Newest Health Care Poll

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
This is another big government program and eventually all big government programs cost us all way to much money.
How about reforming the system, instead of a new government program? Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions, keeping what you have when you lose your job, torte reform, children stay on their parents health care as long as they are in college? Not a set age limit. Pooling insurances together?
Huh? How about it people?

The Rasmussen Problem

Rasmussen's role in the public debate is problematic for several reasons. It's not altogether clear what causes him to consistently project results so much at odds with those of the rest of the polling community. But if there is something problematic about his methods, he has little incentive to correct it, because Rasmussen's business model increasingly relies upon maintaining the loyalty of staunch Republicans.

The problem with this argument, is the inability to provide any poll data that shows and overwhelming SUPPORT for this New Health Care Bill.

CNN POLL:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-half-favor-repealing-health-care-law/
A Quinnipiac University national poll that was also released Tuesday offered similar results. According to the survey, Americans by a 48 to 43 percent margin want Congress to repeal the health care reform.

People over the age of 50 favor repeal by a 57 to 37 percent margin. But those under the age of 50 are split.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, with 44% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed to repeal, including 26% who Strongly Oppose.

 

[Big Fitz]

What?? He wouldn't be paying for it because it would be too expensive. I asked for him, you, or anyone to show me how he can afford it. He didn't, you didn't. Because he can't.

So what is he paying now? Cant everyone do the same thing he is doing now and paying? If he can so can everyone.

Hello...paying?


Again what part of everyone pays into your pet are you not understanding. Apply what he is doing to your pet. Paying.

Show me the math. C'mon....$100k into payments. How long will it take to pay? How much will he pay per month?

Why do insist on avoiding this question that I've asked repeatedly? Do you not know how to do math?

Once again, you prove you have no interest in what's really happening but your own hypothetical scenario.

Let's try one on you. You say you have health insurance. I take you at your word that you do (which i probably a mistake as you've proven no clue as to what goes into buying health insurance... probably on mommy's)

Now you get dinged for a series of 12 claims. None of which reach your deductible of 5k and you rack up a hospital bill of over 55k that insurance won't cover AND now you have a pre-exsting condition that jacks up your premiums to double what they are now, or your coverage will be dropped.

How are you going to pay off THAT RealDumbassDick?

I see you are hoping your self pwnage won't continue to haunt your oh so superior theories, but even you yourself admitted that universal healthcare or public options are unsustainable for them to do what you want. Keep running and trying to blow enough chaff and flares to get you out of trouble, but Syrenn keeps getting your number and handing it to you.

 

[Big Fitz]

You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do

All this from not playing with hypotheticals. Since I don't NEED to see my options for paying off 100k, I am not going to RESEARCH my options. If you want to find out how it works, call your own local hospital and be your own research monkey, bitch.

Until you answer this VERY real world example,

Since I don't owe anyone 100k, it very well cannot BE a 'real world example'. Of course I'm not surprised you don't get the concept of "real world".

Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.

Who died and appointed you the god of healthcare Real Dumbass DICK??? Your real example doesn't exist. You're so focused on a fake scenario you are ignoring the basic fact that I am not impacting your costs one red cent because it fucks your entire argument off the map! How is it, that me paying my REAL bills out of my own pocket, myself is a threat to your costs? Prove that shit.

You need to think about real world application of your ideas.

You mean like admitting this?

Because if you set it high enough to make it sustainable it will be too expensive for the poor. If you make it cheap enough for even the poorest to be able to afford it, it wouldn't be a sustainable system.

You fully admit your concept is a FAILURE and yet you harp on oblivious to your own failed philosophy. Life must suck that you have to edit your hypocrisy and insanity on the fly. Must make it very hard to get through the day RealDumbassDICK.

Now, if you are done having a case of logical Tourette's the adults here have matters to discuss.

 

[Big Fitz]

We've been paying too much for years, this legislation aims to correct how we pay which in turn will hopefully reduce the amount we pay.

No, it does'nt ,that is why everyones insurance has gone up. If you read that bill (which I have) it is not set up at all to lower the cost. They hope it will ,but it won't.

Correct me (with facts) if I'm wrong, but, everyones insurance has been going up for decades now and most of the new healthcare legislation hasn't even taken effect yet. Methinks the Peach is blowing smoke (politely said, says I).

The major reason insurance costs have increased is because medical costs have increased as well as legal costs incurred over claims. Honestly, lawyers are potentially the number one factor as to why health care is so damn expensive. The next or tied for first would be government intervention, mandates, and regulations on how medicine should be administered.

If you changed one aspect of law to "Loser Pays" on tort reforms, the effect on business would be incredible. Entire useless lawfirms would go out of business as they could not afford to risk losing when suing for 'fun and profit' or blackmailing people into settling.

Next, end government involvement in the operation and payment of medical care and relegate them strictly to their appropriate watchdog status to protect all parties involved and prices will drop again.

 

[Big Fitz]

And RealDumbassDick disappears in a puff of logic.

 

[RDD_1210]

So what is he paying now? Cant everyone do the same thing he is doing now and paying? If he can so can everyone.

Hello...paying?


Again what part of everyone pays into your pet are you not understanding. Apply what he is doing to your pet. Paying.

Show me the math. C'mon....$100k into payments. How long will it take to pay? How much will he pay per month?

Why do insist on avoiding this question that I've asked repeatedly? Do you not know how to do math?

Once again, you prove you have no interest in what's really happening but your own hypothetical scenario.

Let's try one on you. You say you have health insurance. I take you at your word that you do (which i probably a mistake as you've proven no clue as to what goes into buying health insurance... probably on mommy's)

Now you get dinged for a series of 12 claims. None of which reach your deductible of 5k and you rack up a hospital bill of over 55k that insurance won't cover AND now you have a pre-exsting condition that jacks up your premiums to double what they are now, or your coverage will be dropped.

How are you going to pay off THAT RealDumbassDick?

I see you are hoping your self pwnage won't continue to haunt your oh so superior theories, but even you yourself admitted that universal healthcare or public options are unsustainable for them to do what you want. Keep running and trying to blow enough chaff and flares to get you out of trouble, but Syrenn keeps getting your number and handing it to you.

Good thing, the new health care reform eliminates exclusion for pre-existing conditions so I'd have nothing to worry about under your scenario. Thanks for pointing that out! Was that the point you were trying to highlight?

Now will you answer my hypothetical situation? Of course you won't because you have no answer.

 

[RDD_1210]

You mean like admitting this?

Because if you set it high enough to make it sustainable it will be too expensive for the poor. If you make it cheap enough for even the poorest to be able to afford it, it wouldn't be a sustainable system.

Do you even understand what that statement was in response to?? It was her proposed healthcare solution. Not to the system laid out in this legislation. I'd ask if you are really that slow, but I already know the answer.

 

[Big Fitz]

You mean like admitting this?

Because if you set it high enough to make it sustainable it will be too expensive for the poor. If you make it cheap enough for even the poorest to be able to afford it, it wouldn't be a sustainable system.

Do you even understand what that statement was in response to?? It was her proposed healthcare solution. Not to the system laid out in this legislation. I'd ask if you are really that slow, but I already know the answer.

Spin Fail Spin Fail Spin Fail.

Your words are plain for everyone to see you know damn well YOUR desire for universal healthcare is a failure but you don't give a fuck. It's about political power, and feeling like a big man that you're owed thanks from po' people for their very survival.

 

[RDD_1210]

You mean like admitting this?

Do you even understand what that statement was in response to?? It was her proposed healthcare solution. Not to the system laid out in this legislation. I'd ask if you are really that slow, but I already know the answer.

Spin Fail Spin Fail Spin Fail.

Your words are plain for everyone to see you know damn well YOUR desire for universal healthcare is a failure but you don't give a fuck. It's about political power, and feeling like a big man that you're owed thanks from po' people for their very survival.

Seriously? Here's the full post and me replying to her idea that everyone should pay the same amount.

Everyone should pay the same amount

So again, I was replying to her idea which is nothing like what this legislation actually is.

Why do you feel the need to lie about what I said? I'll just stop responding to you if you're just going to lie about what I said and ignore the stuff I ask you.

 

[RDD_1210]

And why can't you answer my hypothetical situation question, when I answered yours?

 

[MaggieMae]

You are not addressing the costs for each of us on premiums - it is not addressed in this bill, nor does it deal with it.Thirty three states have said the can't afford the cost and two of them are Dems, the Gov. of Calif. and the Gov. of N.Y.
So we must deal with the cost of this thing and can not ignore that there are more people against this bill than they are for it. You left keep arguing this, even if it was 50 - 50 you can't have half of this nation against a bill. This not what the nation is about.

The best conservatives/Republicans can hope for is a revision to the Health Care bill. There are too many provisions that Americans like.

The Health Care Reform Provisions Americans Like -- And Don't Like

 

[MaggieMae]

And how do they pay for it, if they have no money? You need to think about real world application of your ideas.

So again, it will be the SAME unsustainable shell game.

So those who don't have the money and no way of making payments, should receive no care?

No, they will continue to receive care at hospital emergency rooms, which drives up the cost for those who CAN pay, and then they complain about how much their insurance premiums continue to go up, and 'round and 'round it goes. The ol' status quo.

 

[RDD_1210]

So again, it will be the SAME unsustainable shell game.

So those who don't have the money and no way of making payments, should receive no care?

No, they will continue to receive care at hospital emergency rooms, which drives up the cost for those who CAN pay, and then they complain about how much their insurance premiums continue to go up, and 'round and 'round it goes. The ol' status quo.

Maybe you can explain this concept to them. I've tried but it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[MaggieMae]

They receive health care now....so again, what is the difference?

Same shell game, different shells.

How it is being paid for would be different. You're forcing me to have to stop replying to you, because you refuse to reply to what I am actually saying and repeat the same thing over and over again.

Bingo...there is no difference. There is NO difference between obamacare and what we have now.

So as i have said before and you don't seem to understand

Same shell game, just different shells.


Follow the money and get off of the soap box.

The biggest difference is insurers will now have strong competition because of the insurance exchanges (pools). For example: Let's say some local small law firms can't afford big insurance premiums for their employees. Then currently are able to look for insurers who offer a pool (with set coverage for all), that incorporates several law firms under one umbrella, and thus reduces the premium. Employees can opt out of participation and either go without or buy their own insurance if they don't think they would get adequate coverage offered by a pooled insurance policy. The problem with the way current insurers use pool policies is that they require X-number of employee participation, or else they decline to do the coverage. Under the new health care plan, ALL health insurers who want to compete for employees (or even individuals) will have to join the exchange where they will meet with all kinds of price competition for coverage offered. What's wrong with that? Isn't basic capitalism based on competition?

 

[MaggieMae]

Apply it to your pet. You still say that some will not pay. What is the difference? Wont they all still be getting their 100k of care for free? PLUS the bonus years of what ever bullshit they want to show up for?


It is the same thing. Higlighting his situation is exactaly what is the core problem of obamacare

It is financially unsustainable.

I get it, you refuse to show me the math because you don't know how.

The math is how much will the ones who are not going to pay into obamacare cost. There is your math. How much will the payments for those who are forced to pay into your pet be, just to carry the ones who are not paying?

The point is, YOU don't know the math. You have "hope" and "if's"

Some don't pay into Medicaid either, depending on income. I don't understand your point. The purpose is to get coverage for those people who fall between the cracks. Should they too just continue going to emergency rooms just because they can't afford $400-$700+ a month for health care insurance?

The bottom line is if we don't have a healthy (and educated, I might add) society, we will no longer be able to compete at all in the global market. We can't continue the downward spiral of generation after generation of sick and under-educated citizens.

 

[syrenn]

How it is being paid for would be different. You're forcing me to have to stop replying to you, because you refuse to reply to what I am actually saying and repeat the same thing over and over again.

Bingo...there is no difference. There is NO difference between obamacare and what we have now.

So as i have said before and you don't seem to understand

Same shell game, just different shells.


Follow the money and get off of the soap box.

The biggest difference is insurers will now have strong competition because of the insurance exchanges (pools). For example: Let's say some local small law firms can't afford big insurance premiums for their employees. Then currently are able to look for insurers who offer a pool (with set coverage for all), that incorporates several law firms under one umbrella, and thus reduces the premium. Employees can opt out of participation and either go without or buy their own insurance if they don't think they would get adequate coverage offered by a pooled insurance policy. The problem with the way current insurers use pool policies is that they require X-number of employee participation, or else they decline to do the coverage. Under the new health care plan, ALL health insurers who want to compete for employees (or even individuals) will have to join the exchange where they will meet with all kinds of price competition for coverage offered. What's wrong with that? Isn't basic capitalism based on competition?

There is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone in the pool who wants care is PAYING for it.

How hard is for you to understand the concept of payment.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's an attack to ask how you would pay off a 100k bill??? I don't think so. You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do. Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.

Like every other bill that gets paid. Monthly .

That would be those of us who do pay, but in this great county thousands don't pay and still get great care. The point is moot.

Not by comparison, we don't.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

 

[MaggieMae]

Except its too much to pay monthly. And that's the point. We will all pay for him since it is too much for him to pay.

That's so silly I almost don't know what to say.

Hello?!?! - payment plan.

Oh sure. Find some doctor's office where they're happy to offer payment plans, and I'll try to find an ad for you that says the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale.

If only...

 

[MaggieMae]

Lower the cost of the health care system it's self. Get regulations to deal with the high price of drugs, this has gotten total out of control. Then look at what is really driving up hospital costs and regulate them.

That, of course, is what REALLY should be done. But then we'd hear from the conservatives who would scream that regulation of the health care industry is unconstitutional and socialistic, which of course it is. It's really too bad that the industry didn't climb atop this problem long before they had to have ANY regulations slapped on them. I guess, like the housing industry, they all just blissfully went about their business thinking they were invincible and could keep making enormous profits off the backs of those who can afford their services.

Kudos for recognizing that major problem.

 

[HUGGY]

My whole point is we can not afford another big government program period. Get rid of this bill and do health care regulation that the majority of America can agree on.

Were you in a coma for the last two years? The reason your health care has gone up recently is that the HMO's spent the difference paying off legislators, lobbyists and a very massive and EXPENSIVE media blitz to get the bill shaped towards their goals ..not yours.

Did you really think all that HMO propaganda was free?

You are a Peach...A very stupid Peach.