Poll: Obama approval ratings drop, 52% of Americans say he's not trustworthy - Polidicks

[QUOTE=stewe231;42847554]I provided more than that in the link below it, I just didn't want to spend 30 minutes finding the perfect graphs. Also, I am not "massively uninformed" [url]http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/5/344.long[/url][/QUOTE] You obviously think baby mortality rates are relevant since you posted it, don't try and dodge it now. The fact that baby viability isn't even closely consistent across countries makes it completely useless.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42847590]You obviously think baby mortality rates are relevant since you posted it, don't try and dodge it now. The fact that baby viability isn't even closely consistent across countries makes it completely useless.[/QUOTE] How am I dodging the statement? I posted evidence that refuted your claim. It's your word vs actual research. Guess which one I trust more. Though I did edit that in after I researched what you said.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;42846959] Let's judge someone because of the political party they come from, and not their actual ideas![/QUOTE] Well, political party does imply a given set of ideas....

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42847607]Well, political party does imply a given set of ideas....[/QUOTE] When you have 2 dominant parties you can have some pretty radical extremes.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42847264]Every president after JFK sucked. And he was no saint either.[/QUOTE] JFK was a pretty bad president, he unfortunately died relatively early on. People have a positive view of him because his death overshadowed his prescription drug abuses and sleeping around. He had a similar appeal as Obama did, he was young with new ideas, that's about it.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42847607]Well, political party does imply a given set of ideas....[/QUOTE] That's kind of the whole point of a political party. They aren't there just for formality. Republicans mostly believe in a certain set of Ideals and same with Democrats. Not to make everything black and white, but a majority of a party agrees on a set of core ideals, and have differing opinions on others. [editline]13th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=An Actual Bear;42847615]JFK was a pretty bad president, he unfortunately died relatively early on. People have a positive view of him because his death overshadowed his prescription drug abuses and sleeping around. He had a similar appeal as Obama did, he was young with new ideas, that's about it.[/QUOTE] JFK was definitely not a bad president. If you think he's bad, who do you consider good? JFK did a bunch of good shit. [url]http://www.netplaces.com/john-f-kennedy/john-f-kennedys-legacy/john-f-kennedys-top-ten-accomplishments.htm[/url] The site isn't great, but it explains very briefly some good stuff he did. Sure he had personal issues with women and drugs, but don't let that downplay his successes. [editline]13th November 2013[/editline] Also, I'm absolutely sure his approval rating has much more to do with the NSA scandal rather than the Affordable Care Act's problems.

[QUOTE=stewe231;42847606]How am I dodging the statement? I posted evidence that refuted your claim. It's your word vs actual research. Guess which one I trust more. Though I did edit that in after I researched what you said.[/QUOTE] Your study doesn't even present the real problem of infant mortality rates: the previously stated one of not having consistent measurements. It has nothing to do with my point. It takes the data from government sources, which are biased based on that problem. For example, in many European countries a baby won't be recorded as a post-birth death unless the baby lives for a set amount of time first. In the US ANY baby that dies after birth is considered for the IMR. This compounded with the fact that the vast majority of deaths occur quickly after birth make the statistic very unreliable. "A 2006 report from WHO stated that “among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.” The Bulletin of WHO noted that “it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth”; those who did not survive were “completely ignored for registration purposes.” Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show “any evidence of life,” even the most premature and the smallest — the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths — it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not." - ([url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas[/url]) [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] One of the best measures of healthcare quality is cancer survival rates since they relate solely to the system itself. There is no way to consistently survive cancer except through medicine and the US consistently either competes right alongside European countries, or outright destroys them (breast cancer, for example).

[QUOTE=sgman91;42847680]Your study doesn't even present the real problem of infant mortality rates: the previously stated one of not having consistent measurements. It has nothing to do with my point. It takes the data from government sources, which are biased based on that problem. For example, in many European countries a baby won't be recorded as a post-birth death unless the baby lives for a set amount of time first. In the US ANY baby that dies after birth is considered for the IMR. This compounded with the fact that the vast majority of deaths occur quickly after birth make the statistic very unreliable. "A 2006 report from WHO stated that “among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.” The Bulletin of WHO noted that “it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth”; those who did not survive were “completely ignored for registration purposes.” Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show “any evidence of life,” even the most premature and the smallest — the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths — it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not." - ([url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas[/url]) [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] One of the best measures of healthcare quality is cancer survival rates since they relate solely to the system itself. There is no way to consistently survive cancer except through medicine and the US consistently either competes right alongside European countries, or outright destroys them (breast cancer, for example).[/QUOTE] Interesting, but I can't find anything about this on a website that isn't obviously conservatively biased. Check their homepage. I looked for a while about these points, but I could only find something from the site you posted and another equally untrustworthy. ( [url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html[/url] ) I hate using political websites like that even when I agree with them because they can't be trusted. I think you should find a non-biased source like I did.

[QUOTE=Chronische;42846896]Find me a politician in any party that doesn't have their head up their ass.[/QUOTE] sarah palin

Can't edit my other post for some reason. Your point about cancer survival rates has issues too. Plus, the United States and Canada have nearly the same rates. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Cancer[/url] This: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems[/url] is the best indicator of healthcare quality because it combines different health statistics into an overall rating. But, I get your point that Child Mortality Rates can be unreliable, but there much more to the issue than that.

[QUOTE=stewe231;42847744]Interesting, but I can't find anything about this on a website that isn't obviously conservatively biased. Check their homepage. I looked for a while about these points, but I could only find something from the site you posted and another equally untrustworthy. ( [url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html[/url] ) I hate using political websites like that even when I agree with them because they can't be trusted. I think you should find a non-biased source like I did.[/QUOTE] They cite the quotes in the article from the WHO. [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=stewe231;42847765] This: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems[/url] is the best indicator of healthcare quality because it combines different health statistics into an overall rating. But, I get your point that Child Mortality Rates can be unreliable, but there much more to the issue than that.[/QUOTE] That's a terrible indicator. Right off the bat 25% of it is based on cost. Cost is definitely an issue, but it has nothing to do with quality of care.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42847810]They cite the quotes in the article from the WHO. [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] That's a terrible indicator. Right off the bat 25% of it is based on cost. Cost is definitely an issue, but it has nothing to do with quality of care.[/QUOTE] It's [U]overall[/U] quality. Not just the direct service you get. If person A pays $2,000 for something, and person B pays $3,000 for exactly the same thing, which one is better? We pay more for the same thing, which makes our healthcare lesser to other countries.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42847088]that makes the democrats rightist, not leftist. traditional leftists on a 1-dimensional political spectrum oppose government presence in the lives of citizens.[/QUOTE] no in american politics, the democrats have been big government for over 100 years, medicare, social security, prohibition, the drug war, all democrat or progressive passed issues. the ACA is a god awful pile that should never have been thumb tacked onto Obamas insurance reforms. if the reforms had been passed in his first term and the ACA later, he would be fairly high. the problem is the republican response from the crazies has been alienate more and more people cas that's how you win elections. its lunacy and those idiots who think moving more right will solve the problem need to be impeached for incompidence. [editline]13th November 2013[/editline] republicans are generally for expanding the military industrial complex more than anything else, they have a bad rep for supporting big business interest but really look whos behind both sides and you'll find big business is behind both sides of the isle, its only the republicans who talk about it, the dems just take their blank checks and condem the republicans for being so hollow

[QUOTE=stewe231;42847844]It's [U]overall[/U] quality. Not just the direct service you get. If person A pays $2,000 for something, and person B pays $3,000 for exactly the same thing, which one is better? We pay more for the same thing, which makes our healthcare not as good as other countries.[/QUOTE] It isn't nearly that simple. The extra cost of the US system does comes with increased benefits for most people. One example is the vastly more available CT and MRI scanners. In 2011 the US had 25.9 MRI units and 34.3 CT scanners per capita while the UK only had 5.4 MRI units and 7.4 CT scanners per capita. ([URL="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/02/index.html;jsessionid=2ps3osemtuc2.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-30-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html"]OECD[/URL]) That's just one example. Another one would be the massive amount of new drugs developed in the US compared with Europe, especially in new fields.

[QUOTE=Kegan;42847135]If he gets the boot out of the white house, what will happen to Obongo care?[/QUOTE] Hopefully overhauled so it's not shit instead of being dropped like a hot potatoe. Have the goverment pay for a actually decent base insurance for each individual which in turn is paid by taxes, and enforce price checks and quality control on every aspect of the healthcare and health insurance system.

Rather than have some half, or even quarter nationalised health care the US should go for a nationalised system rather than this "safety net" that is actually puting some people in debt in its self. Some politicians need to leave this weird mind-set that nationalising things = socialism since if that's the way they think most countries in the world are socialists. [editline]13th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42847924]It isn't nearly that simple. The extra cost of the US system does comes with increased benefits for most people. One example is the vastly more available CT and MRI scanners. In 2011 the US had 25.9 MRI units and 34.3 CT scanners per capita while the UK only had 5.4 MRI units and 7.4 CT scanners per capita. ([URL="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/02/index.html;jsessionid=2ps3osemtuc2.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-30-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html"]OECD[/URL]) That's just one example. Another one would be the massive amount of new drugs developed in the US compared with Europe, especially in new fields.[/QUOTE] That's all well and good [I]when you can afford it.[/I]

[QUOTE=abcpea;42847746]sarah palin[/QUOTE] Where's her head then? Up a moose's ass instead?

[QUOTE=Nightsure;42850564]Rather than have some half, or even quarter nationalised health care the US should go for a nationalised system rather than this "safety net" that is actually puting some people in debt in its self. Some politicians need to leave this weird mind-set that nationalising things = socialism since if that's the way they think most countries in the world are socialists. [editline]13th November 2013[/editline] That's all well and good [I]when you can afford it.[/I][/QUOTE] Another one: "As reported by the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Council_of_Canada"]Health Council of Canada[/URL], a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; [B]43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S.[/B]" ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States[/URL]) 85% of people have health insurance and 80%-90% of those people were already satisfied with their insurance before Obamacare ([URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/george-will/will-says-95-percent-people-health-insurance-are-s/[/URL]) and everyone had free health care available if they couldn't afford it. The hospital isn't allowed to deny necessary care. Also, we already have governmental programs to provide healthcare to the elderly, poor, and children. The problem with the statistics about the uninsured is that about 1/4 of them already are eligable for government programs, but aren't signing up and about 1/3 are households making over $50,000 a year. ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States[/URL])

[QUOTE=lolz3;42846784]I remember the days when Republicans were racist and stupid for saying this is what the bill would do. How's it feel now?[/QUOTE] eh, tbh when the healthcare law was being discussed Republicans and assorted media didn't focus on this particular aspect. They were going on about "death panels", "government take over of healthcare", paranoia about immigrants getting access to medicare, single-payer medicine (which never made it to the final draft), invoking Godwin's law about Nazi's and universal healthcare, bringing in Steven Hawking as someone the NHS would let die, etc etc. The stuff on those grounds was pretty damn hysterical. It was only really a while ago when they shifted gears to attack the individual mandate (even still bizarrely claiming the government is "taking over the industry") since hysterics won't fly in the Supreme Court, but the problem here is that really the thrust of this healthcare reform- trying to find market solutions coupled with individual mandate- was a Republican initiative as a counter-proposal to the Clinton's push back in the 90s. If anything the final product of Obamacare was a pretty generous gift to the insurance industry considering the alternatives. As things stand right now the issue comes from the website, we can't really say anything else about it until it begins to take effect, though that relies on people actually buying insurance, which in of itself is dependent on the website.

There are some good things about ACA, denying people insurance due to pre-existing conditions is nice, being able to stay on your parent's plan until you're 26 is nice, but I'm not a fan of the individual mandate, and there's incentive for small businesses to not hire too many people full-time, which sucks. Most people, in my opinion, are angry for good reason. For some dumb reason a lot of people I know have insurance plans that are now going up in price because of the act, so that's obviously going to make people angry. Some small businesses are making their employees take the insurance exchanges plans instead of their preexisting plan given to them just to save costs, and are also cutting hours to make more part-time employees to get under the 50 employee max before being required to insure out of the business's pocket. Plus, this whole insurance exchange was poorly implemented. So, it's going to make their opinions on Obama more negative. WSJ just made an interesting survey for small business owners discussing a lot of this stuff. [URL="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192102917020082"]Link[/URL]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42847047]is this your idea of a political spectrum lol [img]http://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.therightplanet.com_wp_content_uploads_2011_09_true_political_spectrum.png[/img][/QUOTE] That should really be changed to "Authoritarian" and "Liberal".

Whats this that I casually found? Something about Obama not keeping his word? [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24920162[/url]

[QUOTE=stewe231;42847520]Yeah, the ACA isn't great, but since America is too anti-socialism to adopt a cheaper, fair national healthcare service, this is sadly the best they could come up with. Since the house isn't proposing anything to actually improve the bill, but rather "DEFUND/REPEAL HURRRRR SHUT DOWN THE GOVURNMENT!", It won't be changed for the better. It's fucking hilarious watching people try and attack great ideas like an NHS with nothing but "thats socialism! and socialism is bad!!!" Obviously you can't socialize everything because it likely would never work, but socializing things like Healthcare, the Police force, and firefighters are necessary for everyone to be able to live their lives without either horrible debt from being in an accident or being dead.[/QUOTE] Mutual aid societies provided healthcare just fine before the NHS came along. Really, the drive to socialize medicine or other essential services doesn't have people's interests in mind: When it is not a payoff to the healthcare establishment, it is used as a way to make people dependent on government, because everyone whose life depends on the government is one less person who will oppose it. (Teddy Roosevelt's attack on immigrants, who he called hyphenated Americans, was motivated in part by their refusal to depend on the democratic state instead of their own communities for welfare)

Most Americans would probably love a National Healthcare System, but the problem is how it perceived as being handled. People don't want more taxes, that's a given. So stop fucking telling people that you are going to shove taxes down their throats. Best way to handle this situation is to appeal to small business owners by telling them that it'll lessen their health insurance bills, and at the same time more customers will come as they'll be able to get proper healthcare, and get back to working and than buying consumer goods. Appealing to capitalism is better than appealing to the whole public safety gig.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42852935]Most Americans would probably love a National Healthcare System, but the problem is how it perceived as being handled. People don't want more taxes, that's a given. So stop fucking telling people that you are going to shove taxes down their throats. Best way to handle this situation is to appeal to small business owners by telling them that it'll lessen their health insurance bills, and at the same time more customers will come as they'll be able to get proper healthcare, and get back to working and than buying consumer goods. Appealing to capitalism is better than appealing to the whole public safety gig.[/QUOTE] People just don't want to pay for it. Especially not if their own rates will increase.

[QUOTE=Phrozen99;42853137]People just don't want to pay for it. Especially not if their own rates will increase.[/QUOTE] So tell them that they already pay double what people pay in countries with Nationalized Healthcare.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42853355]So tell them that they already pay double what people pay in countries with Nationalized Healthcare.[/QUOTE] And? With ACA they have to pay more than what they previously had to. No one will be happy about that.

[QUOTE=Phrozen99;42853137]People just don't want to pay for it. Especially not if their own rates will increase.[/QUOTE] This is a common problem in America. Everyone wants everything to be "free". Or more accurately, payed for by someone else. Nothing is free in this world. I just hate how people with jobs are being taxed to cover the slugs who'd rather get everything free from the government with this new Healthcare system. All it really does is continues to gut the middle class.

well the congress is divided so the american people can shut the fuck up cause its really tough and the president cant do as much as people think. i sincerely hope that perpetual war becomes an issue next election but we all know that's not changing. lol change lol nobel peace prize lol hope

[QUOTE=Explosions;42846793]I don't know, Republicans are still racist and stupid.[/QUOTE] Well excuse me.