Page 7 of 42 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 624

Thread: Health Care Bill goes to the President's Desk

  1. #91
    A Handsome Military Professional ShawnG's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 08
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    So far 13 state Attorney Generals are suing the government over this Bill. If it keeps up it looks like the Supreme Court will have to rule upon it. Many are stating that it is against the US Constitution. Guess we shall find out.
    Soggy poo thrown against the wall--might not stick so well.
    "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach...just make sure you thrust upward through his ribcage."

  2. #92
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Mar 08
    Posts
    151
    My own states legislature recently introduced legislation protecting its citizens from this ridiculous federal mandate. I got a feeling this is gonna get real ugly before its all over.

    Missouri House Passes Health Care Freedom Act*|*Tenth Amendment Center Blog

    Missouri House Passes Health Care Freedom Act
    05. Mar, 2010 Written by: Michael Boldin



    The Missouri State House has passed House Joint Resolution 48 (HJR48). The legislation, known as the “Missouri Health Care Freedom Act” seeks to make public policy for the state that every person within the state of Missouri is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.

    Here’s the official summary of the bill:

    Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment prohibits any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. Individuals and employers may pay directly for lawful health care services without being subject to fines or penalties, and health care providers can accept payment for health care services from individuals or employers without being subject to fines or penalties. The purchase or sale of health care insurance in private health care systems cannot be prohibited by law or rule.

    The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution codifies in law that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – and that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserve “to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

    The founders, during the time of the Constitution’s ratification, made clear that a vast majority of regulatory powers would be left in the states – including social services, agriculture, mining, and more. Click here to read more.

    The resolution passed by a vote of 113-40, and is awaiting transmittal to the State Senate.

    In an update to supporters, the resolution’s primary sponsor, State Rep. Jane Cunningham, pledged to see the effort through:

    “I sincerely appreciate all those who have come out and shown their support, and all those who have shown an interest in the issue. Each of you has my word that I will fight tirelessly until our constitutional rights in Missouri are fully protected from federal encroachment.”
    Last edited by Blue; 25 Mar 10, at 03:59.

  3. #93
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,717
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnG View Post
    Soggy poo thrown against the wall--might not stick so well.
    *All in how the Supreme Court interpits the US Constitution my friend. Mr Obama and that poor excuse for a Dem Congress have no say at that point. The Law of the Land prevails wether they like it or not.

    *And its now up to 14 states with lawsuites against the government.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 24 Mar 10, at 18:12.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  4. #94
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,589
    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Let's start with this:

    You do not want to pay for other people's irresponsible behaviour. True or false?
    You know my view on socialism. That's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the constitutionality of Obamacare. Read our constitution and try to understand why we object to certain languages in the legislation.

    The United States has a very different legal system than most other countries in the history of man. We are very concerned with the technicalities of our laws. Rules must be followed exactly. That's how the game is played. We are less concerned with how "fair" the game is.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #95
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    gunnut, I have a new angle- I now renounce my status as a member of the Christian Science faith.

    I realize that this new law violates my First Amendment rights by punishing me for not being a member of the Christian Science Church.

    Therefore it is in effect, a law establishing that religion above others in the view of the Government. Since they are exempted from the penalties, they must the "preferred" religion.

  6. #96
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Seems the native tribes are exempt as well.

    Aren't they entitled to all the "benefits" of Obamacare?

  7. #97
    Senior Contributor Swift Sword's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Oct 05
    Location
    Carl Perkins' Cadillac
    Posts
    1,032
    Yesterday Obama spoke. Today the Bond Market Vigilantes stirred: not a happy auction this day for the Treasury.

    It is no secret what higher interest rates will do to the cost of health care...and everything else.

    "Hows that Hopey Changey stuff workin' out for ya?"

    William
    Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

  8. #98
    HKHolic Senior Contributor leib10's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Feb 05
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Posts
    3,513
    I'm shocked at how few people around the university (a place you'd expect them to be fairly up-to-date on current affairs) are discussing this.

    I for one think that this bill is a disgrace and an insult to the American people. Yet another way for the federal government to get into our pants and squeeze the family jewels a bit harder. This bill is unconstitutional and not even close to being well-supported by the public, yet the damn thing is about to be signed into law. Have things really come to this?

    I have a feeling that the issue of states' rights will be revisted again, 2010 edition. We'll see if people give enough of a damn to undue this monstrosity or are the pacifist sheep they usually are. My money's on the latter.
    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

  9. #99
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Personally, I expect apathy.

    We're all ever-so-enraged, but I bet this thang survives all challenges and attempts at repeal.

    I will fight on, I do assure you, but personally, I think that when we lost the fight, we really LOST. The way these things work is exactly why it was so tough for the Bad Guys to win, and they had EVERYthing going for 'em. You think we're going to unwind this crap, just because we win back the House (which I think we will, but it won't matter in the larger scheme of things, as the Democrats have known all along)?

    The Democrats took the hit, and it may be a massive one, but it won't be a PERMANENT one, and they were tactically correct that this frontal assault would carry the position, and they can now dig in and hold on, eventually changing the battle back to one that favors them. The argument, from this moment on, is not about whether we SHOULD do the Massive Government Hustle, but How Much?

    They saw what FDR saw: if we can get over the goal line, no matter how much it motivates the other team, the points stay on the board.

  10. #100
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    This is a MUCH better way to say it, from the matchless Mark Steyn:

    Health care is a game-changer. The permanent game-changer. The pendulum will swing, and one day, despite their best efforts, the Republicans will return to power, and, in the right circumstances, the bailouts and cap-&-trade and Government Motors and much of the rest can be reversed. But the government annexation of health care will prove impossible to roll back. It alters the relationship between the citizen and the state and, once that transformation is effected, you can click your ruby slippers all you want but you’ll never get back to Kansas.

    Why’s that? Well, first, the “health care” debate is not primarily about health, which chugs along regardless of how the debate goes: Life expectancy in the European Union 78.7 years; life expectancy in the United States 78.06 years; life expectancy in Albania 77.6 years; life expectancy in Libya, 76.88 years; life expectancy in Bosnia & Herzegovina, 78.17 years. Once you get on top of childhood mortality and basic hygiene, everything else is peripheral – margin-of-error territory. Maybe we could get another six months by adopting EU-style socialized health care. Or we could get another six weeks by reducing the Lower 48 to rubble in an orgy of bloodletting, which seems to have done wonders for Bosnian longevity. Or we could lop a year off geriatric institutionalization costs by installing some kook in a pillbox hat as Islamic dictator and surrounding him with a palace guard of Austin Powers fembots. It’s as likely to work as anything Congress will pass.

    What explains the yawning chasm of these gaping six-month variations? Lack of funding? The United Kingdom spends three times as much money on “health” as Poland and their cancer survival rates are more or less identical. Okay, forget the cash and consider the treatment: Even within the United States, even within the Medicare system, there are regions that offer twice as much “health care” per patient – twice as many check-ups, pills, tests, operations – for no discernible variation in outcome. To one degree or another, any health care “system” is a giant placebo. Right now, in a fit of mass hypochondria, large numbers of Americans have convinced themselves that they – or, at any rate, their uninsured neighbors – urgently need the magic Euro-cure-all. If they get it, it will improve their health not a whit.

    But it will make a lot of other things worse. Government-directed health care is a profound assault on the concept of citizenship. It deforms national politics very quickly, and ensures that henceforth elections are always fought on the left’s terms. I find it hard to believe President Obama and his chums haven’t looked at Canada and Europe and concluded that health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. He doesn’t say that, of course. He says his objective is to “control costs”. Which is the one thing that won’t happen. Even now, health care costs rise far faster under Medicare than in the private sector.

    By the way, to accept that argument is to concede a lot of the turf: Why is the cost of my health care Barack Obama’s business? When he mused recently as to whether his dying grandmother had really needed her hip replacement, he gave the game away: Right now, if Gran’ma decides she doesn’t need the hip, that’s her business. Under a government system, it’s the state’s business – and they have to “allocate” “resources”, and frankly at your age your body’s not worth allocating to. Why give you a new hip when you’re getting up there and you’re gonna be kicking the bucket in a year or two or five or twenty?

    There have been two trends in US health care over the last decade. On the one hand, a lot of Americans have become, in any rational sense, over-insured: They get tested for things they’ll never get. On the other, there has been an abandonment of health insurance by the rich. If you peel the Census Bureau and DHHS figures, of those alleged “45 million uninsured Americans”, one-fifth aren’t Americans; another fifth aren’t uninsured but are covered by Medicare; another two-fifths are the young and mobile (they don’t have health insurance, but they don’t have life insurance or home insurance, either: they’re 22 and immortal and life’s a party); and the remaining fifth are wealthier than the insured population. Really. According to a 2006 Census Bureau report, 19 per cent of the uninsured have household income of over $75,000. Since the last round of government “reform” in the Nineties, wealthy Americans have been fleeing insurance and opting to bring health care back to a normal market transaction. And, if you look at the “uninsured discount” offered by doctors, one can appreciate that, for everything but chronic disability, it’s not an irrational decision to say I’ll get a better deal for my broken leg or my colonoscopy or my heavy cold if I just write a check for it.

    And, if you disagree, so what? In a free society, Mr Smith should be free to be excessively prudent and over-pay to be over-insured, and Mr Jones should be free to conclude that he wants to pay cash down and get the best price for his broken leg. But a government system usurps both Smith and Jones’ right to calculate their own best interests. Whenever I cite some particularly lurid tale from the front lines of Euro-Canadian health care at The Corner, I always get a flurry of e-mails from American readers offering horror stories from US hospitals. And yes, it’s true, bad things happen in American hospitals. But the Euro-Canadian stories are not really about the procedure, the operation, the emergency room, the doctor, the nurse. They’re about impotence – not in the “Will Obama pay for my Viagra?” sense but in terms of civic dignity and individual liberty. I think of a young man called Gerald Augustin of Rivière-des-Prairies, Québec, who went to the St. André medical clinic complaining of stomach pain. He’d forgotten to bring his government medical card, so they turned him away. He was a Quebecker born and bred, and he was in their computer. But no card, no service: that’s just the way it is. So he went back home to get it, collapsed of acute appendicitis, and by the time the ambulance arrived he was dead. He was 21 years old, and he didn’t make it to 22 because he accepted the right of a government bureaucrat to refuse him medical treatment for which he and his family have been confiscatorily taxed all their lives. “I don’t see what we did wrong,” said the administrator. “We just followed the rules.” No big deal, M Augustin wasn’t anything special; no one in her clinic even remembered giving him the brush.

    Roy Romanow, the Canadian politician who headed the most recent of the innumerable inquiries into problems with the system, defends the state’s monopoly on the grounds that “Canadians view medicare as a moral enterprise, not a business venture.” If the St Andre clinic were a business venture, they’d have greeted M Augustin with: “You’ve got stomach pains? Boy, have we hit the jackpot! Let’s get you some big-ticket pills and sign you up for surgery!” But because it’s a moral enterprise they sent him away with a flea in his ear. If you have a bad experience in a private system, there’s always another doctor, another clinic, another hospital five miles up the road. But, when the government monopoly denies you health care, that’s it: Go home and wait – or, like M Augustin, die.

    “Morality” is always the justification. Inaugurating Britain’s National Health Service on July 5th 1948, the Health Minister Nye Bevan crowed: “We now have the moral leadership of the world.” That’s how Obamacare is being sold: Even The New York Times (buried deep down in paragraph 38) reports that 77 per cent of Americans are content with their own health care. But they feel bad about all those poor uninsured waifs earning 75 grand a year. So it will make us all feel better if the government “does something”. Not literally “feel better”: We’ll be feeling sicker, longer, in dirtier waiting rooms. But our disease-ridden bodies will be warmed by the glow of knowing we did the right thing.

    What’s so moral about relieving the citizen of responsibility for his own health care? If free citizens of the wealthiest societies in human history are not prepared to make provision for their own health, what other core responsibilities of functioning adulthood are they likely to forego? Oh, Smith and Jones can still be entrusted to make their own choices about which movie to rent from Netflix, or which breakfast cereal to eat. For the moment. But you’d be surprised how quickly the “right” to health care elides into the government’s right to tell you how to live in order to access that health care. A government-directed medical system can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state undertakes to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place – or declining to treat you if your persist in your deviancy: Smokers in Manchester, England have been refused treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk have been told they’re ineligible for hip and knee replacements. With a staff of 1.4 million, England’s National Health Service is supposedly the third biggest employer on the planet after the Chinese People’s Army (2.3 million) and Indian National Railways (1.5 million). And those couple of million Chinese and Indians are mere drops in oceans each over a billion strong, not a significant chunk of the adult population of a tiny strip of land in the North Atlantic. But they still have to ration treatment. Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, says there’s nothing wrong with the state forbidding treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices”. And apparently the “pro-choice” types who jump up and down in the street demanding that you keep your rosaries off their ovaries are entirely relaxed about the government getting its bureaucratics all over your lymphatics.

    Ultimately, it’s not the nationalization of health care but the nationalization of your body. Right now, if you want an MRI, it’s between you and your doctors. In a government-run system, if you want an MRI and you can’t get one, it’s the government’s fault. And the government should do something about it. Not give you the MRI, of course (that’s too obvious, as well as too expensive), but at least introduce a new Patient’s Bill of Rights, as Gordon Brown’s just done, promising every Briton the “right” to hospital treatment within 18 weeks. Or your (tax) money back? Ah, well, no, but the Prime Minister’s charter will also give you “guaranteed access to cancer treatments”, as well as “the right to die at home”, which sounds a bit as if Mr Brown is covering himself. Scotland’s male cancer survival rate is 40 per cent, compared to America’s 66 per cent. So if the other 60 per cent of Scots all exercise their right to die at home that might free up some “guaranteed access” for the remainder. And, if it doesn’t, the Prime Minister will perhaps introduce a new helpline - 1-800-PATIENT – in which all you have to do is punch in your postal code and some bureaucrat will come on the line to explain that that new cancer-survival targets for your area will be introduced circa 2012, so call back then, if you’re not dead.

    So elections dwindle down to a sterile argument over how to “improve” the system: The left-of-center party usually pledges to throw money at it. The right-of-center party is less enthusiastic about that, which generally makes it suspect on the issue, so it settles on some formulation to the effect that it can “deliver” better “services” more “efficiently”. In other words, the only viable rationale for the right becomes its claim to be able to run the leftist state more smoothly than the left. Every footling reform with any whiff of the private sector about it has the ranks of the great and the good lining up on TV to drone the indestructible cliché that “the NHS is the envy of the world.” Years ago, in The Daily Telegraph, I wrote that I’d seen a fair bit of the world and had never met anybody who envied the NHS, although presumably there must be a Bhutanese yak farmer up country somewhere who’d be impressed by it. A couple of days later, Mr Sonam Chhoki, a Bhutanese gentleman, wrote to the paper to say that, while not a yak farmer himself, he came from good yak farming stock and, after a bit of grumbling about my outmoded ethnic stereotyping, declared that he certainly didn’t envy the NHS. His British parents-in-law “have had to wait more than two years for operations, after being turned away several times for lack of hospital beds. However basic the Bhutanese health service is, it has not yet come to this sorry state.”

    And yet Mrs Thatcher, one of the great fearless conservative figures of the age, could do no more than insist to a skeptical public that “the NHS is safe in our hands”. In the 2000 Canadian election, Stockwell Day, leader of the allegedly right-wing Alliance, found himself forced to make similar prostrations after entirely unfounded rumors that the party was thinking of “permitting” private health care back into the country. In the leaders’ televised debate, he wanted to be certain that, whatever questions he was asked, the public got the message that he had no plans to monkey with the government monopoly. So he brought in a little handmade sign and propped it up in front of the microphone to advertise his fealty: “NO TWO-TIER HEALTH CARE.” While he was distracted by a question on some inconsequential topic like foreign policy, Joe Clark, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (think RINO squishes with bells on) swiped the little placard and gleefully scored through the “NO” to let viewers in on Mr Day’s hidden agenda: “TWO-TIER HEALTH CARE.” This is what it’s come to: The leaders of the two soi-disant “right-of-center” parties competing to see who can grovel most abjectly before the state monopoly. That’s the Republicans’ future if they collude in the governmentalization of health care – as Democrats well understand.

    When health care is the government’s responsibility, it becomes its principal responsibility. Because the minute you make government the provider of health care, you ensure that, come election time, the electorate identifies “health” as its number one concern. Thus, in a democracy, the very fact of socialized medicine seduces the citizenry away from citizenship. Buying health care is no more onerous than buying a car or buying a house – which, pre-Barney Frank, most Americans seemed able to manage. Indeed, most of the complications are caused by existing government interventions. If you were attempting to devise a “system” from scratch, you might opt for insurance for catastrophic scenarios and, for PAP smears and colonoscopies and whatnot, something similar to the tax breaks for a Simplified Employee Pension: C’mon, how difficult can it be? Back in the day, your grampa managed to go to the doctor without routing the admin through Washington. Matter of fact, the doctor came to grampa. That’s how crazy it was.

    But the acceptance of the principle that individual health is so complex its management can only be outsourced to the state is a concession no conservative should make. More than any other factor, it dramatically advances the statist logic for remorseless encroachments on self-determination. It’s incompatible with a republic of self-governing citizens. The state cannot guarantee against every adversity and, if it attempts to, it can only do so at an enormous cost to liberty. A society in which you’re free to choose your cable package, your iTunes downloads and who ululates the best on “American Idol” but in which the government takes care of peripheral stuff like your body is a society no longer truly free.

    In a nanny state, big government becomes a kind of religion: the church as state. Tommy Douglas, the driving force between Canadian health care, tops polls of all-time greatest Canadians. In Britain, after the Tube bombings, Gordon Brown began mulling over the creation of what he called a “British equivalent of the US Fourth of July”, a new national holiday to bolster British identity. The Labour Party think-tank, the Fabian Society, and proposed that the new “British Day” should be July 5th, the day the National Health Service was created. Because the essence of contemporary British identity is waiting two years for a hip operation.

    They can call it Dependence Day.

  11. #101
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Well, you're right Bluesman, it can't be undone. Voting them out won't reverse events.

    The best we can hope for is that the most egregious parts can be nullified by the court. But the big new beaurocracy, the mandates and subsidies, and the additional intrusion by the Gov't into our lives is a done deal.

    A big piece of American liberty has been taken from us.

    It's not that Americans were silent, it's just that the dems were deaf. It's the liberal's nature to know what's best for everyone, and impose their beliefs on the public whether they want it or not.

  12. #102
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    By the way, I take no comfort in knowing that I was right, and I saw it coming. I would love to have been wrong, and I'd give anything for my future predictions to be 180-out.

    But I'm not wrong. The liberals calculated their losses, and decided to take the hill anyway, and I think they were correct to do so, because whatever beating they take in November, and it could range anywhere from epic (unlikely) to mildly painful, it will have been reckoned worth it, by them. THIS was IT, the Holiest of Grails, because from now on, we are going to be less and less free as individuals, more and more mediocre as a country. Exactly what they've always wanted.

    UNLESS:

    it will be determined by every single right-thinking, liberty-loving American patriot to undo the entire Welfare State, root and branch, and keep going until nothing remains of the New Deal, the Great Society, or any other 'progressive' dream-phrase that serves to retard real progress towards individual liberty and national vigor.

    Personally, I don't see that happening.

    But if y'all can prove me wrong, I'd be overjoyed, and I'd love to admit my mistake to you.

  13. #103
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,054
    How exactly would this law differ from the Health Care in Israel? I've only been responsible for myself for the past month and a half or so (minor, army, traveling the world with travelers insurance), but if I understand the way it works I have to pay a certain amount a month to one of 4 HMO's. At the same time, Social Security also pays a certain amount to each HMO. The government itself also subsidizes certain medicines and treatments. Health insurance is compulsory, and every citizen can also pay extra per month for more coverage than the basic package. Once a year a person can decide to switch HMO's.

    In 2000 the WHO published a study on world health care, Israel's health care was placed 28th in the world. I've never had a problem with it, and when I needed emergency root canal treatment 2 days before I flew to NZ, they called in a specialist dentist early so she could treat me before her scheduled patients.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  14. #104
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    7,240
    March 24, 2010 6:30 PM
    Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill
    Posted by Brian Montopoli 102 comments

    Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
    (Credit: CBS)

    CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
    A CBS News poll released Wednesday finds that nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.

    The Senate version of the legislation was passed by the House Sunday night, and President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday. The House also passed a separate reconciliation bill, which cannot be filibustered, that is now being debated in the Senate. That bill would make changes to the bill already signed into law.

    Senate Republicans are now challenging whether the bill is truly a budget reconciliation bill (which is what makes it filibuster-proof) and inserting amendments designed to slow down passage. Republican attorneys general are also planning to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

    The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges.

    Americans are split about the fact that the bill largely lacked bipartisan support. Fifty percent said they were disappointed that the bill did not have support from both parties, while 44 percent said that it doesn't matter.

    Most see the bill as an important achievement for the president. Fifty-two percent called passage a major accomplishment for Mr. Obama, up from 46 percent before Sunday's vote. Thirteen percent called it a minor accomplishment, and 32 percent said passage was not an accomplishment.

    For the new poll, CBS News re-interviewed 649 adults interviewed just before the House vote in a CBS News poll conducted March 18-21. The findings suggest an improvement in perceptions of the legislation: While 37 percent approved of it before the vote, 42 percent approved afterward.

    Read the Complete Poll

    (Credit: CBS)

    Still, there was significant disapproval for the bill. Forty-six percent say they disapprove, including 32 percent who strongly disapprove. Those numbers have barely moved since before the bill was signed.

    Americans also did not significantly change their views on the impact of the bill. Thirty percent still say it will make the health care system better, while 33 percent say it will make the system worse.

    They have also held relatively firm in their perceptions of how the bill will effect them. Sixteen percent say the bill will "mostly help," while 35 percent say it will "mostly hurt." Both of those numbers are down slightly from before the vote. Forty-three percent now say the bill will have "no effect," an increase of eight points.

    A majority of Americans continue to say that they find the bill to be confusing and do not understand what it means for them or their family.

    Passage of the bill did seem to improve perceptions of Democrats in Congress. Thirty-eight percent now say they approve of Congressional Democrats, up from 29 percent before the vote. Fifty-six percent disapprove. The approval rating for Republicans in Congress has held roughly steady at just 25 percent. About one in two Americans call passage of the bill a major accomplishment for the Democratic Party.

    There has also been a boost in perceptions of President Obama's handling of the issue. Before the vote, his approval rating on handling health care was 41 percent; afterward, it was 47 percent. His disapproval rating fell from 51 percent to 48 percent.

    About one in two Americans say Mr. Obama has kept a campaign promise in getting the legislation passed. Forty-three percent, including three in four Republicans and a slim majority of independents, say he has forced through an unpopular agenda.

    Six in ten Americans say they expected the bill to pass, while 36 percent say they were surprised it got through Congress. Seventeen percent now say they are "more optimistic about Washington" as a result of the effort to pass the bill, up from 12 percent before the vote. A majority still say the vote made them more pessimistic about Washington.

    Despite a Congressional Budget Office analysis finding that the bill will ultimately lower the budget deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years and $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years, 57 percent of those surveyed, including most Republicans and independents, say the bill will increase the deficit. Just 18 percent say it will decrease the deficit.

    This poll was conducted by telephone on March 22-23, 2010 among 649 adults first interviewed by CBS News March 18-21, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Poll
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  15. #105
    Contributor Genosaurer's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 10
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    487
    ...649 people polled? And that's meaningful?

    I guess you don't need a lot of math classes to get a Journalism degree.

    (The vast majority of polling data cited in news, by either side, does not come anywhere close to meeting the base criteria for statistical significance.)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama's cousin speaks out on "Obamacare"
    By JAD_333 in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 26 Mar 10,, 01:56
  2. Is abortion part of of health care?
    By Oscar in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 23 Sep 09,, 18:46
  3. Inappropriate Stimulation
    By Shek in forum International Economy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10 Mar 09,, 00:48
  4. before you go praising Canadian Health Care...
    By mtnbiker in forum International Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 20 Jun 05,, 19:47
  5. Indian Hospitals Lure Foreigners With $6,700 Heart Surgery
    By Hari_Om in forum International Economy
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02 Feb 05,, 02:32

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •