GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[calamity]

Non Stewart has a great take on how things were versus how they are, and he does a great job calling out the lies on both sides while doing it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8de3GHJU1-M

 

[MTAtech]

I didn't lose anything.

Can you show how many of those people who got insurance got it through the Exchange? Or how many of them got it through the expansion of the Medicaid entitlement? I don't see it anywhere.

What I do see is that it's a Gallup poll, not any kind of official number from the HHUS or the Census Bureau. Forgive my skeptism, but I don't think polls are what we used in this country for real statistics.

The Graph | ACASignups.net

 

[tres borrachos]

The Graph | ACASignups.net

The site run by Brainwrap from The Daily Kos.

:lamo

 

[tres borrachos]

So you conclude it's not a success.

Without data.

Brilliant.

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?

I said there's no official numbers to verify that it's a success. I never said it wasn't a success.

But keep trying, and I'll keep pointing out your inability to comprehend simple sentences.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes, the uninsured does go up and down. Generally speaking they go up under republican presidents and down under democratic presidents

"Generally speaking they go up under republican presidents and down under democratic presidents"

So according to your first graph, when the uninsured rate went down between 2001 and 2003, and then down again between 2004 and 2005, and then down again between 2008 and 2009, a Democrat was President?

 

[tres borrachos]

I think there is no question that this system will be liked as much as Social Security and Medicare, two other programs that the right threw similar hissy fits over.

Republicans voted to pass each one. Their votes ensured their passages. Are you trying to rewrite history?

 

[MTAtech]

The site run by Brainwrap from The Daily Kos.

:lamo

Even if I knew who Brainwrap was, what does that matter? Are you saying that statistical models and counting aren't reliable because you don't like someone's personal politics?

 

[MTAtech]

Republicans voted to pass each one. Their votes ensured their passages. Are you trying to rewrite history?

The vote on the Social Security Act of 1934 can be seen here.

 

[tres borrachos]

The vote on the Social Security Act of 1934 can be seen here.

And, as I said, the Republicans' votes ensured the passage.

No Republicans voted for the ACA.

 

[tres borrachos]

Even if I knew who Brainwrap was, what does that matter? Are you saying that statistical models and counting aren't reliable because you don't like someone's personal politics?

The guy who runs that site is a regular staffer on The Daily Kos. Therefore it's a biased site. End of story.

Would you trust numbers that I post that come from Karl Rove or Sean Hannity? No you wouldn't.

 

[MTAtech]

The guy who runs that site is a regular staffer on The Daily Kos. Therefore it's a biased site. End of story.

Would you trust numbers that I post that come from Karl Rove or Sean Hannity? No you wouldn't.

Sorry, that's sloppy thinking. By that logic, if "Brainwrap" reported that 2 + 3 = 5, the numbers couldn't be relied upon because of bias. No. If you are claiming that his figures are biased, you need to show where his methodology, data or model is wrong.

I do the same for Hannity. I just don't dismiss him, I show where and when he is reporting false information.

Charles Gaba uses math and statistics to formulate his findings. He does what Nat Silver did in the 2012 election. Although Silver may have favored Obama to win, and the right accused him of bias, his numbers were dead on.

 

[bubbabgone]

Bubba, why is it so important to Obama that this lousy plan be made palatable to us? He must be getting heavy pressure from somewhere to continue on this path. He knows better than we do that his poll ratings are dropping, yet he continues in his efforts to sell it. Why?

I don't think it's egotism, or elitism, or any other ism either that's motivating his actions, except maybe one-world-government-ism. Could that be it? We must be coerced into joining the rest of the world in its downward spiral? Nothing else makes sense.

Big governments around the world are in debt for more than $53 trillion dollars! That's 53 followed by 12 zeroes! But what's even worse, the US owes one-third of that debt...$17 trillion dollars, and it's adding to that total at the rate of $2.5 billion a day! And that doesn't even count unfunded liabilities, which bring us close to $120 trillion! Fiscal cliff abyss in sight? Probably! Their recommendation? Get prepared for turmoil soon, because governments will take care of themselves first - the rest of us come after that! :afraid: ... :scared:

Sorry to be gloomy...

All good points, Pol ... especially the one-world-governmentism ... but as for what Obama is determined to visit on our own Country with Obamacare I think it can easily be explained ... he's a rigid Leftist ideologue who had to lie about his intentions from the get-go in order to even get to the point we're at.
It has been said before that Obamacare is the stalking horse for Single Payer ... which will be proposed as the fix.
If he had tried to go Single Payer right out of the box the effort would have failed and he would have exposed himself as what he truly is.
Right now he's still fooling a substantial number of the easily fooled. You can see them here on this very thread.
BUT ...
But we mustn't forget there are a whole s-load of ideologues in positions of power, political & otherwise, who know what he is, won't acknowledge it, but support him because of it.

 

[tres borrachos]

Sorry, that's sloppy thinking. By that logic, if "Brainwrap" reported that 2 + 3 = 5, the numbers couldn't be relied upon because of bias. No. If you are claiming that his figures are biased, you need to show where his methodology, data or model is wrong.

I do the same for Hannity. I just don't dismiss him, I show where and when he is reporting false information.

Sorry, but when something comes out with official numbers from the HHUS, I'll read it. I don't read partisan pieces - from either side. And the Kos is as left wing as you can get. I don't have to dispute his figures. I won't read them in the first place. They're partisan.

Let's have a non-partisan source.

 

[jaeger19]

I am surprised at how much we view politics or at least the candidates alike. I too think Hillary unpopularity among independents would be her undoing against a good candidate. Her unfavorables has always been much higher than her favorable rating among independents. 32% of independents view her favorably vs. 59% who have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton. Bush among indies is 29% favor, 35% unfavor, Christie among indies is climbing back up, as he stands at 33% favor 37% unfavor. both are better than Hillary, that is among indies. I agree, she probably would be the best candidate to run against if I were a Republican and to be able to choose my opponent. Hillary would have a fired up base, but I think independents would have a hard time voting for her. In the latest PPP (D) poll Clinton only leads Christie 46-42 and Jeb Bush trails her 47-44. Have a look inside this poll, it is full of information.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_National_314.pdf

Honestly.. I don't think its surprising at all. I think a lot of folks share our general view.. perhaps not so informed as you are when it comes to polls and trends... but a lot of this is simple common sense when viewed objectively and pragmatically.

Hillary lost the democratic primary to essentially a no body with all her Clinton backers. That bespeaks the weakness that's Hillary. And quite frankly, the fired up base in a national election would probably be a liability for her. Let loose the radical liberals among the democrats... single payer healthcare, gun control, climate change regulations on fossil fuels (without regard to economy), and it plays into the hands of the republicans.

Thanks for your link.. I though was interesting how the pollsters stated how important it was for Hillary to run for president.. because it was one of the largest electability gaps ever seen. I think they might be misinterpreting the polls... because when you look at Clintons favorable versus unfavorable.. she is 47% for.. 47% against and only 6% undecided.

6% undecided.. which means that she is really well known.. positive AND negative... the reason that Clinton outperforms other runners this early and beats republicans this early is because she has name recognition...
but in a national race.. she is already a polarizing candidate that only has a small population in which she can gain. She really has little room for improvement.. while other lesser known candidates have all sorts of room to win...

 

[jaeger19]

You can claim that all you want, but the language is plain and you are wrong.eace

Nope... the language was plain and you are mistaken.. just as you were mistaken regarding who the 15% of americans who don't have health insurance are.. just as were mistaken that the Mandate was not a republican idea... just as are very much mistaken that the "85% of americans are irrelevant"..

Just think about that statement Jack... you claimed that the 85% of americans that have insurance are irrelevant to the insurance pool! think about that for a while, then get back to me...eace

 

[jaeger19]

I took this from the Huffington Post link I provided. I chose a "leftish" site just so you would not think I was cherry-picking. It presents exactly the position I have been arguing for.eace

Why are we doing all of this anyway again?

The theory behind the individual mandate is that the way to create an insurance market that lets people with pre-existing conditions get covered at reasonable prices is to make everyone participate.

Without some way to push healthy people into the insurance market, the fear is that it'll fall apart. Mostly sick people would get insurance, which would drive up prices, which would lead to healthier people deciding not to buy any, which would force insurers to raise rates to cover their expenses, which would lead to even more healthy people opting out. That cycle is called a "death spiral" in insurancespeak.

The individual mandate is not a popular policy at all for obvious reasons (Obama himself even used to oppose it). But the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that it's Constitutional, so we have to deal with it. Massachusetts has had an individual mandate since 2007, and it's worked out pretty well there.

First. I don't think I have ever worry about cherry picking sources.. sources either have it right or don't. I don't play a lot of ideological games.

Second.. you need to read and comprehend whats being said here. "is that the way to create an insurance market that lets people with pre existing conditions get covered at reasonable prices is to make everyone participate"..

Right there is what I have been saying.. since post one on this issue. Its NOT what you have been saying jack. You have to have everyone participate otherwise people will be diving in and out of insurance depending on their health status at the time.

This supports what I said. I think its ironic that you have over and over posted statements that support EXACTLY.. in fact almost word for word what I have been saying regarding the mandate since post one and then claim its proof I am wrong.

Now.. lets take your second statement here..

Without some way to push healthy people into the insurance market, the fear is that it'll fall apart.[/B] Mostly sick people would get insurance, which would drive up prices, which would lead to healthier people deciding not to buy any, which would force insurers to raise rates to cover their expenses, which would lead to even more healthy people opting out.

Yep.. and again that supports my point.. you have simply misinterpreted the statement. the reason that you need to force healthy people into the market is again.. because of the pre existing conditions clause. With pre existing conditions out of the way.., healthy people can opt out.. BECAUSE THEY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO BUY IN WHEN THEY ARE SICK.. which would dramatically raise rates on folks that for some reason needed to stay on insurance.

Again Jack it goes back to the pre existing conditions issue.

Without the pre existing conditions... the mandate is not necessary.. the insurance pool is already healthy enough. 85% of americans already have health insurance..and the insurance companies are making money without the 15% of "healthy" americans that are uninsured in the pool.

Those are the facts Jack.. and your posts support exactly what I have been saying. Apparently your ideology simply blinds you to common sense.

Another fact Jack.. is that to get lower premiums.. you actually have to get rid of the pre existing conditions. Because the prohibition on pre existing conditions squashes competition.. Sure.. your insurance company is screwing you over.. and you would like to jump to a cheaper insurance... but if you have a pre existing condition or your children do.. no matter how minor.. it may mean that you or they are NOT covered if that minor condition turns into something major.

that's why the mandate is so important (and it does help with outlier uninsured that rack up very expensive medical bills and push it on the taxpayers and those with insurance)..

 

[sangha]

The Graph | ACASignups.net

That chart needs to posted so all can see

 

[sangha]

"Generally speaking they go up under republican presidents and down under democratic presidents"

So according to your first graph, when the uninsured rate went down between 2001 and 2003, and then down again between 2004 and 2005, and then down again between 2008 and 2009, a Democrat was President?

According to the charts, the uninsured rates went up during the periods you mention :lamo

 

[Perotista]

Honestly.. I don't think its surprising at all. I think a lot of folks share our general view.. perhaps not so informed as you are when it comes to polls and trends... but a lot of this is simple common sense when viewed objectively and pragmatically.

Hillary lost the democratic primary to essentially a no body with all her Clinton backers. That bespeaks the weakness that's Hillary. And quite frankly, the fired up base in a national election would probably be a liability for her. Let loose the radical liberals among the democrats... single payer healthcare, gun control, climate change regulations on fossil fuels (without regard to economy), and it plays into the hands of the republicans.

Thanks for your link.. I though was interesting how the pollsters stated how important it was for Hillary to run for president.. because it was one of the largest electability gaps ever seen. I think they might be misinterpreting the polls... because when you look at Clintons favorable versus unfavorable.. she is 47% for.. 47% against and only 6% undecided.

6% undecided.. which means that she is really well known.. positive AND negative... the reason that Clinton outperforms other runners this early and beats republicans this early is because she has name recognition...
but in a national race.. she is already a polarizing candidate that only has a small population in which she can gain. She really has little room for improvement.. while other lesser known candidates have all sorts of room to win...

Exactly. Her numbers I do not think will change much. Looking at favorable/unfavorable ratings from 2012, President Obama won with his ratings of 51/45. That left only 4% in the don't know/unsure category. Romney had an deficit in this ratings all through the campaign, it was right after the first debate he climbed up to even at 44/44 and two weeks later fell into the deficit again finishing at 42/47. The difference was probably the 4 million votes Obama won by. Hillary may be stuck at around 47% of the total vote, ironically, the same percentage Romney got in 2012. She does have the possibility of adding with that 6% undecided, unsure category, but the majority usually goes to the challenger in the undecided column for some reason. History has shown this but I have yet to figure out why.

McConnell in Kentucky has 32/60 approval/disapproval rating while his opponent Grimes who lead McConnell by 4 points in the polls, has a 26/27 favorable/unfavorable rating. She can improve or slide depending on how she handles her campaign. Actually how McConnell handles his also. I think Grimes can win this thing mainly because she is attracting 60% of the moderate vote as of now. We know conservatives goes for McConnell and Liberals go for Grimes, McConnell has an advantage in Kentucky as there are more Conservatives than Liberals, but can he afford to lose 60% of those in the middle. If I were you I would be keeping a very close eye on Kentucky. A loss there probably would doom the GOP chances to gain control of the senate.

Also for me Georgia is becoming more and more interesting in both its senate and governors races. Jason Carter, the grandson of Jimmy Carter has taken a 4 point lead over our present republican governor Deal. In the senate race to replace Chambliss, Michelle Nunn the daughter of our very popular ex-democratic senator Sam Nunn could very well be going up against David Perdue, the son of our former govenor, Sonny Perdue. The battle of family members could be reality down here. Both Michelle and David are ahead in the polls in their respective primary field.

 

[jaeger19]

Actually, those costs are why so many young, healthy people are avoiding ACA. They will be featured in anti-ACA ads, as will those who sign up and find higher costs.eace

Too funny.. Lets get this straight.. the ACA is a failure because young healthy people that HAVE BEEN GOING WITHOUT HEATH INSURANCE because its too expensive BEFORE the aca... now.. some of them still don't want to pay for the expense for health insurance?

Of course its an increase in cost.. if you weren't paying anything.. and now you are paying something... its a higher cost..:doh

 

[jaeger19]

I think there is no question that this system will be liked as much as Social Security and Medicare, two other programs that the right threw similar hissy fits over.

I think that's very much an overstatement. As pointed out, the ACA has many flaws that need to be fixed..

 

[tres borrachos]

According to the charts, the uninsured rates went up during the periods you mention :lamo

That green line looks like it's going down to me.

 

[tres borrachos]

Too funny.. Lets get this straight.. the ACA is a failure because young healthy people that HAVE BEEN GOING WITHOUT HEATH INSURANCE because its too expensive BEFORE the aca... now.. some of them still don't want to pay for the expense for health insurance?

Of course its an increase in cost.. if you weren't paying anything.. and now you are paying something... its a higher cost..:doh

So then if the uninsured don't become insured, reducing the costs for everyone, what is "affordable"? Or is it only "affordable" to the poor?

 

[polgara]

All good points, Pol ... especially the one-world-governmentism ... but as for what Obama is determined to visit on our own Country with Obamacare I think it can easily be explained ... he's a rigid Leftist ideologue who had to lie about his intentions from the get-go in order to even get to the point we're at.
It has been said before that Obamacare is the stalking horse for Single Payer ... which will be proposed as the fix.
If he had tried to go Single Payer right out of the box the effort would have failed and he would have exposed himself as what he truly is.
Right now he's still fooling a substantial number of the easily fooled. You can see them here on this very thread.
BUT ...
But we mustn't forget there are a whole s-load of ideologues in positions of power, political & otherwise, who know what he is, won't acknowledge it, but support him because of it.

If we look at history from the beginning of time, there have always been those who seek to subjugate others... Ghengis Kahn, Xerxes of the Persian empire, Alexander the Great, the various Caesars from the Roman empire, the Pharoahs, the British empire, the Aztecs and Incas, and too many others. After they get their own people whipped into line, they look outward to control more. Total power over others must be very heady indeed! As time marched on, we became more sophisticated in the tools we used, and the atomic bomb was conceived. Will we, as a species, be permitted by whatever controls the universe to finally turn this planet into a cinder? Shades of Star Wars! I feel sorry for the yet unborn, and the legacy we are leaving them, because we, as humans, seem to have taken a wrong turn from the very beginning, and things are getting worse instead of improving for the better. We can only keep trying to do the best we can, but the odds sure seem to be against us as a species. Such is life, I guess. Sad...

 

[sangha]

That green line looks like it's going down to me.

You're cherry-picking again