implies that the difference is greater than the margin of error. This is not the case."

Re: The Numbers Rasmussen Was Hiding (none / 0)


Trust, but verify.

Let's give SOME props to Ras for actually responding substantively rather than calling for a blogger ethics conference.

I remember hating the beejezus out of Rasmussen because they consistently seemed to be skewing the election to the right in their poll results, but IIRC they actually ended up being one of the most accurate (non-aggregated) pollsters in the presidentials and mid-terms from 2000 on.

Please correct my memory if that recollection is in error.

I guess I'm sounding negative, what I'm really trying to say is don't be too quick to blow them off, even after this "mistake." Maybe they called a lot of elections correctly BECAUSE they skew right and looked good when elections skewed right themselves (e.g. Ras got lucky). But maybe they generally know what they're doing-- moreso than many of their competitors. Don't rule it out.

Let me conclude with, major, major props to Singer/MyDD for busting Ras on the Franken thing AND following up. Awesome work.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That has to be the biggest pile of horseshit ever tossed upon this board.

The complete stupidity of it rivals Ditzies 1/3 'argument'.

You do NOT try to finance something until you know WHAT you have to finance.

If you have $1mm in revenue and $1.2mm in expenses, do you finance your 200k first or do you look to see if you can reduce expenses first?

If you KNOW you have $100k in expenses that are due to inefficiencies... do you go ahead and finance those? Or do you make the adjustments to cut those expenses?

Financing first before addressing the costs IS putting the cart before the horse.

Really, then please explain to me why 30 other countries have to done exactly this to a great degree of sucess? What makes us so fucking special? We're paying 16% of our GNP in health care and those foolish morons in those other 30 some countries who have done exactly this and are getting better results are only paying 8% of their GNP on average, those poor dumb bastards. [/sarcasm]

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Really, then please explain to me why 30 other countries have to done exactly this to a great degree of sucess? What makes us so fucking special? We're paying 16% of our GNP in health care and those foolish morons in those other 30 some countries who have done exactly this and are getting better results are only paying 8% of their GNP on average, those poor dumb bastards. [/sarcasm]

I cannot help but notice that you yet again ducked the question. Why do you refuse to answer it? You pretend that because they have nationalized (or universal) health care that they all did so without cutting costs as much as they could prior to financing it? Please provide your evidence of that claim. If you cannot, then do try answering the question.

Because no one (other than a moronic politician) would consider financing expenses they KNOW they could cut due to waste.