Poll 50% Don't Like The SCOTUS Ruling

[Chris]

Twenty years ago, Switzerland had a system very similar to America’s–private insurers, private providers–with very similar problems. People didn’t buy insurance but ended up in emergency rooms, insurers screened out people with pre-existing conditions, and costs were rising fast. The country came to the conclusion that to make health care work, everyone had to buy insurance. So the Swiss passed an individual mandate and reformed their system along lines very similar to Obamacare. The reform law passed by referendum, narrowly. The result two decades later: quality of care remains very high, everyone has access, and costs have moderated. Switzerland spends 11% of its GDP on health care, compared with 17% in the U.S. Its 8 million people have health care that is not tied to their employers, they can choose among many plans, and they can switch plans every year. Overall satisfaction with the system is high.

Health Insurance is for Everyone « Fareed Zakaria

 

[The Infidel]

Bet if anything shows up in the polls next week, it will be a slight uptick for the President.

Kind of like that "up tick" in Romney donations???

 

[Salt Jones]

And praytell....just why will they do that ?

Because it they don't set up state healthcare exchanges by Jan. 2013 the federal government will do it, without state legislature input and it becomes law.

That's right dickweed....and the states won't eat the cost....the fed will.

Really?

“Because it is not known whether the Affordable Care Act will remain, in whole or in part, it would be imprudent for New Jersey now to create an exchange before these critical threshold issues are decided with finality by the court,” he added.

Mr. Christie was the second governor to veto such a law, following Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who is also a Republican. In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, took the opposite tack last month: after the Legislature declined to create an exchange, he established one by executive order.

Ultimately, Mr. Christie’s veto is largely symbolic. The federal law requires states to offer health care exchanges by January 2014, but provides that Washington will step in to administer them in states that fail to make progress by January 2013. In either case, the state pays to set up the health care exchange, but states that fail to create the exchanges lose the ability to oversee them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/n...health-insurance-exchange-for-new-jersey.html

 

[Listening]

Because it they don't set up state healthcare exchanges by Jan. 2013 the federal government will do it, without state legislature input and it becomes law.

That's right dickweed....and the states won't eat the cost....the fed will.

Really?

“Because it is not known whether the Affordable Care Act will remain, in whole or in part, it would be imprudent for New Jersey now to create an exchange before these critical threshold issues are decided with finality by the court,” he added.

Mr. Christie was the second governor to veto such a law, following Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who is also a Republican. In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, took the opposite tack last month: after the Legislature declined to create an exchange, he established one by executive order.

Ultimately, Mr. Christie’s veto is largely symbolic. The federal law requires states to offer health care exchanges by January 2014, but provides that Washington will step in to administer them in states that fail to make progress by January 2013. In either case, the state pays to set up the health care exchange, but states that fail to create the exchanges lose the ability to oversee them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/n...health-insurance-exchange-for-new-jersey.html

Under the law as it was proposed.

Now that Roberts had to essentially rewrite the law.....and especially because of the question about medicaid, that might not be the case.

 

[Listening]

Twenty years ago, Switzerland had a system very similar to America’s–private insurers, private providers–with very similar problems. People didn’t buy insurance but ended up in emergency rooms, insurers screened out people with pre-existing conditions, and costs were rising fast. The country came to the conclusion that to make health care work, everyone had to buy insurance. So the Swiss passed an individual mandate and reformed their system along lines very similar to Obamacare. The reform law passed by referendum, narrowly. The result two decades later: quality of care remains very high, everyone has access, and costs have moderated. Switzerland spends 11% of its GDP on health care, compared with 17% in the U.S. Its 8 million people have health care that is not tied to their employers, they can choose among many plans, and they can switch plans every year. Overall satisfaction with the system is high.

Health Insurance is for Everyone « Fareed Zakaria

What is the population of Switzerland ?

Answer: About the same as Arizona....

What is the population of Denmark ?

Less that Switzerland.

You have no clue about the constitution or the way it was set up (I know....you only care about the ten commandments....but you still hide under Obama's skirt). If AZ wants government health care, they can follow Switzerland.

So far they haven't wanted it.

What don't you get about that ?

 

[Salt Jones]

That's right dickweed....and the states won't eat the cost....the fed will.

Really?

“Because it is not known whether the Affordable Care Act will remain, in whole or in part, it would be imprudent for New Jersey now to create an exchange before these critical threshold issues are decided with finality by the court,” he added.

Mr. Christie was the second governor to veto such a law, following Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who is also a Republican. In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, took the opposite tack last month: after the Legislature declined to create an exchange, he established one by executive order.

Ultimately, Mr. Christie’s veto is largely symbolic. The federal law requires states to offer health care exchanges by January 2014, but provides that Washington will step in to administer them in states that fail to make progress by January 2013. In either case, the state pays to set up the health care exchange, but states that fail to create the exchanges lose the ability to oversee them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/n...health-insurance-exchange-for-new-jersey.html

Under the law as it was proposed.

Now that Roberts had to essentially rewrite the law.....and especially because of the question about medicaid, that might not be the case.

The law has not been rewritten and medicaid and healthcare exchanges are separate issues, with different funding methods. Did you study the topic?

 

[Listening]

Really?

“Because it is not known whether the Affordable Care Act will remain, in whole or in part, it would be imprudent for New Jersey now to create an exchange before these critical threshold issues are decided with finality by the court,” he added.

Mr. Christie was the second governor to veto such a law, following Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who is also a Republican. In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, took the opposite tack last month: after the Legislature declined to create an exchange, he established one by executive order.

Ultimately, Mr. Christie’s veto is largely symbolic. The federal law requires states to offer health care exchanges by January 2014, but provides that Washington will step in to administer them in states that fail to make progress by January 2013. In either case, the state pays to set up the health care exchange, but states that fail to create the exchanges lose the ability to oversee them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/n...health-insurance-exchange-for-new-jersey.html

Under the law as it was proposed.

Now that Roberts had to essentially rewrite the law.....and especially because of the question about medicaid, that might not be the case.

The law has not been rewritten and medicaid and healthcare exchanges are separate issues, with different funding methods. Did you study the topic?

Keep on that thought, junior.

Roberts reformed the entire basis for the law. It was rewritten.....even if the wording hasn't changed.

The other pieces might not be as separte as you want to believe.

 

[Salt Jones]

Under the law as it was proposed.

Now that Roberts had to essentially rewrite the law.....and especially because of the question about medicaid, that might not be the case.

The law has not been rewritten and medicaid and healthcare exchanges are separate issues, with different funding methods. Did you study the topic?

Keep on that thought, junior.

Roberts reformed the entire basis for the law. It was rewritten.....even if the wording hasn't changed.

The other pieces might not be as separte as you want to believe.

You really are clueless about this topic.

 

[Charles_Main]

Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.

New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court

Not that it matters to me because justices don't vote to be popular....unless you listen to Charles Krautwhatever....who think Roberts only did this to preserve the integrity of the court (and if he did...boy did he blow that one).

However, it does have some thought provoking information with regards to how people might vote come November.

Romney needs to ram this up Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett's asses.

Polls like this are kinda arbitrary.

I mean I like Parts of the Ruling. It curtails the Commerce Clause, it Says the Fed can not Coerce States.

I don't like that it appears to give them unlimited taxing powers. I don't like of course that were still stuck with Obama Care.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The law has not been rewritten and medicaid and healthcare exchanges are separate issues, with different funding methods. Did you study the topic?

Keep on that thought, junior.

Roberts reformed the entire basis for the law. It was rewritten.....even if the wording hasn't changed.

The other pieces might not be as separte as you want to believe.

You really are clueless about this topic.

Ok, the law was sold as not a tax, yet the SCOTUS passed it as a tax, that is rewriting or redfining if you will. They should have struck it down and said pass it as a tax increase if you want it to be constitutional, but they just changed the application of the mandate and we were sold shit. Every promise about this bill from democrats has been total fail.
From now on, I want congress to read the fucking laws they pass, no more Pelosi partisanship and stupidity to get laws passed.

 

[francoHFW]

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

 

[HUGGY]

Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.

New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court

Not that it matters to me because justices don't vote to be popular....unless you listen to Charles Krautwhatever....who think Roberts only did this to preserve the integrity of the court (and if he did...boy did he blow that one).

However, it does have some thought provoking information with regards to how people might vote come November.

Romney needs to ram this up Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett's asses.

Poll 50% Don't Like The SCOTUS Ruling


It wouldn't matter if 99% of the people didn't like the rulung would it.

Why he did it is irrelevant. He did it. The SC doesn't even have to give a reason as they did not in upholding Citizens United in the Montana case.

 

[francoHFW]

yesssssssssss

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.

New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court

Not that it matters to me because justices don't vote to be popular....unless you listen to Charles Krautwhatever....who think Roberts only did this to preserve the integrity of the court (and if he did...boy did he blow that one).

However, it does have some thought provoking information with regards to how people might vote come November.

Romney needs to ram this up Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett's asses.

Telling how the right ignores the fact that the Court upheld fundamental tenets of conservative jurisprudence – they’re just angry Obama didn’t get his ‘smack down,’ the Constitution and its case law be damned.

 

[Bill Angel]

I'm afraid that the only way this kind of information is useful now is in determining mood of the voters coming into the election.

100% of the country could disapprove of the ruling, and that will not stop it from being a law.

Absolutely true.

And that is the point. Most of the pundits are now saying this election is about Obamacare. Essentially, it has been handed back to the legislature.

Now the fun begins.

I agree. The decision of the Supreme Court stigmatizes the health care mandate as a "tax". The decision will likely give a boost to the fortunes of the Tea Party Republicans, at least within the Republican Party in terms of the agenda spelled out in the Party platform that Romney will campaign to implement.

 

[Chris]

Romney should run on being the inventor of Obamacare.

 

[Steelplate]

No more medical bankruptcies

No more people getting sick or dying

And it's all free

How the fuck was I ever against it?

Hyperbole much?

 

[Steelplate]

We can't let people have access to preventative care, they'll overuse it! Best to wait until they're almost dead, then you know they aren't trying to game the system.

Overuse it? Fool! It's free!

You can't overuse free stuff

Life expectancy should start to rise now, right?

Bigot asks if better access to preventative care will increase life expectancy?

Does Bigot really need me to answer that?

Bigot doesn't like increased life expectancy....he wants people to die young so that he can get rid of SS and the like. Bigot thinks he's on the side of the Founding Fathers....but what right wing media doesn't tell bigot is that the founding fathers weren't against taxation....but taxation without representation. Even if one never takes a dime out of the system in their lifetimes...it's still there if they need it...that equals....Representation.

 

[idb]

Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.

New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court

Not that it matters to me because justices don't vote to be popular....unless you listen to Charles Krautwhatever....who think Roberts only did this to preserve the integrity of the court (and if he did...boy did he blow that one).

However, it does have some thought provoking information with regards to how people might vote come November.

Romney needs to ram this up Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett's asses.

Telling how the right ignores the fact that the Court upheld fundamental tenets of conservative jurisprudence – they’re just angry Obama didn’t get his ‘smack down,’ the Constitution and its case law be damned.

Exactly, if the court had ruled otherwise the screams would have been "See, the POS POTUS is trying to overturn the the Constitution!"
Now the screams are about a traitorous Supreme Court judge - forgetting that the Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution as written and not according to party doctrine.

 

[idb]

Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.

New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court

Not that it matters to me because justices don't vote to be popular....unless you listen to Charles Krautwhatever....who think Roberts only did this to preserve the integrity of the court (and if he did...boy did he blow that one).

However, it does have some thought provoking information with regards to how people might vote come November.

Romney needs to ram this up Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett's asses.

Polls like this are kinda arbitrary.

I mean I like Parts of the Ruling. It curtails the Commerce Clause, it Says the Fed can not Coerce States.

I don't like that it appears to give them unlimited taxing powers. I don't like of course that were still stuck with Obama Care.

Yep.
Other polls say that Americans are broadly in favour of the Act except for the IM provision.