Support for Repeal climbs to 63%

[USA_1]

:lol: romney care is romney's alone. that's like pretending that reducing the welfare state is a democratic policy because Clinton did it :roll:


although i will admit, i find it hilarious that people are now trying to pin blame for Obamacare..... on Republicans. :lol:

And Obamacare is Obama's alone? Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare. That's what's hilarious.

 

[cpwill]

Given that Romneycare's failures were obvious by the time Obamacare was bribed, threatned, and finally dragged across the line into 'law'; yes, it is rather darkly ironic.

 

[digsbe]

I support repeal, they need to replace it with a form of socialized medicine

 

[Deuce]

:lol: romney care is romney's alone. that's like pretending that reducing the welfare state is a democratic policy because Clinton did it :roll:


although i will admit, i find it hilarious that people are now trying to pin blame for Obamacare..... on Republicans. :lol:

Blame? I was pretty clearly blaming the Democrats for letting Republicans control the narrative.

 

[Dav]

Blame? I was pretty clearly blaming the Democrats for letting Republicans control the narrative.

Republicans controlled the narrative among fellow Republicans. They did not, could not and cannot control the narrative among moderates and independents. It's ridiculous to think that they can... people may blindly follow their party, but why would they blindly follow a party that isn't even theirs?

 

[Deuce]

Republicans controlled the narrative among fellow Republicans. They did not, could not and cannot control the narrative among moderates and independents. It's ridiculous to think that they can... people may blindly follow their party, but why would they blindly follow a party that isn't even theirs?

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "narrative." The Democrats had to spend so much time trying to debunk "death panels," "government takeover," "socialism," and the like that nobody got the message about what the bill actually does. It takes ten times as long to explain "The bill creates an insurance exchange that lets citizens compare.." as it does to say "Bureaucrat between you and your doctor!"

 

[Dav]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "narrative." The Democrats had to spend so much time trying to debunk "death panels," "government takeover," "socialism," and the like that nobody got the message about what the bill actually does. It takes ten times as long to explain "The bill creates an insurance exchange that lets citizens compare.." as it does to say "Bureaucrat between you and your doctor!"

"Socialism" sounds stupid and is being edged away from by even many Republicans, so that you think it has any convincing power with independents is odd. And anyways, there is no reason why non-partsian independents would believe one- or two-word sound bites without any sort of argument behind them. If a non-partisan independent does not know what the bill does even a little (who fully knows what the bill will do? It's too big and complicated for anyone to fully understand, really), how could they have an opinion of it? It would be possible for partisans, because they would just follow the party line regardless. But non-partisans wouldn't really have any reason to have an opinion on a bill they know nothing about.

Anyways, there's lots of distortions of the facts on both sides. Only partisans would believe that the distortions and moronic sound-bites are limited to one side.

 

[cpwill]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "narrative." The Democrats had to spend so much time trying to debunk "death panels," "government takeover," "socialism," and the like that nobody got the message about what the bill actually does. It takes ten times as long to explain "The bill creates an insurance exchange that lets citizens compare.." as it does to say "Bureaucrat between you and your doctor!"

no.... i'm pretty sure that the foolishness and insult in the notion that people are so stupid as to require the government to set up an exchange which limits their choices in order to be able to compare plans is something that most folks grasped.

 

[Deuce]

no.... i'm pretty sure that the foolishness and insult in the notion that people are so stupid as to require the government to set up an exchange which limits their choices in order to be able to compare plans is something that most folks grasped.

How does an exchange limit your choices when participation is not required?

Making something simpler and more convenient doesn't imply that you're stupid. Your computer can do basic math about four billion times faster than you can, that doesn't mean you're dumb or incapable of doing it yourself. Or maybe you should write a nasty letter to Microsoft for implying that you can't spell when they included the spell check in MS Word.

 

[Dav]

How does an exchange limit your choices when participation is not required?

They made it pretty clear that they intended that eventually all or almost all major insurance companies would be on the exchange, I thought. Participation doesn't have to be required to make it the only desirable option.

And the fact that they could ban abortion coverage in any company which used it (though they eventually didn't) is enough to show how it could easily limit choices.

EDIT: And why would you even need an exchange to "let citizens compare" things when that was already possible to begin with?

And spell check doesn't limit choices, that's not a good analogy at all.

 

[Deuce]

They made it pretty clear that they intended that eventually all or almost all major insurance companies would be on the exchange, I thought. Participation doesn't have to be required to make it the only desirable option.

And the fact that they could ban abortion coverage in any company which used it (though they eventually didn't) is enough to show how it could easily limit choices.

EDIT: And why would you even need an exchange to "let citizens compare" things when that was already possible to begin with?

And spell check doesn't limit choices, that's not a good analogy at all.

Exchanges don't limit choices either. Companies don't have to offer plans on the exchange and individuals don't have to use the exchange. States can create their own exchanges, let the Feds administer one for them, or even contract the exchange out to private companies. It's their choice. And you can choose not to bother with it.

Yes, they want companies to use the exchange. So?

No, really, that's my question for you.

So what?

You're making a "limiting my choices" argument against something that increases your choices, so you'll have to forgive my confusion.

 

[Dav]

Exchanges don't limit choices either. Companies don't have to offer plans on the exchange and individuals don't have to use the exchange. States can create their own exchanges, let the Feds administer one for them, or even contract the exchange out to private companies. It's their choice. And you can choose not to bother with it.

Yes, they want companies to use the exchange. So?

No, really, that's my question for you.

So what?

You're making a "limiting my choices" argument against something that increases your choices, so you'll have to forgive my confusion.

If every car company except Ford goes into a "car exchange", you could say that I had the choice not to use the exchange, but that wouldn't be accurate; my choices would be either Ford, or a company on the exchange.
I use this example to point out the flaw in your logic. Consumers do not choose whether or not their company of preferance is on the exchange; the company does. And in most cases they already use an insurance company to begin with (remember when Obama said that this wouldn't affect those people?), and can't control what they do. And the government has the power to create the incentives and disincentives necessary to get nearly all insurance companies on the exchange if they want that - that's "so what".

And I already pointed out why I find it hard to believe that the exchanges won't limit choices.



Now, what this very argument demonstrates is that two informed people can completely disagree about pretty much any point in the plan - whether or not people "know" that the exchange doesn't limit choices isn't dependent on how informed they are on it. And the points in my post before my last post in this thread still stand.

 

[Deuce]

One fatal flaw in YOUR logic:

A company can sell insurance in the exchange AND out of the exchange, and I rather expect that pretty much every company will do both. Unlike cars, insurance is not a physical product and doesn't have limitations on supply or physical presence.

Yes, there will be an incentive to get on the exchange. Another market to sell in. There's no compelling reason to drop the old policies, though.

 

[cpwill]

How does an exchange limit your choices when participation is not required?

oh, i'm sorry, i thought that there was an individual mandate? perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Deuce]

oh, i'm sorry, i thought that there was an individual mandate? perhaps I am wrong.

Not to participate in the exchange, no.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:1394

(d) Empowering Consumer Choice-

(1) CONTINUED OPERATION OF MARKET OUTSIDE EXCHANGES- Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit-

(A) a health insurance issuer from offering outside of an Exchange a health plan to a qualified individual or qualified employer; and

(B) a qualified individual from enrolling in, or a qualified employer from selecting for its employees, a health plan offered outside of an Exchange.

edit: And apparently that wasn't enough to satisfy the right-wing nutjobs because they added this like two paragraphs later.

(3) VOLUNTARY NATURE OF AN EXCHANGE-

(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL- Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange.

(B) PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED ENROLLMENT- Nothing in this title shall be construed to compel an individual to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange.

(C) INDIVIDUALS ALLOWED TO ENROLL IN ANY PLAN- A qualified individual may enroll in any qualified health plan, except that in the case of a catastrophic plan described in section 1302(e), a qualified individual may enroll in the plan only if the individual is eligible to enroll in the plan under section 1302(e)(2).

edit2: And if you're wondering what qualified individual means:

(f) Qualified Individuals and Employers; Access Limited to Citizens and Lawful Residents-

(1) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS- In this title:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘qualified individual’ means, with respect to an Exchange, an individual who--

(i) is seeking to enroll in a qualified health plan in the individual market offered through the Exchange; and

(ii) resides in the State that established the Exchange (except with respect to territorial agreements under section 1312(f)).

(B) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS EXCLUDED- An individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual if, at the time of enrollment, the individual is incarcerated, other than incarceration pending the disposition of charges.

Basically as long as you aren't in prison you're qualified.

 

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I for one would hate to have anything to do with trying to fix any of these issues. When the republicans were in power they totally avoided healthcare and social security reform, both of which (no matter how much they try to mislead all of us with their smaller government rhetoric) can ever be made solvent without completely trampling their constituents. The funding of these needs have always been the 300 pound gorilla in the room that all politicians have avoided for the last 30 years until the Dems finally took a stab at a no win situation with healthcare reform. Look no further than the distribution of our population; there is a massive bubble of middle aged people headed straight for retirement, straight for social security, and straight for an exploding need for healthcare. It is commonly known that most of the voters in country also reside in this very age group, so showing polls that show that this legislation is unpopular is really stating the obvious.
I have yet to hear a solution from republicans that even comes close to bridging the solvency gap both these issues will inevitably face, smaller government? Not even close. Interstate competition? Sorry. How do you reduce the cost of healthcare? First, lets get honest (which already puts this diatribe into lala land), and say the things a politician could never say and that is that people are taking actions every day that are hurting their health. Each generation of people that enter middle age is more obese than the last. You don't need to be a bio statistician to figure out that the totally preventable dieses associated with this trend only exacerbate this mess. We have gone from 40 workers to every 1 retiree in 1945 to 3 to 1 ratio today and will be only 2 to 1 in next 15 years. This is a mathematical certainty that will crush social security will also leave healthcare in its wake as the ratio of healthy people paying into a system they rarely use continues to get smaller and smaller. What are the choices? Baby boomers take less of everything today. Less social security a reduction in healthcare services, or pass the buck to our kids and grand kids. Driving efficiency in healthcare will only tips the scales a tiny amount in either direction.
I wonder if we can really expect people who when faced with their own health care and retirement choices, with their own hierarchy of need to ever "choose" to take that pill? I think not. Kicking the dems out won't be hard, just keep telling the sheep that you are the "fiscal conservatives" and that "cutting taxes" and "cutting the size of government" will heal all that ails this country and they will follow, but in the end the math will come to bear and the ringing bell that the republicans hold so dear will become reality- it will be our kids problem.

 

[Deuce]

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

Gallup puts support of the bill at 49% overall, significantly higher among people under 65. Over 65 is strongly against.

Edit:

VVV Hahah I win!

 

[roughdraft274]

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....

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

Ok, so we know that most people either like it, or that most people hate it.

I've always found it funny though that some people look at these polls as though they are handed down from God. They are a general sentiment of the people, and can sometimes be a rather lousy interpretation of that. It seems as though if they agree with that persons beliefs then it is very important to take note, if it disagrees with that person then it's just a poll, which means nothing.

If polls were that accurate we wouldn't need elections.

 

[Dav]

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

Gallup puts support of the bill at 49% overall, significantly higher among people under 65. Over 65 is strongly against.

Edit:

VVV Hahah I win!

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

Ok, so we know that most people either like it, or that most people hate it.

I've always found it funny though that some people look at these polls as though they are handed down from God. They are a general sentiment of the people, and can sometimes be a rather lousy interpretation of that. It seems as though if they agree with that persons beliefs then it is very important to take note, if it disagrees with that person then it's just a poll, which means nothing.

If polls were that accurate we wouldn't need elections.

Gallup has shown significantly higher numbers for support than everyone else here. Also, they poll all adults, while Rasmussen polls likely voters.

 

[Deuce]

Gallup has shown significantly higher numbers for support than everyone else here. Also, they poll all adults, while Rasmussen polls likely voters.

And Rasmussen has shown numbers consistently slanted towards conservatives.

 

[roughdraft274]

Gallup has shown significantly higher numbers for support than everyone else here. Also, they poll all adults, while Rasmussen polls likely voters.

Pollster.com: Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

I didn't say Gallup was more accurate. Just that people tend to go with whatever best fits the narrative of their head.

 

[Dav]

And Rasmussen has shown numbers consistently slanted towards conservatives.

To an extent, this is true. Even among likely voters, I'd expect that the "support for repeal" number is probably closer to 58% than 63%.

Pollster.com: Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

I like RCP better, they only take the latest poll from each company: RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan

The Gallup poll is one of only two in the last three months to show more supporting that opposing.

I didn't say Gallup was more accurate. Just that people tend to go with whatever best fits the narrative of their head.

This is true.