72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Navy1960]

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and , 28% plus or minus of McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around 800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.

 

[Chris]

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and , 28% plus or minus of McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around 800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

 

[elvis]

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and , 28% plus or minus of McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around 800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.

 

[Navy1960]

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and , 28% plus or minus of McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around 800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that healthcare needs to be reformed to make it more affordable for all Chris. I don't think I have made the arguement otherwise. Where I differ is who is best at doing that. However, if I went out and polled 500 Obama supporters and 150 McCain supporters I'm sure I'd end up with the same 70 plus percent that the times poll did. What a staggering number of Americans that represents .

 

[KittenKoder]

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and , 28% plus or minus of McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around 800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.

There are a few of us who know exactly why the health care system failed, but it's too few still. The majority are buying this "free healthcare" pitch too blindly.

 

[Annie]

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.

There are a few of us who know exactly why the health care system failed, but it's too few still. The majority are buying this "free healthcare" pitch too blindly.

What? You doubt it?

 

[elvis]

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.

There are a few of us who know exactly why the health care system failed, but it's too few still. The majority are buying this "free healthcare" pitch too blindly.

with the help of people like Chris.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, I am repeating myself but meh, for all those who actually think healthcare will be cheaper if run by the government .... BZZZZZT! This is why our costs are high, and it's not the insurance companies that control them either so don't bother trying that crap. The FDA regulates what is allowed and what isn't. Pharmaceutical companies then have to pay them more in order to get permission to sell in the US, those with the biggest bribes tend to be the more dangerous and less tested drugs oddly .... this cost then has to be recuperated to make a profit, guess how they do that? Raising the cost to the patient. Not only do drug companies have this connection, the entire industry does. Drop out the FDA and *gasp* require patients learn a bit about their own health care then the prices will fall ... but you will also find a startling fact, we are not as sick as they tell us.

 

[oreo]

I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country. I am not so certain that the federal government can fix it.

I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.

In fact, I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country. I just not so certain that the government can fix it.

I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.

I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.

There's the problem, it was the government meddling in it that messed it up in the first place. Sometimes just leaving it to it's own devices fixes it best.

 

[Navy1960]

I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country. I am not so certain that the federal government can fix it.

I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.

In fact, I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.

Thought you all might like to see what is going on here in Arizona,,

PHOENIX -- Saying they are working to prevent socialism, members of the state House voted 34-19 Thursday to ask voters to block the federal government from forcing Arizonans to enroll in any universal health care program.

"We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions,' argued Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the measure.

"Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.'

Denied:1up! Software ()

I had started an earlier thread oreo suggesting just what you had said that perhaps states are the best place to provide care and let the people that live there decide for themselves what they want.

 

[Annie]

I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country. I just not so certain that the government can fix it.

I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.

I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.

There's the problem, it was the government meddling in it that messed it up in the first place. Sometimes just leaving it to it's own devices fixes it best.

So cynical. Obama SAID it won't cost a penny that's not being spent already. You doubt him? Damn, hard act. LOL!

 

[Care4all]

I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country. I am not so certain that the federal government can fix it.

I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.

In fact, I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.

Thought you all might like to see what is going on here in Arizona,,

PHOENIX -- Saying they are working to prevent socialism, members of the state House voted 34-19 Thursday to ask voters to block the federal government from forcing Arizonans to enroll in any universal health care program.

"We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions,' argued Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the measure.

"Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.'

Denied:1up! Software ()

I had started an earlier thread oreo suggesting just what you had said that perhaps states are the best place to provide care and let the people that live there decide for themselves what they want.

navy
Has the federal government stopped the States from doing what is right for their citizens with their health care?

They haven't.

So WHAT stopped the States from handling their own problems with health care for their citizens and correcting the problems with it the past 10 to 20 years, I wonder?

only a handful of the 50 states have even tried to approach this mega issue...I know massachusetts tried...maybe a couple of other states have as well, but don't know how it is working out for them....?

care

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and , 28% plus or minus of McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around 800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.

Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.

So we'll just let the bloated, inefficient more expensive government bureaucracy handle health insurance right?

Out of the frying pan and into the fire. you place way too much faith in government

 

[jreeves]

So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.

Most national polls have a sample of around 1,000 people that are accurate within 3% of the sample and a confidence interval of 95%. In English, that means given any specific poll at any given time, we expect it to be accurate within 3% 19 times out of 20.

Let's look at the last Presidential election. The final results for the popular vote was Obama 53%, McCain 46%.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

So, the confidence interval tells us we would expect Obama to receive 50% to 56% of the vote 19 times out of 20 and McCain to receive between 49% and 43% 19 times out of 20.

What actually happened in the election? Here are the polls on the last days of the election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls

There were 15 polls on the last weekend of the election. Every poll had Obama between 50% and 55%. Every poll had McCain between 48% and 42%. So the polls were pretty accurate even though the typical poll had about 1,000 respondents.

If you averaged out the polls, Obama was at 52.1% but received 52.9% while McCain was at 44.5% and received 45.6%. We would expect the average to be closer given that the 15 polls account for a population sample of around 20,000 (out of 300 million).

So, yeah, 1,000 people is usually a pretty fair assessment of the national mood. Political parties don't pay pollsters millions of dollars for nothing. There are many reasons to be skeptical about this poll, but generally, the methodological construction is probably not one of them.

This particular poll although, is quite skewed...



You may have heard about the New York Times/CBS poll showing support for government-run health care. It turns out that the sample was tilted towards Barack Obama:

As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll’s data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.

What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.

As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.

This isn’t to say that all polls are stacked and I’m not accusing the Times or CBS of wrong doing, but you have to question why they’d let a poll like this be released when it doesn’t equally represent voters. Seems very disengenious and irresponsible.
NY Times oversamples Obama supporters in health care poll | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[jreeves]

Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.

I am going to enjoy watching this awful system fail.

so in the inaccurate government figures you are one of the 46 million uninsured even though you chose to not buy health insurance.

Lmao....

Him and 7 million illegal immigrants

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.

I am going to enjoy watching this awful system fail.

so in the inaccurate government figures you are one of the 46 million uninsured even though you chose to not buy health insurance.

Lmao....

Him and 7 million illegal immigrants

How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?*|*KeithHennessey.com

I've posted this several times and no one provides proof that these numbers are wrong other than to say, "That guy worked for Bush so his numbers are a lie"

Great argument huh?

BTW I saw a similar report on CNBC which stated that the true uninsured are less than 9 million people.

As usual, the government is not telling the whole truth here.

 

[Annie]

so in the inaccurate government figures you are one of the 46 million uninsured even though you chose to not buy health insurance.

Lmao....

Him and 7 million illegal immigrants

How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?*|*KeithHennessey.com

I've posted this several times and no one provides proof that these numbers are wrong other than to say, "That guy worked for Bush so his numbers are a lie"

Great argument huh?

BTW I saw a similar report on CNBC which stated that the true uninsured are less than 9 million people.

As usual, the government is not telling the whole truth here.

Pretty good. Same number here:

Larry Kudlow : We Don't Need Big Bang Health Care Reform - Townhall.com

...There’s more. According to the U.S. Census Bureau we don’t have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who choose not to sign up for a health-care plan, roughly 20 million people are removed from the list of uninsured. After that you can remove the 10 million who are not U.S. citizens and the 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but for some reason have not signed up for those programs.

So that leaves only 10 million to 15 million people among the long-term uninsured....

 

[jreeves]

so in the inaccurate government figures you are one of the 46 million uninsured even though you chose to not buy health insurance.

Lmao....

Him and 7 million illegal immigrants

How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?*|*KeithHennessey.com

I've posted this several times and no one provides proof that these numbers are wrong other than to say, "That guy worked for Bush so his numbers are a lie"

Great argument huh?

BTW I saw a similar report on CNBC which stated that the true uninsured are less than 9 million people.

As usual, the government is not telling the whole truth here.

I don't think for Democrats that this about helping people who legitimately need Health insurance. I believe it's about creating a dependent constituency that will have no choice but vote them into office over and over..

 

[Dante]

Remember Chris...health care is not a festival of nuts---unless it is for you a family reunion.
How's them almonds?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters