Has anyone seen these polls?

[Bond]

I very rarely look at political polls, but I heard a few days ago that President Obama's poll numbers had slipped quite a lot.

Take a look at these few graphs I pulled from Rasmussen Reports:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7620/99287433.png

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/august_2009/obama_index_august_13_2009/240220-1-eng-US/obama_index_august_13_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/august_2009/obama_total_approval_august_13_2009/240235-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_august_13_2009.jpg

I don't mean to insinuate anything from this, but I was thoroughly surprised at these numbers.

[Dylflon]

Fox News is probably to blame. :p

[DeathsHand]

Approx 65% of Americans approved of what Obama was doing... Before he even did anything.
That statistic is dropping, you say? Surprising.

[Professor S]

Approx 65% of Americans approved of what Obama was doing... Before he even did anything.
That statistic is dropping, you say? Surprising.

So American people are showing that they would rather Pres. Obama did nothing than anything he's done so far. Interesting.

[Bond]

I actually thought the first graphic was the most interesting. Generic Democrat / Republican polling shows Republicans ahead in every major category except Gov't Ethics (tied on Iraq).

[Jason1]

The American people dont know whats good, They Elected president Bush twice, proving my point.

And the fact that Nickelback is popular also proves my point.

[Fox 6]

The American people dont know whats good

Thats why they elected Obama? :lolz:


You cant say that without de-validating every choice they have made.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

[KillerGremlin]

Ah, Fox 6, I love you for pointing out fallacious arguments.

Anyway, don't ALL presidents see a dip in approval rating after they get elected? This isn't all that surprising...especially when you consider what is on Obama's plate compared to some other points in history with less wars, less economy crisis, etc..

[Bond]

The American people dont know whats good, They Elected president Bush twice, proving my point.

And the fact that Nickelback is popular also proves my point.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eXCl1XHPl3k/SLNSxYoFa8I/AAAAAAAAABA/IFhzaaxDP50/s320/fallacy.gif

[manasecret]

Thats why they elected Obama? :lolz:


You cant say that without de-validating every choice they have made.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

But he can have his crow and eat it too.

Zing!

[Vampyr]

So American people are showing that they would rather Pres. Obama did nothing than anything he's done so far. Interesting.

President ratings always seem to drop like that within the first part of their terms. Reason being that the population seems to give them a grace period - even people who didn't vote for him will be like "Well he's a knew guy coming in, might as well give him a chance." It's impossible to actually please everyone, though, so that will drop. I saw some poll results recently that showed the number of American's which approved of him at the some percent of those which voted for him, so I think that says some good things.

But yes, the majority of Americans are pretty stupid, so approval polls aren't a good way to judge how good a job someone is doing, either for good or bad.

[Professor S]

President ratings always seem to drop like that within the first part of their terms. Reason being that the population seems to give them a grace period - even people who didn't vote for him will be like "Well he's a knew guy coming in, might as well give him a chance." It's impossible to actually please everyone, though, so that will drop. I saw some poll results recently that showed the number of American's which approved of him at the some percent of those which voted for him, so I think that says some good things.

Thats an interesting point.

Bond, are there any comparisons on Rasmussen comparing Obama's drop in popularity to other past Presidents? That would likely be a more telling statistic.

That aside, the number regarding his disapproval and the sudden drop in approval do seem to coincide with the ramping up of the Healthcare Debate with a side of continued job losses, but without comparison thats more logical conjecture than real correlative evidence.

EDIT: I found a neat article on this very subject. I recommend reading the whole thing.

Obama began his presidency at 68. He hit 69 the following day. That means he's dropped 16 points since day one.

So in less time than Carter, Obama has fallen more.

And Obama's bad numbers are fairly uniform. In the past day alone, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and the Pew Research Center have shown similar results.

Both W. Bush and Bill Clinton reached the low 50s sooner than Obama. W. Bush hit 53 in March; Clinton hit 51 within a month of his inauguration. But W. Bush and Clinton began their presidencies with approval ratings about 10 points lower than Obama. And indeed, Obama has therefore fallen faster than W. Bush as well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/30/obama_drops_faster_than_bush_or_carter_97703.html

But yes, the majority of Americans are pretty stupid...

Stupid enough to vote for Obama, I guess?

Americans like Obama = American smart!
Americans angry at Obama = Americans STUPID!
Who run Bartertown = Master Blaster run Bartertown!

[BreakABone]

Yeah I was going to point out that Obama started his presidency with rather high approval rating so his drops seem bigger even though it is about the same (numerical as past Presidents)

Also, I had a discussion with Bond on the polls itself... and welll...

[Bond]

I honestly just added in the Obama-centric polls because they were on the same page on Rasmussen's website as the first graphic. I found the first graphic to be more interesting. Only months after Democrats were elected by huge majorities, Republicans, generically, out poll Democrats on almost every major issue. That is, at the least, odd.

Personally, I don't pay polls much heed, or regularly follow them, or endorse their selective methodology. Rather, I just found this specific poll thought provoking.

[Typhoid]

I don't pay attention to polls of any nature, really.
But I took it upon myself to conduct my own survey.
Conveniently, I forgot to copy my source link. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/Skeeties/Poll.jpg

[TheGame]

To me these numbers are meaningless and not shocking at all. The reason that his approval rating was so high to start is because it was weighed against Bush and Mccain. People wanted a president with brains.

How does Obama's approval rating compare to Bush's when he left office? If he ever gets that low then I'd be shocked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

[Professor S]

To me these numbers are meaningless and not shocking at all. The reason that his approval rating was so high to start is because it was weighed against Bush and Mccain. People wanted a president with brains.

How does Obama's approval rating compare to Bush's when he left office? If he ever gets that low then I'd be shocked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

Well, Jimmy Carter had a very high approval rating at the start too...

[Vampyr]

Thats an interesting point.

Bond, are there any comparisons on Rasmussen comparing Obama's drop in popularity to other past Presidents? That would likely be a more telling statistic.

That aside, the number regarding his disapproval and the sudden drop in approval do seem to coincide with the ramping up of the Healthcare Debate with a side of continued job losses, but without comparison thats more logical conjecture than real correlative evidence.

EDIT: I found a neat article on this very subject. I recommend reading the whole thing.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/30/obama_drops_faster_than_bush_or_carter_97703.html



Stupid enough to vote for Obama, I guess?

Americans like Obama = American smart!
Americans angry at Obama = Americans STUPID!
Who run Bartertown = Master Blaster run Bartertown!

Hehe, I never called the American's who voted for Obama smart - I'm just happy they voted to my preference this time.

And I read the article...not sure it really says anything meaningful. I still think a lot of American's are buying into the idea that Obama is a communist or wants to burn all of their money. They think he has nationalized half the American economy.

Seriously, most American's think of things in extremes like that. For some reason they have trouble understanding mediums. And what does an approval rating buy you, anyway? The only power American's have at this point is to urge their congressmen to vote how they want, and it just depends on who speaks loudest, and if that congressmen will even listen.

The only thing it really counts for is his chances of re-election. But unless something crazy happens, I think America will re-elect him instead of changing things up in a scary economic time.

[TheGame]

Well, Jimmy Carter had a very high approval rating at the start too...

Yup haha.

The higher you start the more room there is to fall.

[BreakABone]

I don't pay attention to polls of any nature, really.
But I took it upon myself to conduct my own survey.
Conveniently, I forgot to copy my source link. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/Skeeties/Poll.jpg

The only problem with your chart is... you don't know which way the proximity to the South goes... is it getting closer or further as you move right?

[Professor S]

Hehe, I never called the American's who voted for Obama smart - I'm just happy they voted to my preference this time.

And I read the article...not sure it really says anything meaningful. I still think a lot of American's are buying into the idea that Obama is a communist or wants to burn all of their money. They think he has nationalized half the American economy.

You do realize that if single payer Healthcare Insurance is passed, as Pres. Obama has stated he preferred prior to his election, we would actually be kind of close to 50% (not really, but closer than we've ever been, probably about 25-20% at most).

- We've already nationalized/socialized America's largest employer - GM
- One of their competitors - Chrysler
- The legal contracts to their stakeholders were broken with no legal basis so that unions/labor could be paid first
- This government gives marching orders to every company that took bailout money
- And we're working towards nationalizing much if not all of our healthcare insurance, 1/6 of our economy.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with any of these decisions, they are at least socialist inspired in practice (GM), if not fascist (bailout money leading to company control/veto power). These policies meet the exact definitions of these ideologies.

So my questions is, is this whole socialism/fascism accusation getting old just because it's repeated ad nauseum, or is it repeated ad nauseum because it's getting more accurate over time?

Like a said during the election, I'm not saying that Pres. Obama is a socialist, but he believes in and has now instated many socialist and fascist policies. Maybe he believes these are necessary evils for these hard times and will work to unload this power he has assumed when the economy improves, but that does not redefine the nature of the policy. We can only judge someone based on what they do.

I tend to agree that critics need to get away from the word socialism, but not because it's not accurate. Because people dismiss you when you use the term.

[Vampyr]

http://www.cognitivedissident.org/images/20090604-socialism.jpg

I think that the health care debate is actually pretty hilarious. I saw an article recently that had a few picture of protesters. One had liberals protesting the war, and the other had conservatives protesting universal health care.

The idea that people are okay with spending money on killing other people (because America's tough and has to show them who's boss!) but would not be okay with their tax money being spent to help other people is just mind boggling.

I mean, I read all of these articles and opinions from people who are against health care. The reasoning is just so hard to understand. People don't want to support it because they don't want their hard earned money "wasted" on some poor person's health.

Other people say that they don't like it because they never go to the doctor, so they wouldn't benefit.

I just don't understand this line of thinking. I have never had to go to the doctor for anything serious - I've never even broken a limb or had a bad infection. But I support universal health care - I don't mind paying for other people, because I know if something bad ever did happen to me, those same people could be paying for me.

The level of selfishness involved with the argument against universal health care is just insane.

[Bond]

That's a rather misleading graph... only analyzing hard assets does not paint the most comprehensive picture of the government's role in the economy.

Of course, the United States is not a socialist country.

Edit: To be more precise on my first point, you have to look at government intervention and regulation in relation to the overall economy, as the government is such a unique financial creature. Analyzing hard assets isn't quite adequate enough.

[Vampyr]

Well I'm all for regulation. :)

Since Obama has taken office I have also seen a lot of people throwing around the words "socialist" and "fascist" without really stopping to consider what they really mean, or if Obama is really behaving that way. They just hear people on the news using those words and regurgitate them.

I don't think one man can flip the style of our economy, but some aspects of socialism are not bad, and in my opinion are needed.

[Vampyr]

An article on what we mean by 'America is stupid'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html

Yes, it's Bill Maher, but it's a fun read.

[Professor S]

http://www.cognitivedissident.org/images/20090604-socialism.jpg


Well, lets that that chart in all seriousness if you like and pretend it is a true measurement of government control. If single payer universal healthcare is passed, that .21% figure would increase by about 8,000% (thats based on calculations, not hyperbole). Does that sound like capitalism to you, or something else that dare not speak it's name?

I mean, I read all of these articles and opinions from people who are against health care. The reasoning is just so hard to understand. People don't want to support it because they don't want their hard earned money "wasted" on some poor person's health.

If this is all you've taken from the debate, you aren't paying attention to what people are saying, here on this forum or elsewhere. This sort of "they hate poor people" or "they;re just greedy bastards" argument is so tiring and false, it becomes pointless to argue against because it's based more on faith than fact.

If you wish to create your own fiction to free yourself from thinking critically on such a complicated and impactful subject, feel free, but making such outlandish, pejorative statements about the opposition enlightens nothing.

[Vampyr]

You're failing to realize that the majority of average Americans really are against it for those reasons.

But enlightened me, why is universal health care a bad idea?

Just about every other nation that isn't a third world country has it, and they seem to be doing pretty well. :ohreilly:

[Professor S]

Since Obama has taken office I have also seen a lot of people throwing around the words "socialist" and "fascist" without really stopping to consider what they really mean, or if Obama is really behaving that way. They just hear people on the news using those words and regurgitate them.

Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Specifically

Fascists explicitly promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism.[124] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.[125] Fascists advocated a new national multi-class economic system that is labeled as either national corporatism, national socialism or national syndicalism.[24] The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[126]


Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Specifically

Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the economy of the Soviet Union, state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning, in relation to which goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices. Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers.


I think we can agree that President Obama isn't what you would call a capitalist. So, looking at these two models, which of these seems more appropriate?

Hmmmm... maybe Obama isn't a socialist after all... :lol:

[Vampyr]

Haha, yes, but sighting one example where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

[Professor S]

You're failing to realize that the majority of average Americans really are against it for those reasons.

But enlightened me, why is universal health care a bad idea?

Just about every other nation that isn't a third world country has it, and they seem to be doing pretty well. :ohreilly:

1) I'm glad you and Bill Maher can speak for the average American who is against this.

2) As I stated, I and I know Bond have gone over it to the point of exhaustion. I'd ask you to do a forum search. Wouldn't be hard to find.

3) Well is a statement of relativity that we examine in point number two. Healthcare is a huge and complicated issue. The solution to every problem doesn't have to be "socialize it!" I'm more for re-regulation.

[Professor S]

Haha, yes, but sighting one example

I cited 5 examples. It's only been 6 months or 1/8 of his first term.

...where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

I never said he was a socialist or fascist. I said he has enacted policies that are. There is no argument about this because the definitions are pretty by the book. It's pointless to argue people's thoughts or feelings, you can only argue what they do. And so far...

[TheGame]

Haha, yes, but sighting one example where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s) Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

[Vampyr]

I'm just judging from my personal interactions with people I know and see from day to day. Maybe it has something to do with where I live, eastern Kentucky is not exactly a hub of social progression.

But since you guys have highlighted the evils of universal health care somewhere else and I don't want to track them all down and read them, I'll just pour through the reasons I think universal health care is good:

1. It would encourage people with long term chronic health conditions to seek care for something they may have been neglecting too because of cost.

2. France spends about $569 LESS per person for health care than the United States. France has universal health care, the US doesn't.

3. It would help get rid of evil insurance companies. I guess this is arguable, but I don't understand why health insurance companies have the right to invade your privacy on matters of your health.

4. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans, both democrat and republican, would prefer universal health care to what we have now.

5. Administrative costs of the current US health system (overhead, paperwork) constitutes about 25% of health care spending in the united states. This is much, much higher than it is in other countries with universal health care.

6. In most cases it won't even raise your taxes!!! As it stands now, about 59% of the US health care system is funded by public money. About 20% is paid for by individuals, through deductibles, co-pays, the uninsured paying directly, etc. 21% is funded by private employers. In a new universal system all of that tax money being funneled into medicare/caid would be retained. Employers would pay about a 7% payroll tax, and people would pay a 2% income tax. The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For most people, that 2% is less than what they pay now for out of pocket expenses, especially if someone in your family is seriously ill.

Obviously, employers who don't offer any coverage will be paying more with this system, but most employers who do offer coverage will be paying -less-. People without insurance will be paying more, but people with insurance will be paying less.

As it stands now, about 47 million people are uninsured. Hundreds of thousands of people who actually are insured are still bankrupted when something serious happens.

7. Labeling it 'socialized medicine' is false, it's actually 'socialized healthcare'. The government doesn't own the hospitals or manage them, contrary to a popular belief.

8. It would increase competition among doctors for patients. Doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients just because they belong to a provider group. This would probably increase the quality of care since they would be competition for patients. Man, competition. That's almost a free market word!

9. America spends a much higher GDP on health care than any other country, but we have worse ratings on quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times.

10. Last but not least, regardless of what anyone says, health care is a basic human right.

[Professor S]

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s)

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations... :drool:

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

[Vampyr]

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

Heh, polls I was looking at actually show those numbers almost flipped.

Also, most Western European nations that have universal health care also have private health care that is available for those who want it.

Also, like I said, it wouldn't be "complete government control".

The government doesn't control it, the government pays for care which is delivered in the -private- sector, like how Medicare works now. Doctors are paid on in a fee-for-service model.

[TheGame]

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

People, or politicians? I don't remember anyone having any speeches about how they need to shut down all the public schools or stop building them.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations... :drool:

lol?

70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier.

Where did you get those poll numbers?

[The Germanator]

The thing I don't understand is that people are trying to shoot the healthcare plan down without presenting any better options. Obviously the current system isn't great, and if you disagree with the current plan, then instead of just decrying "death panels" and "you're going to kill my grandpa" rhetoric, why don't you bring something to the table? Something has to change in healthcare, and I would have much more respect for the other side if they were trying to help make it better fit so everyone is pleased with the idea rather than derailing the plan completely.

[Professor S]

A lot to respond to here, so I'll try and move in order and be brief.

1) Polls

This is what I was referring to:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_recent_months

There is a lot in there, but to sum it up about half of Americans considered their care good or excellent, but only 18% considered it poor. Those numbers don't exactly confirm or deny the 70% numbers I had seen bandied about, but it definitely shows many more Americans consider their healthcare to be good or better than those who consider it bad. When it comes to healthcare, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now if the questions in the polling were do you think America has good healthcare, those numbers would be significantly different, and they always have been. People always think things are much worse for others than they are for themselves.

I also ignored the overly positive numbers solely from those with insurance, because they are irrelevant to this discussion.

2) Control - If you control the money, you control the care. I see little difference in getting a paycheck or a reimbursement. In the end it's quibbling over small points. Money = Control and if the government has the money they control your healthcare and can dictate how you are treated by dictating what they'll pay for.

As for the "optional" nature of this, well thats more of a myth than anything. I detailed this in previous posts.

3) Public Schools - I never said people talked about shutting down public schools, but A LOT of people want their money to follow their child to a private school due to the poor nature of many public schools, especially in inner cities. There was actually a huge debate about this from a voucher program in DC:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060802041.html

4) Other options - The Republicans do have a platform to address healthcare, but no one seems to listen or care. Much of this is a procedural problem because the Republicans have a pretty severe minority right now and Nancy Pelosi simply son't allow most of these ideas to be discussed on the floor of the house.

Here is a link to the Republican Healthcare Platform, much of it I support, some I don't entirely. I'll quote some important parts. The whole thing is a pretty good read, however, whether you agree with it or not, and please try and read it with an open mind.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm

Empower Individuals to Make the Best Health Care Choices.

Clear information about health care empowers patients. It lets consumers make better decisions about where to spend their health care dollars, thereby fostering competition and lowering costs. Patients must have information to make sound decisions about their health care providers, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Protect Good Health Care Providers from Frivolous Lawsuits

Every patient must have access to legal remedies for malpractice, but meritless lawsuits drive up insurance rates to outrageous levels and ultimately drive up the number of uninsured. Frivolous lawsuits also drive up the cost of health care as health care providers are forced to practice defensive medicine, such as ordering unnecessary tests. Many leave their practices rather than deal with the current system. This emergency demands medical liability reform.

Reward Good Health Care Providers for Delivering Real Results

Patients deserve access to health care providers they trust who will personalize and coordinate their care to ensure they receive the right treatment with the right health care provider at the right time. Providers should be paid for keeping people well, not for the number of tests they run or procedures they perform. The current cookie-cutter system of reimbursement needs restructuring from the view of the patient, not the accountant or Washington bureaucrat.

Drive Costs Down With Interstate Competition

A state-regulated national market for health insurance means more competition, more choice, and lower costs. Families – as well as fraternal societies, churches and community groups, and small employers – should be able to purchase policies across state lines. The best practices and lowest prices should be available in every state. We call upon state legislators to carefully consider the cost of medical mandates, and we salute those Republican governors who are leading the way in demonstrating ways to provide affordable health care options.

[Vampyr]

That poll really just proves some of my points.

Over the past few months, as the health care reform debate has raged, confidence in the current system has increased significantly among Republicans and unaffiliated voters. There has been little change among Democrats.

Just 28% say they are willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans can have health insurance. Sixty percent (60%) are opposed. Those figures are little changed since May.

Recent polling has shown that cost, not universal coverage, is the top concern about health care.

This in particular. I stated earlier that people not wanting to pay money for universal health care was the reason they didn't want it, and this proves that. However, these people are misguided in their information. I posted an explanation in an earlier post about how people with insurance would likely be paying less, and this poll seems to have surveyed mostly people -with- insurance.

These people hear the words "universal health care" and "taxes" in the same sentence and nearly have a heart attack, which is what I said earlier and the response was "no no, this 'people don't care' argument is false and is getting old".

As for the 74% rating their quality of care as good or excellent...that has little to do with coverage and more to do with your experience at the hospital.

Just to drive my point home:

Seventy-eight percent (78%) say it’s likely the passage of health care reform will lead to higher taxes for the middle class.

It's all about the cost to people, even though they will probably be paying less. If you don't have insurance then yes, you will obviously be paying more, but the reason you don't have health insurance right now is because it's too expensive. With a 2% income tax, people will be able to afford it.

Also, the points you quoted for the Republican plan don't seem likely to work. They are all abstract ways of helping people with health care that seem nice in theory, but with results that will be difficult measure. And why are we ok with implementing a plan where a 'pro' is that you can buy policies across state lines?

And "We salute those Republican governors who are leading the way in demonstrating ways to provide affordable health care options"? That line doesn't sound bias at all. XD

edit: I guess those people are techincally correct - taxes will be higher. But I get the feeling that they don't realize it will be lower than their current insurance premiums, copay, deductibles, etc, etc.

[Bond]

It is very difficult to have a frank and honest discussion about health care if the scope of the discussion is not narrowed. Also, we have covered a lot of these same points ad nauseam in previous threads.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

—Ayn Rand

[Professor S]

Vamp:
1) You're mixing together a whole lot of data. Thats why I concentrated on the numbers that asked what people felt about their level of care, and the vast majority think it's ok or better. If this was not the case, there would be no debate right now, and we'd already have a bill regardless of cost.

2) Money is an issue, and quite honestly it should be. More money is wasted by the government than anyone else. Look at California... the highest taxes and the highest debt and they're just about ready to collapse.

2) Do you think only a government run program can work?

[Vampyr]

I've been reading some of the arguments in another thread. The biggest negative I see is the supposed cost of switching to a public option for health care.

But as I stated before...America spends over $500 more per person on health care than other countries with a public option. Administrative costs for our health care are exorbitantly high compared to universal care systems.

I can't help but to think in the long run it would make sense financially to switch to a public option.

Another argument is that the government has traditionally messed up health care. What sort of reasoning is that? If other governments can do it, so can we.

Also, about the Republican plan: Yes, those are all great ideas. But they aren't a real plan for health care. They are auxiliary options which can be implemented alongside public health care.

[Bond]

I've been reading some of the arguments in another thread. The biggest negative I see is the supposed cost of switching to a public option for health care.

But as I stated before...America spends over $500 more per person on health care than other countries with a public option. Administrative costs for our health care are exorbitantly high compared to universal care systems.
I've already addressed the high-cost issue of health care in a previous thread. The exorbenate cost of our health services is, in fact, due to excessive government intervention. Please see my below quoted post:

" 1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

Allow me to first use a few relevant and important statistical charts:

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2209/gdpvspercapita.png

This chart depicts health care expenditures as percent of GDP and per capita. As you can see health care expenditures have nearly tripled as a percent of GDP since the 1960s, as well as the cost per capita of health care. This begs the question: what has lead to this enormous increase in the cost of health care?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8404/allitemsvsmedicalcare.png

This chart depicts average annual CPI change (%) by component. Once again we see the rise in medical care significantly outpacing the change of all other items. And, again, this begs the question, why?

For the answer to this question, I harkon back to my original point, that the rapid (and recent) rise in health care costs is primarily due to the advent of insurance/HMO/PPO companies, which were mandated by, and heavily regulated, by the government. In fact, the health insurance industry is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in our country.

For an exact explanation of what HMO/PPO companies are and how they function, I would recommend outside sources, as I don’t want to go into too much detail concerning them. Suffice to say, they are a middle man, between you and your doctor. Middle men naturally raise the price of any good, as they have raised the price of health care.

Let’s consult one more chart, which depicts who is paying for health care costs:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7082/paymentsource.png

Here again we see a stark contrast from the 1960s to present day. During the 1960s, the majority of health care was paid by out-of-pocket, and a small fraction was paid by the federal government. Present day, only a small fraction is paid by out-of-pocket, and payments by the federal government have quadrupled. I would, again, correlate this back to the rise of the HMO/PPO, as mandated by the federal government.

(These charts are derived from numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)"


Also, this essay by Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute briefly summarizes the government's role in driving up the cost of health care: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23957&news_iv_ctrl=2401

Another argument is that the government has traditionally messed up health care. What sort of reasoning is that? If other governments can do it, so can we.
Have you recently looked at France's marginal income tax rate? It is drastically higher than ours. That is why they are able to afford and subsidize their hybrid healthcare system. The French tax at least 40% of ones earnings if they earn above the equivalent of 95,000 dollars per year (Source: http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002E0A/$FILE/JT00187984.PDF).

[Professor S]

Uh oh, that article dares to state that healthcare isn't a "right". I think 1/2 the people stopped reading right there. :lol:

[Vampyr]

Bond: I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't the key word here health care reform? Aren't the things you posted exactly what we want to change?

[Professor S]

Bond: I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't the key word here health care reform? Aren't the things you posted exactly what we want to change?

So you'll decrease costs by moving forward with more public intervention... the very reason why costs are so high.

What Bond is saying is that increase public spending/intervention has shown to do nothing but increase costs exponentially. Now there are a lot of lovely assumptions being made by those that are for public healthcare, most saying that they'll lower costs... but understand that there is no evidence that government intervention has ever done anything but increase costs and waste.

Meanwhile, evidence shows costs were lower per capita when the individual controlled most of their healthcare spending.

Now will it work this time? Well, thats what proponents of socialization have been hoping for 100 years... It hasn't worked out yet, and I have yet to see a reason to believe it will now.

[TheGame]

I've already went through it all with them before Vamp.. so I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over. You're dealing with people who don't exactly have sympathy for people who have issues with the current health insurance system, and you're dealing people who don't think that healthcare is a right.

So I guess we have to wait for them to lose their jobs and get sick, or wait for a close family memeber to get sick and be kicked off of their insurance for them to understand how broken the system is, and what is broken about it.

Anyway, to the only new thing:

Public Schools - I never said people talked about shutting down public schools, but A LOT of people want their money to follow their child to a private school due to the poor nature of many public schools, especially in inner cities. There was actually a huge debate about this from a voucher program in DC:

A lot of paranoid parents want their kids to go to private schools.. that's nothing new. That doesn't change the fact that the socialized schooling system does work, and gives the oppertunity to all children in this country to become educated. I don't have any stats to back myself up, but last I checked countries who have their school systems ran by the government fair a lot better then countries who have their school system ran by the private sector exclusively.

[Professor S]

I've already went through it all with them before Vamp.. so I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over. You're dealing with people who don't exactly have sympathy for people who have issues with the current health insurance system, and you're dealing people who don't think that healthcare is a right.

So I guess we have to wait for them to lose their jobs and get sick, or wait for a close family memeber to get sick and be kicked off of their insurance for them to understand how broken the system is, and what is broken about it.

Oh really? I had no health insurance for two years while going back to school, and was unemployed for 6 months at one point with no healthcare.

Also, I ushering my father-in-law through a heart transplant using government healthcare (veteran and disability).

I was there when they kicked him out of the hospital when he hit a certain $ amount, regardless of his complications.

I sat there while he laid curled up in a ball because his "health care by numbers" system had his multiple doctors assign him 10x the normal dose of prednazone. He turned into a giant fucking bruise.

I was there when he fell and his elbow turned to dust and his government run healthcare denied his the prep time he required for surgery (due to the anti-rejection medication) because he had received all the money the government allows for his heart transplant. So instead, the hospital falsified a morphine drip (creating extra charges for drugs he didn't need or use) and brought him in due to pain, instead of just prepping him like normal. More waste that everyone pays for.

We spent over a goddamn year trying to get his past all the red tape and closed doors and explain to people the spreadsheet that dictated his care was wrong.

I've been in THE SHIT. I've wallowed in it. I've seen government run healthcare up close and personal.

I've also seen my grandparents (only one still alive) receive excellent, sympathetic care through private insurance. The only horrible care I've ever seen is the government kind.

So I guess we have to wait for them to lose their jobs and get sick, or wait for a close family memeber to get sick and be kicked off of their insurance for them to understand how broken the system is, and what is broken about it.

So keep your ignorant and spiteful opinions to yourself.

A lot of paranoid parents want their kids to go to private schools.. that's nothing new. That doesn't change the fact that the socialized schooling system does work, and gives the oppertunity to all children in this country to become educated. I don't have any stats to back myself up, but last I checked countries who have their school systems ran by the government fair a lot better then countries who have their school system ran by the private sector exclusively.

I agree. I never said I was against public schooling, and I've stated numerous times it's probably the only socialized service in the US that works. Mainly because it's locally run allowing for better control and management. I think part of the problem with nationally controlled programs is the distance from the end user/recipient. Locally run social programs tend to be much more effectively executed because of the close proximity of the decision maker.

[TheGame]

Oh really? I had no health insurance for two years while going back to school, and was unemployed for 6 months at one point with no healthcare.

Also, I ushering my father-in-law through a heart transplant using government healthcare (veteran and disability).

I was there when they kicked him out of the hospital when he hit a certain $ amount, regardless of his complications.

I sat there while he laid curled up in a ball because his "health care by numbers" system had his multiple doctors assign him 10x the normal dose of prednazone. He turned into a giant fucking bruise.

I was there when he fell and his elbow turned to dust and his government run healthcare denied his the prep time he required for surgery (due to the anti-rejection medication) because he had received all the money the government allows for his heart transplant. So instead, the hospital falsified a morphine drip (creating extra charges for drugs he didn't need or use) and brought him in due to pain, instead of just prepping him like normal. More waste that everyone pays for.

We spent over a goddamn year trying to get his past all the red tape and closed doors and explain to people the spreadsheet that dictated his care was wrong.

I've been in THE SHIT. I've wallowed in it. I've seen government run healthcare up close and personal.

I've also seen my grandparents (only one still alive) receive excellent, sympathetic care through private insurance. The only horrible care I've ever seen is the government kind.

Sorry to hear about your father in law. But I'm sure the story would have been a lot worse if private health insurance was his only option.

[Professor S]

Sorry to hear about your father in law. But I'm sure the story would have been a lot worse if private health insurance was his only option.

Never mind the fact that I've had all of my grandparents go through extended care sessions and multiple lifesaving surgeries, each instance with excellent care from private insurance. The care provided was for emphysema, a stroke, old age (basically last minute hospice) and phlebitis (a month in hospital for that to have stents put in both her 91 year old legs). Only one is still with us, but I can't say a thing bad about their doctors or their care. A nurse even helped me rub my grandmother's stomach the day before she died because she was so uncomfortable and she didn't want any drugs.

I even mentioned they had excellent private insurance care and you quoted it.

But I'm sure you think it would be worse anyway... because if it wasn't worse it wouldn't fit your predisposed opinion.

[TheGame]

But I'm sure you think it would be worse anyway... because if it wasn't worse it wouldn't fit your predisposed opinion.

Pretty much, unfortunately I'm predisposed to my own experiences. I've only witnessed the exact opposite. I guess your family is blessed to have decent private health insurance. :) Unfortunately most people aren't that blessed when they develop health conditions.

[Bond]

From personal experience, I know and have spoken with frequently: two hospital CEOs, one health insurance CEO, and several persons who work for insurance companies, hospitals, and health systems.

They are all capitalist pigs who solely care about profit.

P.S. They also hate poor people.

[TheGame]

From personal experience, I know and have spoken with frequently: two hospital CEOs, one health insurance CEO, and several persons who work for insurance companies, hospitals, and health systems.

They are all capitalist pigs who solely care about profit.

P.S. They also hate poor people.

They're also rich too, right? :)

[Swan]

I hate poor people too...

[The Germanator]

All I've heard about is the This American Life episode where a lady talks about how she got cancer and was dropped from coverage because she once incorrectly reported that she hadn't taken some acne medication. Insurance companies will look for ANY reason to drop you when you really need coverage.

Also, dropping people for predisposed conditions is terrible. I got a blood test recently because my brother almost died from a genetic blood disorder (he didn't have health insurance, didn't really have the $$$ to pay for it, we put off going to the ER for that reason and that's why he could have died, but that's a whole other story). So I buy health insurance, pay a decent amount of money for it, and get a blood test, and the insurance company tries to charge me the full amount for it. They tried to squeeze any bill possible out of my pocket. I'm kind of afraid to go back to the doctor, what will they try to charge for me next? I ended up not even having the same blood disorder! The privatization is not a good option, and we need a good public option.

[Bond]

All I've heard about is the This American Life episode where a lady talks about how she got cancer and was dropped from coverage because she once incorrectly reported that she hadn't taken some acne medication. Insurance companies will look for ANY reason to drop you when you really need coverage.
I <3 This American Life. Have you started listening to the Planet Money Podcast? It's quite good as well!

To be fair to the insurance companies in this situation, making that kind of an error on a legally-binding insurance contract is, possibly, grounds for voiding the said contract. The mistake of the woman not including her acne medication must have been material to her care, otherwise it would not be grounds for a breech of contract. It's actually more of a legal issue than a health care issue.

[Professor S]

Pretty much, unfortunately I'm predisposed to my own experiences. I've only witnessed the exact opposite. I guess your family is blessed to have decent private health insurance. :) Unfortunately most people aren't that blessed when they develop health conditions.

So in your experience you've seen excellent government care and horrible private care? Really?

At this point there is not reason to continue, because this thread has become a creative writing class, not a discussion of policy.

[Dylflon]

After reading that Republican platform on healthcare, I have some thoughts.

Firstly, I believe that raising competitiveness between providers would decrease prices but the rest of that 'platform' seems to be based on adding incentives to the plan that is currently in place without really offering any change. Sure, educating people better is important but it doesn't change a lot. That information must exist and be accessible to those who are looking for coverage, yes?

Is not one of the major issues with your healthcare system the extreme difficulty to get insurance when you have a pre-existing condition? There appears to be nothing that you listed that addresses this issue. No matter what incentives or information you throw out there, insurance companies still won't give people insurance who aren't cost-effective. If someone needs cancer treatment and is uninsured, what makes that company want to take on the extreme loss of money they will suffer for insuring that person?

The only option for these people seems to be to bankrupt themselves and their families. Is this not the reason for universal healthcare?


And when the Obama administration says that they won't shut down the pre-existing system, what are people even afraid is at stake?

[Bond]

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090820/capt.0fb5085659b847688027720d64986f71.obama_health_care_dcab115.jpg?x=400&y=249&q=85&sig=HAwOR63fNdxERVRWt4qAew--
(Photo from earlier today)

Didn't the campaign end last year? Quite odd choosing to use a former campaign logo over the seal of the Office of the President.

[TheGame]

He's campaigning for 2012!