Support for Repeal climbs to 63%

[cpwill]

all the time, the more people learn, the more they dislike this monstrosity that aids no one and costs everyone. As destructive as it is for the nation, at least Obamacare is a disease that sparks its' own cure.

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.
...
The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.

While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.
...
Sixty-three percent (63%) of all voters expect the health care plan to increase the federal deficit. Just 12% expect the bill to push the deficit down, while 13% say it will have no impact.

Fifty-five percent (55%) say the plan will make the quality of health care in the country worse. Twenty percent (20%) expect it to improve the quality of health care, and 18% think quality will stay about the same.

Fifty-five percent (55%) also expect the health care plan to drive up the cost of health care rather than achieve its stated goal of causing those costs to go down. Only 18% believe health care costs will indeed go down because of the plan’s passage. Another 16% expect costs to stay about the same....

 

[Deuce]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Health Care Polls: Opinion Gap or Information Gap?

Nobody knows what the bill does so their opinion of it isn't really that important is it?

edit: To clarify.

If I go on the radio and run ads and shows all day that claim cpwill is a baby rapist, his favorability would probably tank pretty hard. When asked whether cpwill should be in jail, I bet most would say "Yes."

That doesn't mean cpwill should be in jail or that he's a baby rapist.

 

[Deuce]

Not-edit: I'm not saying cpwill is a baby rapist, but isn't it interesting that I'm the only one asking this question? :mrgreen:

 

[washunut]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Health Care Polls: Opinion Gap or Information Gap?

Nobody knows what the bill does so their opinion of it isn't really that important is it?

edit: To clarify.

If I go on the radio and run ads and shows all day that claim cpwill is a baby rapist, his favorability would probably tank pretty hard. When asked whether cpwill should be in jail, I bet most would say "Yes."

That doesn't mean cpwill should be in jail or that he's a baby rapist.

As you know the propaganda war is eaged from both sides. Perhaps the anti HC side is winning because their arguements are more convincing.

 

[Deuce]

As you know the propaganda war is eaged from both sides. Perhaps the anti HC side is winning because their arguements are more convincing.

They're winning because their arguments are simpler. SOCIALISM BAD. IT'S GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER. DEATH PANELS.

Compared to having to explain a 2000 page bill. What a pre-existing condition is, what rescission is, what the bill does to prevent them, what a health care exchange is, how the subsidies work, the reason behind the tax penalty for lack of insurance, the fact that no, you wont actually go to jail if you don't have insurance, and so on and so forth.

More convincing? Most of their "arguments" are outright lies.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Health Care Polls: Opinion Gap or Information Gap?

Nobody knows what the bill does so their opinion of it isn't really that important is it?

edit: To clarify.

If I go on the radio and run ads and shows all day that claim cpwill is a baby rapist, his favorability would probably tank pretty hard. When asked whether cpwill should be in jail, I bet most would say "Yes."

That doesn't mean cpwill should be in jail or that he's a baby rapist.

63% of the people listen to talk radio?

 

[Deuce]

63% of the people listen to talk radio?

Can we stop this whole "extrapolate what someone says to absurd conclusions" thing that is so prevalent on this board? It's getting tiresome.

Seriously. Quote where I said that.

 

[webrockk]

Well, now that it's passed, we'll finally have an opportunity to know what's in it, huh, Nancy?

 

[washunut]

They're winning because their arguments are simpler. SOCIALISM BAD. IT'S GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER. DEATH PANELS.

Compared to having to explain a 2000 page bill. What a pre-existing condition is, what rescission is, what the bill does to prevent them, what a health care exchange is, how the subsidies work, the reason behind the tax penalty for lack of insurance, the fact that no, you wont actually go to jail if you don't have insurance, and so on and so forth.

More convincing? Most of their "arguments" are outright lies.

Saying people lie to shows a disrespect for the debate.

I was on a town call meeting yesterday hosted by my representative ( a democrat) and someone from AARP who support the bill. The questions and answers were civil. However it is clear from at least that interchange that it is not easy to explain to a middle class group of voters how this bill helps them and their families. No one asked about the silly stuff like death panels, going to jail etc. It was not a hostile crowd. This should have been a slam dunk for our representative. He is a smart guy and realizes that there is both good and bad in the bill. The people most concerned were those on medicare talking about their concern about the ability to see doctors who will now have a larger client base but no increase in the amount of doctors to support these new entrants into the HC pool.

 

[cpwill]

all lies?

my bet is it's the constant flow of 'surprises' like these

Employers have little hope that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will help them achieve their top goals to decrease health care cost trend and improve workforce health. Indeed, most employers are convinced that health care reform will lead to increased costs and a stepped-up exodus from employer-provided retiree medical coverage, but they remain committed to their role in providing employer-based coverage — at least for now, according to the findings of a May 2010 Towers Watson survey on health care reform.
...

The majority of employers anticipate that health care reform will increase their organization’s health benefit costs. Most say they plan to pass on the increase to employees (88%) or reduce health benefits and programs (74%).
...
More than three in four employers (85%) believe that health care reform will reduce the number of large organizations offering employer-sponsored retiree medical benefits. And 43% of employers that currently offer retiree medical plans plan to reduce or eliminate them.
...
and so forth.

 

[ADK_Forever]

It will never get repealed. But, it will get improved.

 

[Awesome!]

It will never get repealed. But, it will get improved.

Yep, I can't wait for Super Health Care Reform.

 

[cpwill]

It will never get repealed. But, it will get improved.

hmm see, ya'll say that, but i've never seen a good explanation for why the republicans wouldn't enact a repeal that would be both enormously popular and in line wih their policy preferences.

 

[ADK_Forever]

hmm see, ya'll say that, but i've never seen a good explanation for why the republicans wouldn't enact a repeal that would be both enormously popular and in line wih their policy preferences.

Their only "policy preference" is to say "No" to anything and everything Obama wants to get done.

I believe they need 67 votes, in the Senate, to repeal it. Not likely that will happen anytime soon.

 

[Deuce]

all lies?

my bet is it's the constant flow of 'surprises' like these

Employers have little hope that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will help them achieve their top goals to decrease health care cost trend and improve workforce health. Indeed, most employers are convinced that health care reform will lead to increased costs and a stepped-up exodus from employer-provided retiree medical coverage, but they remain committed to their role in providing employer-based coverage — at least for now, according to the findings of a May 2010 Towers Watson survey on health care reform.
...

The majority of employers anticipate that health care reform will increase their organization’s health benefit costs. Most say they plan to pass on the increase to employees (88%) or reduce health benefits and programs (74%).
...
More than three in four employers (85%) believe that health care reform will reduce the number of large organizations offering employer-sponsored retiree medical benefits. And 43% of employers that currently offer retiree medical plans plan to reduce or eliminate them.
...
and so forth.

Sorry, I meant to say "mostly lies" instead of "all lies." OH WAIT. THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I SAID. Go back and read my post again please.
Anyway, you're just posting another opinion poll taken from a population that is demonstrably ignorant on what the bill does. Calling the bill "socialist" is wrong because the word means something different. Saying there are "death panels" is a lie. Saying the bill is a "government takeover" is a lie. There was a wonderful email floating around a while back that claimed a government panel has to approve each treatment you receive. That's a lie. Another claimed the bill would give the government access to your bank account. That is a lie. The same email claimed "all illegal immigrants would be given free health care." That is a lie.

I'm happy to debate actual provisions of the bill with a basis in reality. I have a lot of conservative friends with whom I do just that. But please, can we ditch this idea that opinion polls automatically reflect reality?

Edit: The employee retiree thing doesn't even make sense. With this bill, there are some subsidies for those very plans from what I recall. (I'll have to double check that. I know they were in HR3200 but I'm not 100% on the one that got passed) This would make it easier to offer those plans.

Edit2: http://www.dorsey.com/eu_benefitscomp_earlyretirement_5_19_10/
Found what I was remembering. From age 55 until eligible for Medicare, a retiree's health care can be subsidized up to 80% for costs from $15000-$90,000. I was close.

 

[Dav]

I'm happy to debate actual provisions of the bill with a basis in reality. I have a lot of conservative friends with whom I do just that. But please, can we ditch this idea that opinion polls automatically reflect reality?

It's hard to ditch an idea that doesn't exist in the first place. They aren't supposed to reflect reality (whatever that means), they are supposed to reflect, you know... public opinion. Which in a democracy (like ours), matters. A lot. Some people may not like that, but that's how it is. If 63% of voters really do favor repeal, and favor it strongly enough, it will eventually get repealed, because pro-repeal candidates will eventually win enough seats to do so. That's how democracy works.

 

[Dav]

They're winning because their arguments are simpler. SOCIALISM BAD. IT'S GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER. DEATH PANELS.

Compared to having to explain a 2000 page bill. What a pre-existing condition is, what rescission is, what the bill does to prevent them, what a health care exchange is, how the subsidies work, the reason behind the tax penalty for lack of insurance, the fact that no, you wont actually go to jail if you don't have insurance, and so on and so forth.

More convincing? Most of their "arguments" are outright lies.

This may sound familiar, but if voters are as easy to manipulate as you say they are, democracy doesn't work. AT ALL.

 

[USA_1]

Cost:

* $940 billion over ten years.

Deficit:

*

Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years.

Read more on the CBO Report

Coverage:

* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Health Insurance Exchanges:

* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
* Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
* Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.

Subsidies:

* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.

Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050


Paying for the Plan:

* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
* Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
* Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Medicare:

* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
* Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Medicaid:

* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
* Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
* Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
* Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.

Insurance Reforms:

* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
* Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
* Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26th.

Abortion:

* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
* No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.

**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)

Individual Mandate:

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

Employer Mandate:

* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

Immigration:

* Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.

 

[mmmike1977]

Cost:

* $940 billion over ten years.

Deficit:

*

Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years.

Quoting to me what the government says won't do you any good. The government either makes the numbers look rosy to get things passed or they aren't smart enough to figure out the actual cost. Which one of those is true is a debate for another time, the bottom line is that they consistently get it wrong.

Medicaid Special Hospital Subsidy CBO said: $100 million.........WRONG! $11 billion

V-22 Osprey aircraft CBO said: $23 million...........WRONG! $90 million

Medicare Home Care Benefits CBO said: $4 billion..............WRONG! $10 billion

F/A-22 Raptor Fighter CBO said: $89 million ...........WRONG! $248 million

January 2007 the CBO forecast GDP growth of 2.3, 3% in 2008, and 2.9% each year after that, until 2012. The CBO "assumed" that the housing decline would stop, that the economy would not be thrown into a recession, and that gas prices would remain low. Wrong on all counts.

Don't tell me that ANYONE has a clue what this monstrosity will cost. The only thing we can be sure of is it will cost much more than $940 Billion.

 

[USA_1]

The only thing we can be sure of is it will cost much more than $940 Billion.

That's over ten years. 94 billion a year.

 

[Dav]

That's over ten years. 94 billion a year.

No, it's over 6 years.

The first 4 years (2010-2014) involves hardly any spending. Pretty much everyone who's been paying attention has learned of this by now.

 

[USA_1]

No, it's over 6 years.

The first 4 years (2010-2014) involves hardly any spending. Pretty much everyone who's been paying attention has learned of this by now.

The 940 billion is from 2010 to 2020. Some years will be more but it averages out to 94 billion a year. It is not a good plan but the republicans had 6 years to so something and did absolutley nothing but let costs get out of control for most Americans. The healthcare system was broken and they ignored the problem. Now we are stuck with this plan.

 

[cpwill]

No, it's over 6 years.

The first 4 years (2010-2014) involves hardly any spending. Pretty much everyone who's been paying attention has learned of this by now.

yeah, and that's not counting the additional $115Bn in administrative costs, and the fact that the 'medicare savings' has already been repealed (remember when they passed the 'doc fix'?). nor is it scoring the taxes dynamically.

anyone who claims this thing is going to reduce the deficit is either A) amazingly uninformed B) desperate to have reality shape itself to their preferences or C) lying.

 

[USA_1]

yeah, and that's not counting the additional $115Bn in administrative costs, and the fact that the 'medicare savings' has already been repealed (remember when they passed the 'doc fix'?). nor is it scoring the taxes dynamically.

anyone who claims this thing is going to reduce the deficit is either A) amazingly uninformed B) desperate to have reality shape itself to their preferences or C) lying.

Well, your boys should have given us a better plan when they had the chance.

 

[cpwill]

Well, your boys should have given us a better plan when they had the chance.

1. not sure i'd call them my boys
2. yes they should have. as it is at least this has given them a shock and they've started coming up with some solutions. but one sides' failure to fix a problem doesn't mean whatever the other team plays will be a smart move.