It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
By a 49-40% margin the Gallup poll shows support for the new bill. In a near reversal of those figures meanwhile more oppose than favor health care reform by a 50-38% margin according to Bloomberg.
Interestingly there is a strong similarity between the surveys that contradicts the widely different results between the two. Both Gallup and Bloomberg polled just over a thousand adults nationwide, meaning each gathered information from a virtually identical sample size and used the same classification of citizens. One potentially important difference comes in the time span each survey was conducted. Gallup was able to poll over a thousand individuals all on Monday, March 22nd. That was the day after the House secured enough votes for passage Sunday night. The Bloomberg release on the other hand collected responses over four days from March 19-22nd. Hard to say which poll is a more accurate reflection of the public but the Bloomberg survey failed to account for the immediate reactions of the country in full whereas the Gallup poll, done the day after, may have been bogged down by instant responses to the momentous event.
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Opinion polls only expose the gullibility factor within the population.
Opinions are worthless, facts are everything and the overwhelming fact no poll has fully addressed is that this health care reform bill, when fully implemented, will be nearly 100% unfavorable to virtually all Americans.
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by sos37
Don't waste your time, the reality of the health care bill will be hitting everybody in their faces soon enough.
People think this bill is universal and that people with not income will be getting money for the government for fee care
Reality check,
The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance
Still 24 million of poor uninsured will still be uninsured or unable to use the health care because out of pocket expenses, medications and deductibles.
Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can’t afford it.
A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:
•21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford it, including 12% of children
•18% have health insurance but can’t afford to use it
Many poor will have an insurance pay by the tax payer but they will not afford to use it.
firedoglake.com...
Who wrote the HCR? and is still working in it?Well we know where the baucus bill came from
This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%
People needs to stop trusting the government whores.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The half that doesn't want it is going to be disappointed, but that's the way it goes. You can support violent revolution or suck it up and realize that you live in a country of people with different opinions and you're not always going to get your way. Take it like an adult. Or throw a temper tantrum like a child. It's up to you.
[edit on 3/25/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]
Originally posted by sos37
I'll remind you of these very words the next time gays are denied the right to marry in a popular vote. How's that?
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
If you remove all of the crap from that bill I'd support it, there are some elements worth keeping.
About 1,500 pages of new laws and taxes that are unnecessary, destructive and unconstitutional.
This isn't about one side that didn't get there way... It is about what is right and what is wrong.
One day even a clouded mind like yours will be able to clearly see what is and isn't.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Interesting opinion. I happen to agree that some is unnecessary and I'll even go so far as to say that some of it might be destructive,
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by sos37
I'll remind you of these very words the next time gays are denied the right to marry in a popular vote. How's that?
You still don't understand the difference between voting on legislation and Majority Rules, Minority Rights, do you? Not my problem. Go ahead and remind me. I'll remind you about Majority Rules, Minority Rights... AGAIN.
Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by whiteraven
Conservatives love to demonize their opponents by name calling; socialist, communists and tulipwalkers come to mind.
Old #5....they should review this www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now let's all get ready for the "the libs do it too" responses.
Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by sos37
Personally I think its a sad state that humans have not evolved beyond Animalistic Survival of the Fittest.
Not to derail the thread - but - I'd prefer to support early prevention - as in zero population growth. Free birth control - free condoms - free abortions - - - and education classes to break cultures & beliefs that think number of children proves virility or god's will.
Other then that - I think its insane not to have national (even global) health care to take care of already living and breathing humans.
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Yet you foolishly (along with millions of others) support it despite being able to see how it can be destructive?
This isn't a time for partisan bias, you really need to set that aside and study this more, apparently you are not a completely lost cause.
If any aspect of any piece of legislation can be seen as unnecessary or destructive then regardless of your partisan stance, it should not be supported or defended.
Originally posted by sos37
I see you trying to justify WHAT YOU AGREE WITH. You claim gay rights is a constitutional issue.
Originally posted by jibeho
This bill and the way that it was created and passed will certainly guarantee that there will be NO bipartisan cooperation for as long as Obama is in office.
Originally posted by jibeho
Uhhh!! The Republicans were constantly shut out of the HCR creation process.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by jibeho
Uhhh!! The Republicans were constantly shut out of the HCR creation process.
Not true. There were over 200 Republican provisions in the HCR bill.
HCR Sent Back for Revote
The house is voting on it again!
According to an Associated Press report, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said “Republicans consulting with the Senate parliamentarian [Alan Frumin] had found ‘two minor provisions’ that violate Congress’ budget rules. The provisions deal with Pell grants for low-income students.”
“under the reconciliation rules, provisions in the [healthcare reform] bill must directly affect government spending or revenues.”
“The risk for Democrats in a parliamentary challenge is that Republicans could knock out key provisions of the legislation, or win a decision that upends mechanisms Democrats rely on to pay for the measure,” the NYT reported, adding that there is a third, unknown issue Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin is reviewing.
“Manley said those two provisions [totaling 16 lines of text] will be removed from the bill, and he expected the Senate to approve the measure and send it to the House,” the AP reported. “Manley said Senate leaders, after conversations with top House Democrats, expected the House to approve the revised measure.”
Originally posted by jibeho
Maybe I need new bifocals but I fail to see mention of 200 republican provisions.
"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain, a conservative Republican from Arizona, to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.
McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush.
Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008, Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."
Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.
"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."
“That while the bill may not get Republican votes...it is bi-partisan in having over 200 Republican amendments,” said House Speaker Pelosi, a representative from California, during her remarks before the vote.