Healthcare Reform Bill Implodes

[NickF1011]

Time magazine...liberal?

 

Gallup...leftist? Again, First time I've heard that one.

 

Both Time and Gallup are about as middle of the road as you can get.

 

Time? Centrist? Really? Obama has been on the cover 7 times in the past 14 months. Bush wasn't on the cover that many times in 8 YEARS. Centrist? :lol:

[suv_guy_19]

+1... and that's the truth.

 

Well, it's a very outdated truth. I can't speak about the rest of the countries, but in order to control the deficit, Canada's aid budge will be capped this year at $5B.

[grbeck]

You can spin it how ever you want but the fact is that they were local elections, not referendum's on Obama or HCR. The facts are that the people elected Democrat's by a wide majority and expect change.

 

If these were solely "local" elections then why did the president campaign on behalf of his favored candidates? You can spin as furiously as you want, but that fact can't be changed.

[grbeck]

Time magazine...liberal?

 

Gallup...leftist? Again, First time I've heard that one.

 

Both Time and Gallup are about as middle of the road as you can get.

 

At one time, both Time and Newsweek made a respectable effort to present themselves as middle-of-the-road news weeklies aimed at middle America. Every now and then, the facade would crack - usually when talking about social issues as opposed to talking about economic issues - and a left-leaning viewpoint would be quite evident in the "slant" in the story.

 

As their circulation has fallen - Newsweek is near bankruptcy - they have basically dropped all pretense of objectivity and moved to solidly to the left. And circulation still keeps falling.

Edited March 26, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Here are some other poll results:

 

But has public opinion really changed so much? A CNN poll taken over three days, the last of which was the day Obamacare passed the House, found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, versus 39 percent who favored it. And a CBS survey done after the vote showed that more people believe it will hurt the health care system than help, and 89 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents believe the GOP should continue to challenge parts of it.

 

It's not a new day. "The margin prior to the vote was basically people disapproving of the bill by 10 to 12 points," says Republican pollster David Winston. "What I've now seen is that the gap has closed a bit, but that you still have more negative than positive."

 

And that is after the White House has had most of the week to drive a positive message. "Even after this significant push, they still can't flip the numbers," says Winston.

 

Republicans have been portrayed as erupting in one long, irrational cry of anger about losing the vote. But they're watching the polls closely and believe they will benefit by continuing to oppose the bill as it slowly becomes policy.

 

A few points:

 

*I want to see people argue that CNN and CBS are right-leaning organizations. That should be quite entertaining.

 

*The CNN poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill. I want to see people argue that 59 percent is not a majority. That should be even more entertaining.

 

*The 89 percent of Republicans who want the GOP to continue challengning parts of the bill is hardly surprising, so no real worries for the President or Congressional Democrats there. They probably didn't vote for him in the first place, and never will.

 

*But 66 percent of INDEPENDENTS share that view, which is siginificant. It was independents and disgruntled moderate Republicans who put Obama into office, not liberal Democrats (there aren't enough of them to elect a president).

Edited March 26, 2010 by grbeck

[stephenhawkings]

shouldn't this topic be dead signed and delivered?

[Savetheplanet]

 

There's a good argument to be made for the "nuclear deterrent,"- and without them, you wouldn't have a planet to live on, much less a planet worth saving.

 

Ok now I get it, Nuclear weapons have saved the planet, thank you for clearing that up.

[NickF1011]

Ok now I get it, Nuclear weapons have saved the planet, thank you for clearing that up.

 

It could be argued it saved several hundred thousand lives in World War 2. It could also be argued that our having nuclear arms has deterred many nations from going to war. So yes, they very well could have saved the planet.

[rn4]

It could be argued it saved several hundred thousand lives in World War 2. It could also be argued that our having nuclear arms has deterred many nations from going to war. So yes, they very well could have saved the planet.

 

 

They could also still destroy the planet.

[Savetheplanet]

Well Obama signed a landmark pact today to get rid of a third of our, and Russia's nuclear weapons today. He also came up with a plan today to reduce the amount some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans and give jobless homeowners a temporary break.

The new jobs bill passed, Financial reform is on the way. So the democrats are making things happen, what are the republicans doing? I have not seen any post' s respond to the fact that the Republican's are bitter and are shutting down committee's that have important work to do.

Nice work republican's, looks like HCR is your Waterloo.

[xr7g428]

When Obama "gives" this stuff away, who does he take it from first?

[Mark B. Morrow]

2003 proposal for Healthcare reform by Stuart Butler VP of The Heritage Foundation (Not a Liberal) . Looks familiar. Kind of like the Bill Obama just signed.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Laying-the-Groundwork-for-Universal-Health-Care-Coverage

 

Conservative ideas are only conservative when conservatives suggest them.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[NickF1011]

Well Obama signed a landmark pact today to get rid of a third of our, and Russia's nuclear weapons today.

 

A token gesture really. Eliminating 1/3 of them still leaves both countries with plenty to annihilate the world should they so choose. :shrug:

[Mark B. Morrow]

A token gesture really. Eliminating 1/3 of them still leaves both countries with plenty to annihilate the world should they so choose. :shrug:

 

 

Yeah, but less is better. There won't be as many to keep track of. Once you can destroy the world, everything else seems superfluous.

[NickF1011]

Yeah, but less is better. There won't be as many to keep track of. Once you can destroy the world, everything else seems superfluous.

 

True. But it's not like this is the first such arms reduction in history either, so I don't think I would call it "landmark" as STP put it.

[RangerM]

2003 proposal for Healthcare reform by Stuart Butler VP of The Heritage Foundation (Not a Liberal) . Looks familiar. Kind of like the Bill Obama just signed.

Not exactly. The program Obama just signed is a Federal one. You ignored the part that effectively added an "ist", as in Federalist.

 

And if suffers (from what I got out of it) from the same problem that Obamacare does; there is no mechanism to bring down costs, short of rationing.

Edited March 26, 2010 by RangerM

[Savetheplanet]

Man talk about hypocrisy the last time Congress debated a health overhaul in 1993, Hatch along with 21 Republican Senators supported a 1993 GOP bill requiring an individual mandate. Four of those lawmakers remain in the Senate today, Grassley of Iowa, t Bennett of Utah and Bond of Missouri.

The health care law’s individual mandate is “what you call totalitarianism,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday night.

Hatch was one of the 21 Republican supporters

[BlackHorse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EECOvySEps

 

Nuff said.

[fmccap]

Well Obama signed a landmark pact today to get rid of a third of our, and Russia's nuclear weapons today. He also came up with a plan today to reduce the amount some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans and give jobless homeowners a temporary break.

The new jobs bill passed, Financial reform is on the way. So the democrats are making things happen, what are the republicans doing? I have not seen any post' s respond to the fact that the Republican's are bitter and are shutting down committee's that have important work to do.

Nice work republican's, looks like HCR is your Waterloo.

Hope they work better than this.

Obama Loan-Modification Effort ‘Failed Miserably,’ Panel Says

“It has failed and it has failed miserably,” said Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said at a House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing on the Home Affordable Modification Program.

 

As of last month, the program had underperformed the administration’s projections by almost 96 percent.”

[Roadtrip]

Many publications including Time have noted that Rasmussen has a right-leaning bias. Why else is it that Rasmussen is quoted almost exclusively by right wing media and they always seems to conflict with the other major polling organizations? Gallup is widely regarded as the most accurate and impartial polling group.

 

Speaking of which, today's Gallup shows Obama's approval at 51% and his disapproval down 2% to 42%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

 

Please elaborate as to why the methodology of Rasmussen's polls, and their results, produce a right-leaning bias.

 

Please supply evidence that Gallup is "widely regarded as the most accurate and impartial polling group."

 

And while you're at it, please explain the following contradictory evidence:

 

In their final respective surveys leading up to the 2008 presidential election, Rasmussen had Obama winning 52 to 46 (percent of the popular vote); Gallup had Obama winning 55 to 44; and the final tally was 53 to 46. Both Rasmussen's and Gallup's surveys both publicized a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points. See the results for yourself.

 

The Rasmussen poll was off by 1 percentage point in the win column and accurate in its projection for the loss column (and within its margin of error of two percentage points), while Gallup was off by 2 in the win column and off by 2 in the loss column, for a total of 4 percentage points outside its projections, and a full 2 percentage points outside its margin of error.

 

Inquiring minds eagerly await your response.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Roadtrip

[Len_A]

New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea - AP News or PDF copy of the article here -

Associated Press_ New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea.pdf

[RangerM]

New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea - AP News or PDF copy of the article here -

Wasn't this idea rejected by the Republicans then, as well?

 

I have no problem with an individual mandate, on the State level. It's when it becomes Federal that I have the problem. One-size-fits-all solutions fit noone.

[Len_A]

Wasn't this idea rejected by the Republicans then, as well?

 

I have no problem with an individual mandate, on the State level. It's when it becomes Federal that I have the problem. One-size-fits-all solutions fit noone.

It was the GOP's idea when Clinton was proposing a single payer system back in the 1990's - as a federal mandate instead of a single payer system. This same idea was rejected by the Republicans now under Obama. Same idea. same party, two different times, two different reactions. Go figure.

[Cocheese]

It was the GOP's idea when Clinton was proposing a single payer system back in the 1990's - as a federal mandate instead of a single payer system. This same idea was rejected by the Republicans now under Obama. Same idea. same party, two different times, two different reactions. Go figure.

 

Are you freaking kidding me???!?!

 

How you could post that, and admit yourself it was "two different times", and still try and pass it off to make your point, is utterly and totally mind blowing. It was an idea, that he party realized wouldn't work.

 

Would you like to know all the things I thought were a great idea back in the 90's, only to now realize they weren't?

 

Why aren't you asking why the DNC thought this was a bad idea in the 90's, and now think it's a good one?

 

Keep shifting the attention away from the fact that the guy who promised to work with both sides of the political spectrum, lied his face off, and shoved through legislation that the other side (and the majority of the voters) didn't want?

 

People like you make me want to pull my hair out

[grbeck]

It was the GOP's idea when Clinton was proposing a single payer system back in the 1990's - as a federal mandate instead of a single payer system. This same idea was rejected by the Republicans now under Obama. Same idea. same party, two different times, two different reactions. Go figure.

 

A big factor is that this idea HAS been implemented in Massachusetts by a Republican - former Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It is turning out to be far more expensive than originally forecast (sound familiar - this always happens with government health care programs) and is causing other, unintended side effects. So part of the opposition could very well be based on this key fact.