Another interesting health care poll

[rightwinger]

Looking like the Republican "punishment" of Democrats in November was premature. Now they will have to answer for their opposition to healthcare.

Senator....why are you trying to take away my healthcare??

 

[saveliberty]

Looking like the Republican "punishment" of Democrats in November was premature. Now they will have to answer for their opposition to healthcare.

Senator....why are you trying to take away my healthcare??

Excellent question for Democratic Senators who will cause more job losses and the benefit of health care coverage that came with that job. That in the short term, will drive up the cost of coverage as high risk persons are required to be included. This in turn will make coverage unaffordable to many small companies.

 

[Vast LWC]

Sorry, but that's incorrect...

It's been explained in Ravi's other thread she abandoned...

It seemed pointless to repeat myself.

But since you seem to have no idea of how polls work, here are the results.

Sucks to be you.

1160 polled


42% 487.2 Approve
39% 452.4 Too Liberal
13% 150.8 Doesn't go far enough
2% 23.2 Other
4% 46.4 Don't know

1160

487.2 people approve?
452.4 too liberal?
150.8 doesn't go far enough?
23.2 other?
46.4 Don't know?

How and why did they cut those people up?

Immie

LOL. That is confusing.

 

[Zona]

Funny how its only positive AFTER it passed.

Considering it was negative for over a year.

Because the riht cant stop people from seeingthe benifits of this thing.

Personally, my favorite is my daughter can be on my policy until she turns 27. That is huge to me.

My best friend, his favorite is the pre existing thing.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Gallup results look pretty good I must say. Here's what Reuters has to say about the situation.

Republicans face possible risk in healthcare repeal
Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:42pm EDT

Republicans seek to 'repeal and replace' law

WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers vowed on Tuesday to try to repeal President Barack Obama's landmark U.S. healthcare overhaul but a new poll suggested they may run the risk of a voter backlash in advance of the November election.

In fact, Democrats dared Republicans to move to rescind the measure that Obama signed into law earlier in the day.

"I don't see how they standup at a town-hall meeting and say they favor repeal of a law that prohibits insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions," said Democratic Senator Ron Wyden.

Gallup released a poll that found longtime opposition to the plan had turned to support, 49 percent to 40 percent. That may ease Democratic concerns as they near the November congressional elections.

"Passage of healthcare reform was a clear political victory for President Obama and his (Democratic) allies in Congress," Gallup wrote.

Republicans face possible risk in healthcare repeal | Reuters

Interesting...

 

[code1211]

Looking like the Republican "punishment" of Democrats in November was premature. Now they will have to answer for their opposition to healthcare.

Senator....why are you trying to take away my healthcare??

It will be an interesting dynamic. The 30 million who are uninsured are probably underemployed. They are already recieving about 2/3 of the care they will recieve when they are covered, if they buy the insurance which is unlikely. They will more likely pay the $95.00 penalty due in the first year from their tax refund if they are due one, if not, no penalty and no punishment.

How can anyone see anything going going wrong there?

In the mean time, the 75% to 85% of the rest of us who are insured will enjoy the blessing of premiums that increase by somewhere between 10 and 20%. Of course, the same man who brought us the Stimulus to prevent unemployment going above 8% has planned this so nothing can go wrong.

Others who are currently insured through their employer might find that their employer just drops the coverage in favor of paying the 8% of payroll penalty. Currently employers are paying between 20 and 35% to support benefit packages.

On Medicaid? Maybe you will still have your doctor. Maybe not. If you are not on Medicaid and want to start, better not live in Washington where Walgreens will not accept new patients.

This is the first of many unintended consequences if this thing is not declared unconstitutional.

There is a collision coming when hopey changey meets reality.

 

[code1211]

Funny how its only positive AFTER it passed.

Considering it was negative for over a year.

Because the riht cant stop people from seeingthe benifits of this thing.

Personally, my favorite is my daughter can be on my policy until she turns 27. That is huge to me.
My best friend, his favorite is the pre existing thing.

When I heard that, it made me wonder if a daughter could be covered under her parents policy even if married. Do you know if yours can be or not?

In a group policy for a younger aged population, say 35 and younger, if the group includes no females, the premiums will be lower simply because there is no child birth costs possible. If members of that group are married or if that group is all female, the premiums will be considerably higher.

If married children can be insured and they are covered through child bearing years, the make up of the group changes. An employee who was done having children and therefore would be less expensive suddenly becomes potentially very expensive again.

A 50 year old woman is a lower risk for a high cost medical precedure than a man of the same age while a 20 year old woman is a higher risk than a man of the same age simply due to child birth. Insurance is designed to pay real live costs that are charged by the medical industry. The plan of the Big 0 simply assumes that these costs don't exist and the Insurance industry is stealing money by swindle and deceit.

I suppose we'll find out soon.

 

[Political Junky]

This is the Cons throwing a hissy fit over Health Care.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-YxN_HqYxc&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Senate Grinds to Halt, Interrupts Testimony on Government Transparnecy[/ame]

 

[Political Junky]

Think Progress Protesting Health Reform, GOP Attempts To Bring Senate Hearings To A Standstill By Blocking All Proceedings

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) office put out a statement this afternoon responding to the GOP blocks:

Senator McCain’s promised obstruction comes to reality just a day later. "The Party of No" wouldn’t even agree to let Senate committees meet today. Ironically, as they make false claims about transparency regarding health reform, they’re shutting down a committee hearing today on transparency in government.

The bottom line is that as millions of Americans are learning about the immediate benefits of health reform, Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and grinding important Senate business to a halt.

 

[rightwinger]

It will be an interesting dynamic. The 30 million who are uninsured are probably underemployed. They are already recieving about 2/3 of the care they will recieve when they are covered, if they buy the insurance which is unlikely. They will more likely pay the $95.00 penalty due in the first year from their tax refund if they are due one, if not, no penalty and no punishment.

Wrong again my friend..

Those who are underemployed will now not have to make a choice between buying health insurance or paying the rent. They will not be penalized and will actually receive a subsidy to pay for the policy thay couldn't get before

 

[Xenophon]

The majority of Americans favored the bill or something stronger.

The right was trying to lump people against it because it didn't go far enough into their camp.

No, the majority of Americans wanted health care reform, which has zero to do with this bill.

 

[concept]

The majority of Americans favored the bill or something stronger.

The right was trying to lump people against it because it didn't go far enough into their camp.

No, the majority of Americans wanted health care reform, which has zero to do with this bill.

Well I hope your stomach is ready for the tsunami of propaganda from the msm.

 

[Dr.House]

Sorry, but that's incorrect...

It's been explained in Ravi's other thread she abandoned...

Actually, House, it was your poll that I was referring to.

You do remember our conversation, right?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/21/rel19a.pdf

Yes. and it was explained to you why you can't just add the "disapprove because they don't think it goes far enough" percent to the "folks who approve percent"...

You you need a refresher?

 

[antagon]

Sorry, but that's incorrect...

It's been explained in Ravi's other thread she abandoned...

It seemed pointless to repeat myself.

But since you seem to have no idea of how polls work, here are the results.

Sucks to be you.

1160 polled


42% 487.2 Approve
39% 452.4 Too Liberal
13% 150.8 Doesn't go far enough
2% 23.2 Other
4% 46.4 Don't know

1160

487.2 people approve?
452.4 too liberal?
150.8 doesn't go far enough?
23.2 other?
46.4 Don't know?

How and why did they cut those people up?

Immie

and are such procedures covered by the bill?

 

[antagon]

Actually, House, it was your poll that I was referring to.

You do remember our conversation, right?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/21/rel19a.pdf

Yes. and it was explained to you why you can't just add the "disapprove because they don't think it goes far enough" percent to the "folks who approve percent"...

You you need a refresher?

however, this latest poll seems to do so. those who wanted more have come down from their high... but moreso on the approve side.

 

[Dr.House]

The majority of Americans favored the bill or something stronger.

The right was trying to lump people against it because it didn't go far enough into their camp.

Sorry, but that's incorrect...

It's been explained in Ravi's other thread she abandoned...

It seemed pointless to repeat myself.

But since you seem to have no idea of how polls work, here are the results.

Sucks to be you.

1160 polled


42% 487.2 Approve
39% 452.4 Too Liberal
13% 150.8 Doesn't go far enough
2% 23.2 Other
4% 46.4 Don't know

1160

Again, because some people just need their hands held:

You CAN'T (can NOT) take the 42% and add in the 13% like you were trying to do in the last poll and what you seem to be trying to do in this one... That is NOT how it works... When you do that it does not take into effect the people who would disapprove because it then goes too far...

I'm trying to break this down for you... Your theory says that if the bill was made more liberal those 13% would hop right on to the 42%% and Woo Hoo we have ourselves a whopping 55% that approve... Yay team!

Whoops - not so fast... If the bill is made more liberal there is an unknown number of folks in the 42% approve camp who think the bill goes just far enough... You change it to be more liberal and those folks say "Whoah there partner - that's too liberal now" and they slip into the "Too Liberal" percent... That number is unknown and what your theory doesn't account for...

I hope this makes sense now...

This poll produces 42% that approve... That's still less than 50%...

 

[MarcATL]

LOL @ the poster who posted a RASMUSSEN poll.

Why not post a Daily KOS poll?

LOL!!!

 

[Article 15]

Actually, House, it was your poll that I was referring to.

You do remember our conversation, right?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/21/rel19a.pdf

Yes. and it was explained to you why you can't just add the "disapprove because they don't think it goes far enough" percent to the "folks who approve percent"...

You you need a refresher?

Just the same you cannot add the 13% of those who are against the bill for it not going far enough with the those who are against it for it being "too liberal." They are polar opposites.

 

[Dr.House]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/21/rel19a.pdf

Yes. and it was explained to you why you can't just add the "disapprove because they don't think it goes far enough" percent to the "folks who approve percent"...

You you need a refresher?

Just the same you cannot add the 13% of those who are against the bill for it not going far enough with the those who are against it for it being "too liberal." They are polar opposites.

Agreed, but I never made that claim...

I explained it all as best as I could in my previous post...

 

[Sofus]

It is because they listen to the entertainers posing as news persons.