Has anyone seen these polls?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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/...n4728399.shtml

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

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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.

[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-m..._b_253996.html

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

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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...

[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]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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/publ..._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...060802041.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.

[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?