48%...

[The T]

If you take the three most recent national polls - Fox, Gallup, and Rasmussen, you see the following job approval results. These numbers now indicate some moderate Democrats are breaking from Obama along with the larger numbers of Independents who have been doing so for months...

46%

48%

48%


There is serious trouble in Obamaland.

And look for the healthcare debate to get very ugly this week - that is coming very soon...

Of course. How long before we hear that these polls asked the wrong question(s) or the wrong demographic...or to further how long before we hear from on high that the American people are accused to being swayed by the Nazi's in the 'TeaBagger's' movement?

Belive me...it's coming.

Nazis in the Teabagger's movement ? I was under the impression that ALL the Teabaggers and ALL the anti-Libs were Nazis

You remain clueless.

 

[rightwinger]

48% ??

Holy Shit! I'd be concerned if the republicans actually had a credible candidate or a credible platform to defeat Obama in 2012.

Let me list them for you, just to name a few.
1. Palin.
2. Pawlenty
3. Huckabee.
4. Gingrich.
5. Romney.

2012 is a long time away but one thing for sure is by the time we get there and your guy is still way way left of mainstream you could run your local dog catcher and the dog catcher would win. We will be handing out bumper stickers like we did when Carter was in only this time they will be reading, " Say goodbye Barrach."

Thanks for your list....

I'll take Obama with 39% approval over anyone on your list. Each has so many skeletons in their closet that they could never survive in a general election. You hit the mark with "mainstream" ...each is so far from mainstream America that they couldn't outpoll McCain

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for your list....

I'll take Obama with 39% approval over anyone on your list. Each has so many skeletons in their closet that they could never survive in a general election. You hit the mark with "mainstream" ...each is so far from mainstream America that they couldn't outpoll McCain

Dead wrong.

Pawlenty is so "mainstream" that it hurts, and Romney's only deviation from the vastly overrated "mainstream" is that he's LDS.

At this point, the race looks like a derby of who wants to lose less badly than the other.

 

[slackjawed]

Here in flyover country anyone on that list could beat Obama, course so could Charlie Manson.....

 

[Polk]

Weren't you guys the same ones that said for years that the only poll that mattered was the election? What happened to that?

Geez...People are willing to meet you on your turf and now you're gonna complain?

Fail. I was never one who harped on polls.

 

[Polk]

And what they don't go into detail about is of those 600k bankruptcies, how many were due to the fact that the loss of the job kept them from making payments on healthcare bills that they had accrued.

In addition, how many of them filed bankruptcies because of their loss of job caused them to just give up on paying them even though the balances may have been manageable?

Far to many questions to have answered yet.

In the end, less then 600k in a country of 400 million is considerably less then a national crisis.

They had Health Insurance, the majority of them. I'm still wondering where you pulled that 400 million from. I'm assuming your ass.

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

400 million? What the hell are you smoking?
US & World Population Clock

 

[Polk]

No, you're guessing and/or taking compulsive liars at their word.

Like I said, you're not this naïve.

I'm not taking anyone at their word. Like I said, I don't know their reasoning for 2012 and was guessing at it. I figure there is no reason for the Dems to rush this if it does pass. If they rush it and fuck it up, guess what? They will lose election after election.

I'm not naive, I'm looking at the impacts from a political standpoint.

I'm also looking at the tax increases that kick in almost immediately, for a program that won't launch for several years later.

This isn't caution, it's an accounting gimmick.

You guys keep saying that, but it's not true. In the Senate bill, the tax provisions go into effect in 2013, while the subsidies go into effect in 2014.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for your list....

I'll take Obama with 39% approval over anyone on your list. Each has so many skeletons in their closet that they could never survive in a general election. You hit the mark with "mainstream" ...each is so far from mainstream America that they couldn't outpoll McCain

Dead wrong.

Pawlenty is so "mainstream" that it hurts, and Romney's only deviation from the vastly overrated "mainstream" is that he's LDS.

At this point, the race looks like a derby of who wants to lose less badly than the other.

I got news for you. I actually like Pawlenty, Huckabee and Romney

Do you know what that means? It means the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin sect will crush them before they have a chance at the nomination. The conservative wing will use its muscle to squash any candidate who can even spell MODERATE

 

[Polk]

I'd say Pawlenty and Romney are relatively mainstream, and that's exactly why they won't win the nomination.

 

[Sinatra]

Okay. So, a half mil out of 307 million people. Not a crisis that I see.

_____

Just a little needed perspective here....

___

But fewer than one percent of Americans enter bankruptcy each year. Of those, only three to five percent are plausibly bankrupt due to medical debt. These numbers present the inconvenient truth that our health system is not leading to bankruptcy in America.

The Himmelstein study paints a picture of an American middle class that even with health insurance coverage is being bankrupted by health care costs. The share of bankruptcies attributable to health care costs rose by 50%between 2001 and 2007, according to the study. The message is that rising health care costs bankrupt the insured middle class as well as the uninsured lower class.

The only problem is that the study is fatally flawed. Dr. Himmelstein is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that describes itself on its Web site as "the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program."[/B] An additional Harvard coauthor, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, is co-founder and secretary of the organization. Even though the article states on the front page that the authors have no conflict of interest, two are self-declared activists for single-payer health care, and they have twisted the data to fit their cause.

Aparna Mathur, an American Enterprise Institute research fellow and another witness in the hearing, told me in a telephone conversation that "the Himmelstein surveys overstate the effect of medical debts on bankruptcy. Despite obvious problems with the survey methodology, it was clear to me during the testimony yesterday that the study was being used as a pretext for making the case for universal health insurance."

Dr. Himmelstein's study contradicts the economics literature on personal bankruptcies. Most reputable studies are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, published by the Federal Reserve, which lists different types of consumer debt. Medical debt rose slightly from 5.5% of all debt in 2001 to 5.8% of all debt in 2007, according to the Fed.

A study by the Department of Justice examined more than 5,000 bankruptcy cases between 2000 and 2002. It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000. Even among the minority of bankruptcies that report medical debt, only a few have enough to cause personal bankruptcy.

Dr. Himmelstein gets different results because he uses a smaller sample and a different methodology than other studies. He started with a random sample of 5,251 bankruptcy petitions and wound up through a series of screenings only using 1,032. His survey assumes that when a medical problem is mentioned that associated medical costs are automatically associated with bankruptcy. In addition, anyone is counted as medically bankrupt if they cite illness or medical bills as a reason for bankruptcy, even if other debts, such as foreclosure and credit card debt, are a primary reason.

Furthermore, if respondents lost two weeks of work due to illness or injury they were counted as medically bankrupt, even if they had no medical debt. Hypothetically, someone could go into bankruptcy while on Medicare or Medicaid, even if they owed no medical bills at all.

Yet using Dr. Himmelstein's methodology, even single-payer health care would not solve the medical bankruptcy problem. People would still lose work time to illness, perhaps even more time than under the current system, because health care would be of lower quality. Under Britain's single-payer system, for example, people who think they might have swine flu are not being seen by doctors. Instead, they are asked to stay home and consult with the doctor over the phone.

More and more Americans understand that adding $1 trillion to government spending for health care reform won't fix our economic crisis. So proponents of single-payer health care bring out poor Elizabeth Edwards to justify their made-up numbers on medical bankruptcy. Shame on them.


Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a contributing editor of RealClearMarkets and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.



RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth

Why is this reminding my of the emails and climate scientists?

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for your list....

I'll take Obama with 39% approval over anyone on your list. Each has so many skeletons in their closet that they could never survive in a general election. You hit the mark with "mainstream" ...each is so far from mainstream America that they couldn't outpoll McCain

Dead wrong.

Pawlenty is so "mainstream" that it hurts, and Romney's only deviation from the vastly overrated "mainstream" is that he's LDS.

At this point, the race looks like a derby of who wants to lose less badly than the other.

I got news for you. I actually like Pawlenty, Huckabee and Romney

Do you know what that means? It means the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin sect will crush them before they have a chance at the nomination. The conservative wing will use its muscle to squash any candidate who can even spell MODERATE

Yeah...Like ol' Rush "crushed" career squish sellout "moderate" Juan McQuisling last time around.

 

[The T]

Dead wrong.

Pawlenty is so "mainstream" that it hurts, and Romney's only deviation from the vastly overrated "mainstream" is that he's LDS.

At this point, the race looks like a derby of who wants to lose less badly than the other.

I got news for you. I actually like Pawlenty, Huckabee and Romney

Do you know what that means? It means the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin sect will crush them before they have a chance at the nomination. The conservative wing will use its muscle to squash any candidate who can even spell MODERATE

Yeah...Like ol' Rush "crushed" career squish sellout "moderate" Juan McQuisling last time around.

Nevermind tht RUSH couldn't do it, even though he admittedly voted for " Juan McQuisling "...

Which makes it even funnier.

 

[Polk]

There is a pattern in the GOP of after losing with a relatively moderate candidate (Nixon in 1960, Ford in 1986) swinging to a real movement flamethrower the next go (Goldwater in 1964, Reagan in 1980).

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not taking anyone at their word. Like I said, I don't know their reasoning for 2012 and was guessing at it. I figure there is no reason for the Dems to rush this if it does pass. If they rush it and fuck it up, guess what? They will lose election after election.

I'm not naive, I'm looking at the impacts from a political standpoint.

I'm also looking at the tax increases that kick in almost immediately, for a program that won't launch for several years later.

This isn't caution, it's an accounting gimmick.

You guys keep saying that, but it's not true. In the Senate bill, the tax provisions go into effect in 2013, while the subsidies go into effect in 2014.

So what is it that YOU'RE smoking?

The taxes kick in immediately. But the real question remains. If it is such a crisis. Why are they waiting until 2012 to start doing something about it?

 

[Polk]

I'm also looking at the tax increases that kick in almost immediately, for a program that won't launch for several years later.

This isn't caution, it's an accounting gimmick.

You guys keep saying that, but it's not true. In the Senate bill, the tax provisions go into effect in 2013, while the subsidies go into effect in 2014.

So what is it that YOU'RE smoking?

The taxes kick in immediately. But the real question remains. If it is such a crisis. Why are they waiting until 2012 to start doing something about it?

The taxes do not take effect until 2013. You'd know that if you read the bill instead of just repeating what you've heard on Fox. Also, the most important issues (preexisting condition coverage, etc) take effect upon passage.

 

[Darkwind]

You guys keep saying that, but it's not true. In the Senate bill, the tax provisions go into effect in 2013, while the subsidies go into effect in 2014.

So what is it that YOU'RE smoking?

The taxes kick in immediately. But the real question remains. If it is such a crisis. Why are they waiting until 2012 to start doing something about it?

The taxes do not take effect until 2013. You'd know that if you read the bill instead of just repeating what you've heard on Fox. Also, the most important issues (preexisting condition coverage, etc) take effect upon passage.

Wow. Not only are you a tool, but your a willing one at that.

No one who has read the bill denies that the taxes, fees and fines begin immediately.

How do you think they have managed to sell that bogus 900 billion dollar number that they are so fucking proud of?

Seriously. Try for a little honesty.

 

[Darkwind]

*sigh*

I'm just not into this right now.

Think I'm going to go play.

Later.

 

[Polk]

So what is it that YOU'RE smoking?

The taxes kick in immediately. But the real question remains. If it is such a crisis. Why are they waiting until 2012 to start doing something about it?

The taxes do not take effect until 2013. You'd know that if you read the bill instead of just repeating what you've heard on Fox. Also, the most important issues (preexisting condition coverage, etc) take effect upon passage.

Wow. Not only are you a tool, but your a willing one at that.

No one who has read the bill denies that the taxes, fees and fines begin immediately.

How do you think they have managed to sell that bogus 900 billion dollar number that they are so fucking proud of?

Seriously. Try for a little honesty.

I am being honest.

Under the Finance Committee bill, the tax would be imposed beginning in 2013 on employer- sponsored health plans with total premiums exceeding $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, regardless of whether the coverage was paid for by the employer, the individual or both. The tax would be paid by insurers, who would be expected to pass along the cost to customers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/health/policy/13plans.html

Your problem is you think whores like Beck and Hannity are telling you the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd say Pawlenty and Romney are relatively mainstream, and that's exactly why they won't win the nomination.

Romney's best chance is that Huckabee and Palin get in and get into a fairly evenly matched fight for the rightwing vote, split it, and Romney gets the rest.

 

[rightwinger]

I'd say Pawlenty and Romney are relatively mainstream, and that's exactly why they won't win the nomination.

Romney's best chance is that Huckabee and Palin get in and get into a fairly evenly matched fight for the rightwing vote, split it, and Romney gets the rest.

Romney will get thrown to the wingnut wolves as soon as his candidacy takes hold. Palin and Limbaugh fear-mongering will make Romney look like Teddy Kennedy