Opposition to healthcare law eases, poll finds. Weekly Standard disagrees.
177 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492293]Uhh, the LA Times is one of his sources, You saying you don't trust them?[/QUOTE]
yep
but I don't trust any public opinion polls ever and I don't care how accurate they are.
Hopefully Obamacare will be repealed it needs to.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27492328]yep
but I don't trust any public opinion polls ever and I don't care how accurate they are.[/QUOTE]
:colbert:
Why not?
[QUOTE=mbutler2;27492355]Hopefully Obamacare will be repealed it needs to.[/QUOTE]
You say that in every thread ever but I don't remember you ever expanding past that statement.
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27492383]:colbert:
Why not?[/QUOTE]
Because public opinion is really fickle on divisive issues.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27492390]You say that in every thread ever but I don't remember you ever expanding past that statement.
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
Because public opinion is really fickle on divisive issues.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously, but I don't see why you wouldn't trust them because of that. It serves it's purpose to show the current state of opinion well, if it changes quickly it'll show that too.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492293]Uhh, the LA Times is one of his sources, You saying you don't trust them?
Edit:
MSNBC is another source Rush links to, and they are opposite Rush.[/QUOTE]
MSNBC is certainly biased, but they aren't really the [i]opposite[/i] of Rush Limbaugh.
No one has yet to give me a reason why public health care is a bad thing.
go healthcare bill redux 2012
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492293]Uhh, the LA Times is one of his sources, You saying you don't trust them?
Edit:
MSNBC is another source Rush links to, and they are opposite Rush.[/QUOTE]
Really? Come on, MSNBC is biased but they're not full of demagogues. Also he obviously means sources used to support their arguments, of course someone linking to something as the source for a news story doesn't discredit the news.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27492479]No one has yet to give me a reason why public health care is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Fucking commies ill tell you what.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27492449]Well obviously, but I don't see why you wouldn't trust them because of that. It serves it's purpose to show the current state of opinion well, if it changes quickly it'll show that too.[/QUOTE]Well I was kidding at first but then I edited the post because in any case I don't trust either of these articles.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27492514]Fucking commies ill tell you what.[/QUOTE]
That's not a reason, so I'll have to assume that's sarcasm.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27492479]No one has yet to give me a reason why public health care is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
We can't afford it. the US Government is almost at its debt limit. To enact Obamacare (the Public health care system that was passed under Obama) in full would devastate the economy even more and instead of improving health care, the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies.
In public health care, the Government has more control over weather you can live or die. You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan.
You need that newly developed surgery? oops, that's not covered either.
As for how it would devastate the economy. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Add that to the current unemployment problem and you have more people on the receiving end then you do on the paying end.
The very thing insurance companies get attacked over, the Government would do too and on a National Scale.
since when were polls accurate
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492965]We can't afford it. the US Government is almost at its debt limit. To enact Obamacare (the Public health care system that was passed under Obama) in full would devastate the economy even more and instead of improving health care, the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies.
In public health care, the Government has more control over weather you can live or die. You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan.
You need that newly developed surgery? oops, that's not covered either.
As for how it would devastate the economy. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Add that to the current unemployment problem and you have more people on the receiving end then you do on the paying end.
The very thing insurance companies get attacked over, the Government would do too and on a National Scale.[/QUOTE]
Part of the bill is about not being able to deny people coverage based on when they determine as pre-existing conditions, which is a really good thing. Not to mention, at this point, it would cost more to undo the health care bill than to finish implementing it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492965]We can't afford it. the US Government is almost at its debt limit. To enact Obamacare (the Public health care system that was passed under Obama) in full would devastate the economy even more and instead of improving health care, the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies.
In public health care, the Government has more control over weather you can live or die. You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan.
You need that newly developed surgery? oops, that's not covered either.
As for how it would devastate the economy. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Add that to the current unemployment problem and you have more people on the receiving end then you do on the paying end.
The very thing insurance companies get attacked over, the Government would do too and on a National Scale.[/QUOTE]
Guys I guess if we privatized the police, they would be much better at their jobs too? So much that everyone would want to pay for these privatized police.
Paying for the police somehow devastates the economy as well I assume?
Your second paragraph makes no sense.
The government is not anti-progessive treatments, not only do you have no evidence proving this, it's also extremely counterintuitive.
America has some of the lowest taxes in the western world, and you still have a shit economy. Having the rich pay more taxes doesn't suddenly make everyone poor, that doesn't even make sense. There is a logical flow of money.
Also, the insurance companies are trying to make a profit from people, whereas the government is trying to save as many people as they can. Two different motives.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492965]We can't afford it.[/QUOTE]
Better to spend on this than on two wars.
But it doesn't matter now because THERE'S NO PUBLIC OPTION.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492965]We can't afford it. the US Government is almost at its debt limit. To enact Obamacare (the Public health care system that was passed under Obama) in full would devastate the economy even more and instead of improving health care, the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies.
In public health care, the Government has more control over weather you can live or die. You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan.
You need that newly developed surgery? oops, that's not covered either.
As for how it would devastate the economy. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Add that to the current unemployment problem and you have more people on the receiving end then you do on the paying end.
The very thing insurance companies get attacked over, the Government would do too and on a National Scale.[/QUOTE]
Let's implement taxes onto the richest of the rich then.
So Glaber, is it Obamacare, or because of the new terms, Obumcare?
I need to know, the rally is in a week and I need my picket signs to be up to date.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27493047]Guys I guess if we privatized the police, they would be much better at their jobs too? So much that everyone would want to pay for these privatized police.
Paying for the police somehow devastates the economy as well I assume?
Your second paragraph makes no sense.
America has some of the lowest taxes in the western world, and you still have a shit economy. Having the rich pay more taxes doesn't suddenly make everyone poor, that doesn't even make sense. There is a logical flow of money.
Also, the insurance companies are trying to make a profit from people, whereas the government is trying to save as many people as they can. Two different motives.[/QUOTE]
The other point I intended to mention was taxing the rich. Raise taxes, ONLY on the rich to pay for the bill.
Ny Times released this budget game a while back, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html]ya'll should try it[/url]
[QUOTE=Glaber;27492965]We can't afford it. the US Government is almost at its debt limit. To enact Obamacare (the Public health care system that was passed under Obama) in full would devastate the economy even more and instead of improving health care, the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies.
In public health care, the Government has more control over weather you can live or die. You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan.
You need that newly developed surgery? oops, that's not covered either.
As for how it would devastate the economy. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Add that to the current unemployment problem and you have more people on the receiving end then you do on the paying end.
The very thing insurance companies get attacked over, the Government would do too and on a National Scale.[/QUOTE]
Stop the war.
"the quality would go down because doctors would have to get paid from the government instead of from their patients and insurance companies." Canada doctors work hard to save lives.
"You need that experimental new drug? Whops, not covered under the plan." not covered over my pay check either
[QUOTE=Lambeth;27493144]Ny Times released this budget game a while back, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html]ya'll should try it[/url][/QUOTE]
I did it!
I suppose there isn't a healthy amount of opposition anymore.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27493210]I did it![/QUOTE]
Oh my, so have I! Funny enough, a lot of it came from slashing the defense budget, raising taxes on the rich, and removing tax-breaks from employer-provided insurance (provided there will still be a government plan). Imagine that!
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27493304]Oh my, so have I! Funny enough, a lot of it came from slashing the defense budget, raising taxes on the rich, and removing tax-breaks from employer-provided insurance (provided there will still be a government plan). Imagine that![/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=23p0j40z[/url]
Let's compare.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27493317][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=23p0j40z[/URL]
Let's compare.[/QUOTE][B][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x6d52z"][/URL]
[/B][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=23p0j40z"]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x6d52z[/URL]
Nearly identical.
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x6d5qz[/url]
Revised mine a bit.
this feels incomplete. Where's the recent "health care reform"? where are the suggestions from conservatives like the 20% cut for [B]All[/B] of Government?
At least they had Tort/medical malpractice reform on it. I just wish the Carbon tax wasn't still being considered. It's just a way to tax the air we breath.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27494164]this feels incomplete. Where's the recent "health care reform"? where are the suggestions from conservatives like the 20% cut for [B]All[/B] of Government?
At least they had Tort reform on it. I just wish the Carbon tax wasn't still being considered. It's just a way to tax the air we breath.[/QUOTE]
We don't need a 20% cut for all of government though, that's the thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.