I'm flying 35,000 feet somewhere over Eastern Ohio now -- isn't technology wonderful? -- so I can only comment on this briefly, but the Investors' Business Daily poll purporting to show widespread opposition to health care reform among doctors is simply not credible. There are five reasons why:
1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I'm aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points -- the highest of any pollster that we tested.
2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.
3. As we learned during the Presidntial campaign -- when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 -- the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they're doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don't trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you'd think.
4. They say, somewhat ambiguously: "Responses are still coming in." This is also highly unorthodox. Professional pollsters generally do not report results before the survey period is compete.
5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn't bother to define the term "practicing physician", which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.
My advice would be to completely ignore this poll. There are pollsters out there that have an agenda but are highly competent, and there are pollsters that are nonpartisan but not particularly skilled. Rarely, however, do you find the whole package: that special pollster which is both biased and inept. IBD/TIPP is one of the few exceptions.
9.16.2009
IBD/TIPP Doctors Poll Is Not Trustworthy
@ 11:58 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
215 comments
What about the poll I've seen showing that there is actually widespread support for health care reform among doctors? Is it trustworthy?
What about the poll saying Obama is a jackass for calling Kanye West a jackass - is that ignorable?
See you just can't sneak a bad poll past Nate!
I think Nate anaylsis is dead right on the facts
Same guys who were so embarassingly wrong on Stephen Hawking. Is there some reason why their name has no value worth protecting? Is it really that easy to compartmentalize business news and political news? Doesn't failure in one area lead investors to question their value overall?
Seems to me we should buy IBD's subscription list, there's a bunch of rubes ready to be taken.
I think a mere look at the title of the article provides the reader with every reason to disbelieve the poll results. 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul...really?
Bad Pollsters - 0
Nate Silver - 538
Nate wins again.
Nate, do you have any comments on the NEJM poll: http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1785&query=home. It has been widely reported on and shows doctors support a public option. But the supplementary material (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/data/NEJMp0907876/DC1/1) says the survey was done by mail and the docs were paid for their participation in the study.
Is this a big surprise, from the rag which claimed that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK under NHS?
They might as well just change their name to WorldNetDaily 2.
Kael, you posted to the supplementary material for the wrong poll.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/data/NEJMp0908239/DC1/1 is the correct one. Its still a postal survey mind, though respondents don't seem to have been payed for there responses.
This reminds me of the good days of last year, when 538 was mostly about polls and mathematical analysis...
I agree with Nate on this one.
A mail in poll will only test the extremes. It takes a lot of effort to fill out a poll, self-administered, and then send it back in.
The response rate must be terribly low.
They are valuable only for testing with the population that responds to direct mail advertising or offers.
The response will, by nature of the methodology, self-select older doctors who are more attuned to paper mail.
Anyone under 40 discards a huge percentage of snail mail unopened.
If 45% are prepared to quit, it is because 50% of the respondents were probably over age 50. Being Doctors, most are probably well-off.
Considering quitting and quitting are 2 very different things.
That said, this poll is not totally useless. It will give a picture of the extremes, which is often roughly correlated with reality.
In the case of the Health care debate, 65% of people have a strong opinion on it. Surveying just those people is not a totally worthless endeavor.
Taking the absolute percentages as literal would be wrong. Applying them generally is less risky.
If the poll says 65% of Doctors are opposed to Obama's plan, I think it is 80-90% likely that most doctors do oppose the plan.
Doctor's overwhelmingly dislike insurance companies, it is true.
This is no surprise. Do you like filling in timesheets and expense reports?
Do you like it when someone audits them and asks you questions?
I hate it.
But that is the only thing keeping costs from exploding higher.
Doctors also get the same treatment from the IRS.
Just about every privately practicing doctor will have been audited by the end of their career.
Why? It is the easiest business to evade taxes, and when the IRS catches one, it is worth a million dollars or more.
They do not like Big Government either...
But Nate is on point here. Take the results of the poll with a grain of salt.
Add my voice--
Please comment on the physician survey conducted for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408
markymark -
thanks for the correction. That is still an incorrect link on the NEMJ website.
Kael
Nate:
1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I'm aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points -- the highest of any pollster that we tested.
OK, lets subtract 7 points in favor of Obamacare. A heavy majority of the polled doctors still oppose Obamacare.
A side note. Given that it is almost impossible to reach a doctor by telephone because they are generally with patients, mail questions would appear to be the only reasonable alternative.
2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.
How is this question at all biased? Frankly, I consider it refreshingly relevant and direct. It is far more relevant than the nonsense question about whether you favor a hypothetical public option health insurance option in competition with private insurers without providing any detail.
You could criticize the question for being compound in that it covers two different results of insuring 47 million uninsured.
My question is why about a quarter of supposedly intelligent docs can believe that insuring 47 million additional people will not cost billions more.
3. As we learned during the Presidntial campaign -- when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 -- the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they're doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don't trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you'd think.
IBD/TIPP pegged the 2004 election and was 12th in 2008, above Gallup and almost all the Dem media polling. Not quite Rasmussen, but not too bad.
5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn't bother to define the term "practicing physician", which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.
As opposed to Gallup and many of the Dem media polls?
"The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I'm aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points -- the highest of any pollster that we tested."
An unusual methodology with respect to political polling does not make a poll untrustworthy. Nate has an unusual methodology by some fields’ standards…does that mean his results aren’t trustworthy? Of course not. The reliability of the results should be judge based on the limitations of the methodology, not whether it is commonly done. Moreover, mail surveys of physicians are quite common in public health and medicine simply because they are hard population to reach on the phone. There are reasons to be critical of mail surveys in generael and with respect to physicians (e.g. whether the physician or someone else in the office completes it), but that it is unusual in political science is not one of them.
"At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: 'Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?'. Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective."
I agree, terrible question. Probably leading, as you point out, but also the first triple-barreled question I have ever seen.
BDP said
'2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.
How is this question at all biased? Frankly, I consider it refreshingly relevant and direct. It is far more relevant than the nonsense question about whether you favor a hypothetical public option health insurance option in competition with private insurers without providing any detail.
You could criticize the question for being compound in that it covers two different results of insuring 47 million uninsured.
My question is why about a quarter of supposedly intelligent docs can believe that insuring 47 million additional people will not cost billions more.'
--------------------------------
Its whats called a push poll, or at least push question. And the problem with that is kind of answered in your last paragraph!
I wonder how many non respondents simply threw the questionnaire away having read that questions and twigged that the pollster was overtly biassed, and that many of those would have the opposite view from that of which the poll came up with??
Couldn't be any more biased than the Robert Wood Foundation (who is entirely in the tank for this agenda)...
I spoke to three doctors in the San Fernando Valley in the last two weeks. One of which runs a six doctor practice with 50% Medicare patients.
All three doctors said they will either retire or go entirely private if this passes in anything like the forms which have been proposed. All of them want 'reform' but none of them seemed think that the crap Waxman wrote up would fix anything and adding another gov program would just kill off the only entities which DO pay them for services.
And the doctor who ran the larger practice, he has hired a business broker 3 months ago. He saw how things were getting jammed through Congress without being read and he wants to cash out his entire practice before the entire industry gets melted down by obamacare. So far, he does have an interest from prospective buyers.
If you like government healthcare, get used to liking Concierge Medicine. It's going to be the overwhelming alternative and the rich and poor will be entirely separated - forever. Just like they are in Canada and England.
Everyone. BDP says it's a valid poll. Relax.
Mail in polls are usually used by political parties since respondents are self-selecting (far more than phone respondents who agree before they know much).
For example, the RNC sent out a poll by mail called "Obama's agenda". Not every question drips with bias, but they know who will respond and who will not. So, the results will match what they want to hear.
One reason mail polls have this affect is that the respondent can read all the questions and then determine whether to send in based on how the questions make them feel. Phone polls are structured such that once you agree, you are committed (unless the questions are outrageous and you hang up, but it takes a lot for most people to hang up once agreed).
There have been a number of studies showing more than 7% inaccuracy as a sample, since the randomness (of the starting sample) is affected too highly by self-selection.
Nate, thanks for taking time from your flight and likely paying exorbitant airline fees, to get this posted within hours of the poll going public.
BDP, it's biased because disagreeing even a bit with any part of that run on question gets the answer the pollster is looking for. If you believe the Congress and the President, then you believe that illegal aliens who make up about 10M of those 47M, so even the President and Congress should answer no to this question. And throwing the quality part in there is ludicrous, since the goal of the bill is to provide quality healthcare to as many people as possible, not to improve the quality of those already receiving haelthcare - though some improvements look to be included in current bills like eliminating pre-existing condition clauses.
A decent poll would ask: "How many of the currently 47M uninsured so you think will ultimately get covered under the Democratic plans working their way through Congress?" Followed with: "Do you think the total US expenditures on healthcare (treatment and insurance) will increase significantly, increase somewhat, stay about the same, decrease somewhat, or decrease significantly?"
I'd leave out the quality question altogether since I don't see any reason the quality of treatment patients will receive changing significantly, since this bill is not intended to address quality of care other than to set up panels to identify the most effective treatment methods to provide additional guidance to medicine.
@brucestrav said...
"If you like government healthcare, get used to liking Concierge Medicine. It's going to be the overwhelming alternative and the rich and poor will be entirely separated - forever. Just like they are in Canada and England."
First, my mother has been on Medicare for 20 years. Although it occurred at different times, she and I had a similar, expensive medical event. What did I learn? I'll take her Medicare has over my expensive "cadillac" policy in a heartbeat!
Second, we are the only industrialized nation that does NOT provide decent health care for its entire population. That is fact.
Why something so basic and so necessary as health care MUST be a political and class war is beyond comprehension.
@brucestrav, most of these doctors are saying this as a threat, as they have many times, but never carried through with it. The one who hired a broker likely just wants out - the fact that others will buy his practice says a lot.
The public option will not end private insurance; it may get rid of the really bad ones (good riddance), but the rest will do fine. I expect that Kaiser and Blue Cross and Aetna will do fine, and UHS will be forced to clean up its disgusting practices (ah, what a shame). But, private will stay around for the same reason that private insurance exists in the UK for example.
Thanks Nate. I love that I can see an unreliable poll in the morning, and be reasonably confident that Nate will pick it apart point-by-point by the afternoon. Nice work. Also, thanks PaulK for elaborating on how self-selection bias in these cases can make blatantly manipulated poll results even more blatantly manipulated.
Nate is clearly right that survey is no good, but just a few comments on methodology. Mail surveys are often an effective tool when a researcher wants to reach a specialized subsection of the population (e.g. doctors). This assertion is supported in survey research literature (the classic text for mail surveys is Don Dillman's "Mail and Internet Surveys") Therefore, Nate's first argument of it is a mail survey therefore it is bad does not hold water. The most important issue when doing a mail survey is sample. If your mail sample is bad then your research is going to be suboptimal. We have no idea how this sample was made or how accurate it is, but the fact they tell us next to nothing about it makes me dubious. Second, doing a scientifically rigorous mail survey takes a long time (at least one month if not longer). The two week field period for this study would not be enough, and the fact they are reporting results before the field period is closed is a little weird (if not shocking). Third, while I defend mail surveys a viable option for this type of survey, I do not think it is the optimal option. Doctors are a notoriously hard group to survey, and getting an actual representative sample of them usually involves a very expense telephone survey with a large incentive for the doctors to complete the survey. These doctors could have been offered an incentive, we do not know, but given the quality of this pollsters last work, I doubt it. If an incentive was not offered, then there is probably a huge response bias in the data because doctors with an axe to grind would be more motivated to fill out the survey for free. In conclusion, pretty unscientific survey.
@brucestrav
Please give us an example of a biased question in the RWJF survey, similar to the one highlighted by Nate above.
If mail-in surveys are bad, then everyone should cancel their subscriptions to Consumer Reports magazine. The annual auto issue is now compromised and the repair ratings for appliances are totally useless. NOT!
gingersue,
You genuinely believe the user ratings are reliable?
I learned the hard way that Consumer Report user ratings, at most, should be a starting point. Now I ALWAYS compare Consumer Reports user ratings to the user ratings from a minimum of three other sources.
Cy Guy said...
BDP, it's biased because disagreeing even a bit with any part of that run on question gets the answer the pollster is looking for.
So? The pollster posed a yes or no question asking doctors whether they believe two of Mr. Obama's claims concerning insuring the 47 million uninsured. The question does not lead you to choose either yes or no.
Obamacare legislation as it is written will cover any illegal alien who applies because there is no provision requiring applicants to prove citizenship. Thus, the 47 million figure is correct.
And throwing the quality part in there is ludicrous, since the goal of the bill is to provide quality healthcare to as many people as possible, not to improve the quality of those already receiving healthcare...
You missed the point of that part of the question. A major concern among physicians is how they will treat 47 million new patients seeking the additional health care paid for by the government without having to impose longer waits and shorter visits on their larger patient load. This effect could be even worse if Obamacare's lower Medicare and Medicaid level compensation tables drive more doctors out of the practice of medicine.
A decent poll would ask: "How many of the currently 47M uninsured so you think will ultimately get covered under the Democratic plans working their way through Congress?" Followed with: "Do you think the total US expenditures on healthcare (treatment and insurance) will increase significantly, increase somewhat, stay about the same, decrease somewhat, or decrease significantly?"
I agree that these alternate questions would lead to more accurate responses. However, that does not make the posed question leading.
Smitty, notice I said repair ratings, which are different from user ratings that you said. Big difference.
Nate, you had me at IBD/TIPP.
When the FReeptards soured on Raspublican after he showed Obama consistently ahead of McCain by at least 5% following the Bush/GOP created financial/economic collapse, they cited IBD/TIPP polling (Obama leading by 2%) almost as much as they do now with Raspublican's bogus polling.
"Smitty, notice I said repair ratings, which are different from user ratings that you said. Big difference."
The people who respond to consumer reports probably don't have much of an agenda besides getting quality goods (unless someone is gaming the system)
The people who bother responding to a push poll ("Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE Obama's ABSURD PLAN will achieve ABRUDS RESULTS?") is another story.
Quinnipiac Ohio Poll: President's Numbers Rebound
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/obama-ohio-poll-president_n_288297.html
Obama Bouncing Back, According to Multiple Pollsters
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/782657/-Obama-Bouncing-Back,-According-to-Multiple-Pollsters
Nate: any comments on the poll published by the New England Journal of Medicine?
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home
A majority of doctors supports having a public option, according to this poll.
"Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options ... Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents - across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types - showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option. Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the "other" physicians - those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine - were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%)."
As a policy and planning grad student I've certainly learned that making survey questions is both a science and an art. It's quite difficult to create a poll that is fair, random, stratified, and unbiased. By the same token, it also takes a lot of talent to create questions that are biased, (mis)leading, and designed to elicit a particular response. The following is not one of them;
"Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.
Agreed. That's three different questions all of which are worded poorly. Sometimes it doesn't require any talent to just ask dumb questions.
Way to call it, Nate.
Bloomberg: Obama job approval: 56% - 37% (60% favorability)
Republican Party
Net favorable - 38%
Net unfavorable - 52%
Democratic Party
Net favorable - 48%
Net unfavorable - 44%
The Quitter scored the lowest favorables than anyone else in the Bloomberg poll:
Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska and former
candidate for vice president
Net favorable - 34%
Net unfavorable - 55%
What's that, like half a dozen polls showing lamost identical unfavorable numbers for the blithering idiot?
JINDAL-THE QUITTER '12
Mail surveys are productive in certain circumstances. For example: if you want neighborhood homeowners opinions on planning issues. Homeowners can fill them out at their leisure. Although, in this modern era, I find that the quick e-mail survey has become far more effective and generally guarantees a useful return rate; partcularly if you use Survey Monkey or Qualtrics.
Hey Nate, if you ever start doing polling yourself, can I come work for you?
{please don't use my late night troll bashing as a writing sample. I actually can write objectively}
PorridgeGun said...
JINDAL-THE QUITTER '12
What the hell am I saying??? Put her at the top of the ticket. Besides, she blew running mate last time. If she runs a campaign anything like she governed Alaska, Dems could run Max Baucus and win.
Nice job, Nate. IBD/TIPP's poll is a total crock. And so is anybody who defends it here.
@Davy and @BDP, the question is leading because it is a triple question. A triple question increases the chance of a no answer since all must be true to say "yes".
So, even if they agreed to "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money", the section "and the quality of care will be better?" will cause many to say no.
In fact, it will cause most to say no, since there is no aspect of the public option that changes the quality of care, and the implication is a stain on the respondents.
That is the easy way to get an answer you want.
"Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?"
When a person who is generally positive about the prospects for health care reform reads that, they think "this poll is a ridiculous biased joke" and they toss the half-completed poll in the trash.
When a person who hates the ides of health care reform reads that, they check "yes" with glee and mail it right back.
You can't put a question like that on a mail-in poll without killing the validity of your results. And you can't have been in the polling business for two weeks without knowing the impact it is likely to have.
Correction: Obama's 61% favorable.
The Quitter's still 34% favorable.
Death panels of government officials would decide how much medical care ailing individuals will receive
Legitimate - 30%
Distortion/Scare Tactic - 63%
Not sure - 7%
Who did Bloomberg poll, reasonable people?
Nate,
I am an ex-subscriber to IBD. Bullshit like the poll you so deftly quartered is the reason why I dropped these incapables.
I see with undisguised glee that some trolls couldn't help themselves and stop by, spewing false equivalences and outright lies.
To those, I say, get horribly sick and see how your health insurance treats you. Nothing personal against you trolls; I do not particularly wish harm to anyone.
But I am at the point that I realize that only personal experience with pain and insurance hassles at the same time will make you realize how wrong you are.
It's sad, but ideology seems to trump any shred of common sense and decency.
Francois said "It's sad, but ideology seems to trump any shred of common sense and decency."
It is sad and it is also so far beyond logic that it is difficult to comprehend. I've concluded that some folks only see what they want to see, and there is no explanation that will change their minds other than a real-life experience.
Those with enough white hair like me remember TV commercials noting that a majority of doctors recommend Camels (smoking, not riding)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
Polling is a science, and many scientific disciplines are increasingly under assault, mostly (but not exclusively) from the right.
Allowing a political agenda to shape your research is not bad science - it's not science at all. I'm just outraged when invalid polls are done for political gain, just as when data are purposefully misrepresented to reach some bogus conclusion about climate change or evolution or health effects of abortion or even economics. In a world where our prosperity increasing relies on scientific and technological excellence, the contempt for science in our society turns my stomach.
I was wondering when Bart would come in and try to defend himself. I wasn't disappointed. ;)
But seriously, he sounds concerned. And, while I think it's healthy to have at least some degree of concern over this, I'm beginning to worry about the amount of concern he shows.
You see, I'm concerned about Bart being so concerned. The degree and pervasiveness of his concern concerns me because I don't think anyone should be that concerned.
Also: concerned.
That said, while I won't dismiss most pollsters out of hand just because of the name, I don't know how anyone can defend the methodology of this. I mean, if HuffPo or The Atlantic or The Nation had put out a poll like this and it had come up with diametrically opposite numbers, it would still be equally invalid because the method used, to not put too fine a point on it, is absolutely unadulterated shit. Their sample was self-selecting to a much higher degree than normal in public opinion polls, just by the way they chose to conduct it.
It may be valid, but for now I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.
Also: concern.
Normally I try not to respond directly to anything Bart DePalma says, simply because I know better than to engage anyone who is obsessed with debunked information simply because it fits their preconceived notions, but in this case, I feel the need to for the sake of observers - and in the good cause of Nate's defense, even though he certainly doesn't need it.
Of course, several people have already responded to many of his points (even if he seems to be incapable of understanding what is being said), but there is one which no one has really addressed yet, and that is the most glaring;
Nate:
1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I'm aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points -- the highest of any pollster that we tested.
Bart:
OK, lets subtract 7 points in favor of Obamacare. A heavy majority of the polled doctors still oppose Obamacare.
I find it remarkable that Bart reads this site without understanding something so frightfully basic, but that's simply not how it works. We could just as easily add 7 points... which is the issue. To have numbers that vary within a 14-point range makes the poll quite frankly useless, particularly when we're considering a poll that not only appears incomplete, but one that doesn't address its own methodology and contains such an obvious push question - which believe me, folks, you're not going to be able to convince Bart of, because from his point-of-view, the question is entirely logical, as fits his already preconceived ideas, just as PorridgeGun keeps drifting off-topic. These are just simply things we can count on to make our daily lives more amusing.
On a side note, I too would like to see Nate's take on the New England Journal poll, even if it is a strictly academic question.
It would be sad if so many doctors quit over reimbursement rates, because it would show that many of America's doctors are only in medicine for the money, not because they actually care about their patients.
Good riddance to them, I say. As much as we cry and moan about ball-players phoning it in or just playing for the paycheck, do we want someone operating on our heart with the same attitude? People like that have no business in any business where taking care of people is the name of the game. Period. Even if it exacerbates the shortage of doctors who give a crap--- that will soon be fixed when new doctors replace them.
People make careers in all sorts of trades that pay less than what they might make doing something else. But they're passionate about what they do, and wouldn't trade it for the world. The same goes for medicine. The old canard about losing talent due to low salaries is B.S. No doctor (or lawyer or even CEO) is gonna toss everything they love away and be like, "Screw this, I'm gonna be a poet!" because they can only afford two Lexuses, not three.
Again, (4) out of (5) dentists prefer Crest toothpaste and 4 out of 5 doctors prefer Bayer aspirin.
and BDP, keep hope alive ...
Bart, we have some lovely parting gifts for you and a version of the 538 home game.
p.s. w/3 you get eggroll!
Nate knows his stuff. The IBD poll might as well change it's name to the Fox News Poll, anything Obama wants we are against, no matter what.....
fmumf: "We have no idea how this sample was made or how accurate it is, but the fact they tell us next to nothing about it makes me dubious"
That was my first thought too. Are they sending them to offices? Then it's pretty heavily biased against hospitalists, and private physicians, as also being business-folk, are probably much more conservative than hospitalists.
@phillychuck
I was rather taken aback with the Winston/Flintstones commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqdTBDkUEEQ&feature=related
We really have come a long way, baby
This discussion is irrelevant -- the only issue is how many physicians (and of what specialties) will retire, practice out of the country, or practice on a cash-only basis.
90%? Or 10%? Either number would be devastating to the medical care market in the United States.
Health care reform supporters should own up to this fact: Americans will have fewer physicians after health care reform is implemented than before.
Those who think otherwise probably believe that physicians would be willing increasingly to give their expertise for free.
But would you work for free? I didn't think so.
Always enjoyed the late nite PSA: I'll take Manhattan, you'll take Afghanistan ~ Get into ACTION, don't crawl under a rock!
I digress
Poorly worded questions aside, the sample is the potential issue. If the triple-barreled question was the only issue we could just ignore it and see what else could be gleaned from teh questions.
However give the seeming discrepancy between the NEJM poll and this pool it seems like the sample is the culprit rather than solely question wording.
Also it could be that one poll or the other is totally misrepresenting themselves. Maybe the responses still coming in are from doctors that give a damn.
Hey, Bart DePalma, your right wing bias is showing.
The question is, do you have the guts to admit you were wrong?
So far, the answer is a resounding NO!
In the thread "Baucus Compromise Bill Draws Enthusiastic Support of Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)", you said the following:
"No one has bothered to ask the doctors what they thought about working under Obamacare - until now. Investors Business Daily polled 1,376 practicing physicians and found:
Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul...
Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind...
More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
@whitetower, a huge percentage of physicians said they would move out of the business when Medicare was being debated (back in 65). The opposite occurred - medical schools upped their attendance and we had more Doctors. Further, there is no evidence that any left, or if they did, it had no effect.
Scare tactics are just that: tactics.
IcarusPhoenix said...
I find it remarkable that Bart reads this site without understanding something so frightfully basic, but that's simply not how it works. We could just as easily add 7 points... which is the issue. To have numbers that vary within a 14-point range makes the poll quite frankly useless...
I would agree with you if the outcome of the poll was far closer. For example, a poll with a 48 to 48 outcome with a +/- 7 point margin of error does not tell us much because in leaves open the possibility that a substantial majority could either support or oppose the proposition being polled.
However, the outcome of the IBD/TIPP doctors poll offers a series of lopsided outcomes against Obamacare. All a +/- 7 point margin of error does in that case is vary the degree of lopsidedness against Obamacare. I simply conceded Obamacare the 7 points the make that point.
All this poll shows is that somewhere between a substantial and an overwhelming majority of the polled doctors oppose Obamacare and disbelieve Obama's claims about its outcomes.
All the possible outcomes of this admittedly rough poll should concern those who support Obamacare. Obamacare has lost the elderly, likely voters and now it appears the physicians. Your sources of effective political support are rapidly dwindling.
@Bart DePalma, "substantial and an overwhelming majority of the polled doctors oppose"
No, it shows that a majority of the respondents, not of the "polled doctors". Assuming this was a random sampling (vs. a sampling of Doctors identifying themselves as Republican, which is quite possible), it is still selected to those who chose to respond. As you no doubt know, normal polling works to keep the sampling random based on who responds to calls - this poll shows none of that. That is, they did not adjust to ensure that the pool was within their distribution targets.
Also, you have stated many times that the Public option will not require proof of citizenship. This is not really true. A valid Social security number will be required along with the name that matches and a valid form of ID that has that name. This means that other than very careful fraud, those who sign up will be have been validated. Illegals may often have fake documents, but those are not intended to hold up to Fed Gov scrutiny, just be enough so employers can say they saw some documentation.
New england journal of medicine just came out with survey of 5000 doctors. About 65% are in favour of either public option or single-payer. See:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home
The support is virtually uniform throughout various regions of US and types of practice.
So NEJM publishes a survey that is 100% contradicary to the push-survey discussed here... which one do you beleive??
Nate - please DO continue expressing value-judgment opinions in cases like these.
You may not think of yourself as a "journalist", but you're serving the role in our democracy that journalists (or "the press") is supposed to serve. That is: digging up facts that are important to our political decision making as citizens and "reporting" on it. In my opinion, real journalists should be well informed on the actual facts of the issue on which they are reporting and should tell the audience what they find to be true, what is opinion and what is just total garbage/lies. (and explaining why is a big plus.)
I would contrast my preferred approach with the current "impartial" approach of merely presenting any two seemingly opposed positions ("he said, she said") and leaving it at that. For a poorly informed, or mis-informed audience (e.g. discussions of the theory of evolution in our science-illiterate nation), such a "two sides to the issue and I'm done" approach is useless and perpetuates falsehoods.
Keep up the good work!
So BDP is now going to debate Nate Silver about the validity of a poll???
Good luck with that.
"they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22" = end of credibility.
PaulK said...
@whitetower, a huge percentage of physicians said they would move out of the business when Medicare was being debated (back in 65)
Lets also not forget that in every presidential election, theres a group of people who states emphatically that "if ___ wins, i am leaving the country!", and yet I've never seen any story about a mass exodus of upset opposition voters. My grandfather said it about Nixon, but he hasn't moved houses since before 1950.
Just cause a bunch of doctors say they're going to quit over some legislation doesn't mean that they really want to go out and find a new career when they could instead just adjust to some relatively minor changes.
Re: polls generally ...
U.S. population: 304 million
Over 18: 230 million
Eligible voters: 208 million
Registered voters: 150 million ie imo, the worst case scenario for Reps is if all registered voters voted, I digress.
Obama got 69.5 million votes, 53% whereas the decider got 47.9% in 2000, again, I digress.
Obama's RCP average 53/43 and as someone suggested previously, this is after the worst (3) mo. period Obama may face during his presidency.
My proposition is who/whom are these ad nauseam polls re: everything actually polling ~ registered voters, likely voters, folks who never vote, etc. What's the % breakdown.
A useful poll would be an accurate poll re: Obama voters who are still satisfied w/their vote and still have a favorable view of him and approve of his job performance.
and re: you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression, just like Carter's failed presidency lost a generation of voters for the Dems, so to has cheney/bush's failed presidency lost a generation of young voters to the Dems. And like Reagan, Obama is likable and has the added advantage of being relatively young ie he easily connects w/young voters and being a minority, his empathy/history is another added plus to young voters.
Again, political trends as has been previously noted, should be a red flag for the party of no! ie the party of intolerance as the growing youth vote will be the reason Gays and other minority groups eventually have full human rights.
as the Dems have come into the 21st century w/guns ;) blazing and Reps want to return/secede to the early 20th century when women could not vote and blacks were illegally prohibited from voting in the south.
This is the political reality for the party of Lincoln, oh the irony!
btw, as Nate will tell you, polls, bogus or otherwise, are just a snapshot in time, hence, ergo, therefore relatively meaningless.
carry on
p.s. we need more polls ...
I STILL say this POLL title should read:
A MINORITY OF REPUBLICAN DOCTORS LIE AND TELL RIGHT-WING POLLING COMPANY IBD/TIPP THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER QUITTING IF DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSES IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT! "The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail ...with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen... Repsonses are still coming in..."
ROFLMAO
COULD MEAN THE FOLLOWING:
"The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by cherry-picking as many Republican doctors as our small conservative activist firm could afford to mail and asking them slanted questions aimed at making it look like a plurality of them would lie and say they consider quitting their high paying jobs- which they invested years and millions of dollars to land- if reform passes.
IBD/TIPP only got 20 responses. But is waiting and hoping another one will come in since we used our whole budget on 1,376 letters."
Of course, IBD is being totally dishonest as far as I can tell. They act as if the AMA is alone in advocating for 3200 and HC reform:
Here are the physician organizations FOR either HB 3200 or something close to it: AMA, AOA, ACP, AAFP, ACOG, ACS, AAP, ACC, AGA, ASCO, and SHM.
Squishy middle: AAO, AAOS, ACEP
Mo' money, then we'll talk: ASA, ACR.
Details here:
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2009/09/organized-medicine-on-reform.html
Also from my blog, other data on Physician Surveys on HC reform:
http://www.cmanet.org/upload/CMA_Web_Survey.pdf
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-physicians-views-on-financing.html
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/14050679-47/story.csp
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/04/21/gvsb0421.htm
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2008/04/jackson-and-coker-physician-survey-on.html
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2008/02/most-minnesota-doctors-like-single.html
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2008/01/sciencedirect-social-science-medicine.html
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2008/01/physicians-views-on-single-payer.html
-------------
IBD's study is clearly the outlier here. prior studies show high support not just for HC reform but universal health care and single payer as well. Even the NEJM study is an outlier in its low support for single payer.
Look at how dishonest the question is about providing HC for all at lower cost. Haven't they been screaming about the $100 billion a year price tag required to cover all Americans (until we can change the cost structure)?
Though I didn't read through all the comments, did anyone else notice that their 45% is because out of the NINE responses, FOUR said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind...? And then they try to extrapolate that to the 800,000 doctors in the US?!?!???!!!
To any Doctors who want to leave the profession if a robust health care plan with a public option passes,
don't let the ER doors close on your ass on the way out. Buh-Bye.
'Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.'
Why would they quote the first part of the poll question yet paraphrase the second? What are they hiding?
Frankly, I am not at all surprised to see this.
When someone engages in passive-aggressive manipulation, any compromise you make with them (in the spirit of cooperation or bipartisanship or whatever) will be used later as justification for even further encroachments.
The example of Glenn Beck comes to mind. This Howard Beale wannabe has done little to justify the fairly impressive power he has accumulated, Had Obama ignored him, he would have been the Father Coughlin of the modern day. A minor threat worth keeping an eye on, that will most likely collapse under his own weight and become an embarrassment to his listeners/viewers after his moment had past.
However, when Beck demanded the resignation of Van Jones, when he asked for an inch-Obama gave him that inch. He realized the President could be pressured, manipulated, shook down. Then he demanded Obama cut all ties with ACORN. So he did. But whatever Obama was hoping for-to satisfy Beck's bloodlust, or maybe he thought Beck would be nice to him if he gave in a little and showed how willing he was to eat his own-Beck's hunger has only sharpened. He's got the POTUS on marionette strings, and don't think he's going to ever grow bored with playing with his new toy.
He won't. You give him even the slightest inch and he'll take miles and miles. He's become the envy of the talk-radio and Faux News channel set. The Town of Mount Vernon, WA, where Beck was born, has recently declared September 26th Glen Beck Day. The mayor's going to hand him the keys to the city on that day in Mt Vernon. Seriously. This two-bit, talentless hack, whose greatest 'gift' is his schizophrenic paranoia, and yet this deranged, pathetic soul is getting the highest honor his birthplace could possibly bestow upon him. Now, Beck has had an impossibly hard life-he got dealt a very raw hand at birth, if you check out his bio. I have empathy for that, and see where his metal illness originated, to be later fostered by his involvement with the Mormon church (delusional in its own right). I do not think calling the POTUS a racist or attacking an organization that is primarily concerned with helping the indigent survive warrants the keys to any city, no matter how sad your life story may be.
And yet, here he is, the star of his time-because Rupert Murdoch, the attendees of his 9/12 rally, and all the other Far Right crazies all realize that he has power-he can push Barack Obama's buttons. He can make the POTUS screw his friends. He's like that character from the LOTR movie, the weird misshapen thing that cackles insanely at having acquired real power-twisted by life's savagery, now hell-bent on breaking other people just for fun.
The Right has many manipulators like Beck in their corner. They think they can cow us the way they cowed Obama. They,ll use these bogus polls and vulgar astroturfed rallies-conflating the numbers of attendees and physicians saying whatever they want them to say-as mere justification for the rampage they are on, drunk with the power to manipulate the Left.
We created them. We gave them Glenn Beck, we made him and IBD and Limbaugh what they are. And they will only get bigger, nastier, angrier-the more we feed them.
Mr President, stop sacrificing your principles to make 'buddies' with the people who want to destroy you. Those aren't your friends.
@ Christopher M. Hughes, MD
Not that they're physicians (yet), but AMSA (American Medical Student Association) has been very vocal about their support of health care reform for a long time now.
@Statler, although I think most agree about Glenn Beck in general, I think you give too much to his power. There is a group of Americans that want to hear that kind of talk. They normally tune into AM radio because it makes them feel better about their miserable lives. Glenn is just doing it on TV. This normally does not work well, but because Glenn Beck is so weird and outrageous in his behavior, it makes it more workable than most.
But, he is appealing to the usual Fox News crowd that only tunes into broadcasts that tell them what they already believe and want to hear "affirmed". This is the victim crowd - they want to hear how nothing is their own fault, others are doing this to them. They also like an enemy. Sad, but true. Conspiracies work well with this crowd because they are in fact powerless and want to believe that is not their own fault.
The truth is that people like Glenn Beck are driving the independents (such as myself) far away from the Republican party.
Statler ...
Much of what you say is true, but, but, but Glenn Beck and his like Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, etc. has nothing but a negative effect on young voters, minorities, moderate independents, the well educated, the upper class, etc. ie the exact same voters the Reps should be trying to embrace.
As I've mentioned previously, the best thing to ever happen to the Dems was Beck and the rest of the conservative cartoon figure demagogues total domination of talk radio. Ad nauseam hate speak nonsense form their echo chamber has totally turned off the rational, mainstream voters.
And Obama has to think big picture and not be bogged down in unimportant political minutia. Although disappointing Van Jones "may" have been thrown under the bus, it is also true Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright under the bus and is now president! Big picture and always keep your eye on the prize. Something Reps had always done so well in the past w/their tunnel vision, take no political prisoners campaign in trying to attain the presidency ie scorched earth!
Bottom line, speaking of polls lol, Limbaugh has an 11% approval rating w/the American public ie speaking to choir on a daily basis. hmm, sounds about right, his inflated figure of 20 million listeners and 210 million eligible voters, although many liberals and moderates listen to him because hey, he's entertaining ;) like Beck, Billo, Hannity, Olbermann, etc.
As always, the bottom line is the bottom line as nobody like a train wreck more than Americans, eh.
Yea, radical, lowbrow conservative radio/media is the Reps secret plan to lead their party back to the promised land along w/Joe Wilson, Bachmann, Blackburn, Vitter, Sanford, Perry, Ensign, palin, mittens.
Love it when a plan comes together! ;)
PaulK who posted a couple minutes ahead of me has it exactly right, Beck is insignificant, only important in that he reflects the overall discombobulation of the Rep party.
so many conservative clowns, so little time ...
Christopher M. Hughes, MD -
Have you heard what opinion the EBAA and/or TCS (formerly the Castroviejo Society) has/have on HC Reform?
Mike in Maryland
Great post Nate. How often can you laugh out loud at polling data.
IBD/TIPP pegged the 2004 election and was 12th in 2008, above Gallup and almost all the Dem media polling. Not quite Rasmussen, but not too bad.
Bart is, naturally, using this, still linked by Rasmussen on their Daily Presidential Tracking Poll page. As I noted last week, this document was prepared on 11/5. Final numbers mean that the pollsters tied for 6th, CNN & Ipsos/McClatchy, were actually closest.* Obama received 52.93% of the vote to 45.65% for McCain.
Now for the additional fun. Bart is aware that IBD/TIPP makes some claims of their own. He omits those that don't fit his preferred narrative. That 12th ranking for IBD/TIPP is based on pollster.com info. They, like RCP, reported the final IBD/TIPP numbers as 52% to 44%. IBD/TIPP contends they were most accurate here because they're closest to the margin of victory at 7.2%. Rasmussen tied for 9th (despite that idiotic "4" in their chart) by their reckoning.
In reality, they can at most claim to be tied with the 4 non-tracking polls that didn't break things down to tenths of a percentage point. Their misfortune is that the 7.2% margin had Obama at 51.5% (rounded up to 52%) by pollster.com and that, IIRC, the pollster.com pollster disputed the rational by which they allocated the undecided 6% to Obama 2 to 1.
*Upon further review, the CNN story on their final poll doesn't make a lot of sense (no surprise) and Fox (10th for reasons unknown on the outdated list upon which Rasmussen and Bart rely) likely would have had a very similar result if they'd come up with a way to allocate the undecided.
I revised this because I found that some of my links didn't work and because I found a link to the Fox polling info (though not to an accompanying story.)
Paul, shiloh,
Let me paint you a picture of what disturbs me.
Now, the Far Right has a significant advantage over the Left and the Center. Most of the FR's leadership are not elected officials. That probably doesn't sound that advantageous to you, but hear me out on this. Unlike elected officials, the electorate cannot fire Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs. They don't have to run for office, they don't have to engage in public debates or endure media scrutiny over their private lives. When McCain and Obama faced off last year, every bit of minutiae from their lives was laid open-no privacy, no secrets. I'll bet you know things about Sarah Palin's private life you will never know about Sean Hannity's. They are, in effect, unaccountable.
Nut, you may object, they don't have the power an elected official does. And the elected officials that do align with them are doomed to fail, right? So they're a lodestone around the neck of the GOP.
All this would be true if the politicians on the Left and Center ignored them. But they don't, and that is precisely the problem.
What disturbs me is seeing Democrats get manipulated by these Far Right leaders. While it is true than Lou Dobbs will never cast a vote in the US Senate, if he can manipulate weak-spined Democrats like Max Baucus into voting the way Lou Dobbs would if Lou Dobbs were a Senator-then he does, effectively, have a Senate vote. If Glenn Beck can convince Mary Landrieu to drop the EFCA, he gets a vote too.
How much real power do you have when you can get a party that actively courted the GLBT community-including the President-to drop support for employing stop-loss to end DADT's effect?
How powerful are you, when you can get Barney Frank, the most powerful gay man in America, to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Real fucking powerful, that's how powerful.
The FR realizes that they don't even need elected Republicans. Hell, those guys are liabilities, because they can and do lose elections. Fuck it, if you can manipulate Democrats into eating their own kind, who needs elected officials? Just take control of the Democratic Party, and fuck the GOP.
That is what disturbs me.
FDR knew when he ran for President for the first time that the Right not only opposed him, they actively hated him. The robber barons that raped America during the Coolidge-Hoover era reacted predictably to a candidate whom, it was rumored, breakfasted on Grilled Millionaire every morning. During FDR's acceptance speech of his party's nomination, he acknowledged this hate, and said "I welcome their hate".
That was back when Democrats had a spinal column, and weren't afraid to fight. We do not require the GOP's consent to do anything. Max Baucus' 'Gang of Six' is throwing the Party,s constituents under the bus in favor of a spineless Democrat that quavers in fear of the Far Right's leadership, thereby proving himself worthless. When Harry Reid finds himself with a 60-seat majority and yet is still paralyzed by the GOP, it is not because the GOP is powerful-it is because Reid is weak. Weak, weak, weak Democrats, in both Houses, in the White House. Spineless Jellyfish that roll over the minute you yell at them.
When Glenn beck is pulling your strings, its time to grow the fuck up and cut those strings. Walk like a man, not a fucking muppet
IBD (Investors Business Daily) runs the most consistently rabid conservative editorials and OP-ED cartoons anywhere in the country, so it’s kinda no wonder their “polling” would be anything other than garbage.
We live in an era of 24-7 manipulation and spin, which has seeped into every corner of what used to constitute the responsible media, and evolved into the “infotainment sphere”. Network news is completely unreliable, cable news is even dizzier, and once-stalwart newspapers like the Washington Post feel that they have to “spice up” plain old news with editorials that get sillier every day.
fert, I think you've hit on something.
"The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks,
with 1,376 practicing physicians...taking part"
"Responses are still coming in"
"Four of nine doctors, or 45%"
Translation:
They polled 1376 doctors from the republican party. Over the last 2 weeks they have received 9 responses, 45% were against the plan.
Statler, we're just gonna have to disagree re: Beck, he's harmless, whereas I will agree special interest corporate lobby money has a big influence on totally in the pocket of corporate $ politicians ie health care bill negotiations.
Limbaugh and fixednoise know their small lucrative conservative sheep audience and cater to it quite nicely indeed, but if they had any real influence/power, McCain would be president as talk radio and fixed used scorch earth tactics against Obama to no effect.
But hey, their audience loves them, again the bottom line ie cater to your LCD sheep and make money, America what a country.
And speaking of Van Jones and Beck: "Glenn Beck’s show is making less than half the money it was making when we started calling on companies to pull their advertisements from the show. This is huge and it’s thanks to you — more than 200,000 ColorOfChange members have spoken out, and 62 advertisers have listened.
Data from a media tracking firm shows how deeply we’re hitting Fox’s pockets; they are now sacrificing more than a half-million ad dollars a week to keep Beck on the air.
Of course, Beck and his supporters are fighting back with everything they’ve got. Today, we need your help to make sure the 62 companies who have pulled their ads from Beck’s show stand strong, and to turn up the pressure on his remaining advertisers. Please join us in thanking the companies that have pulled their ads, and in calling on his remaining advertisers to stop supporting him."
but, but, but his ratings have gone up slightly as advertisers have been bailing.
So, fixed is losing ad revenue, as beck's ratings have gone up ... as I said, American's love a train wreck ;) albeit a train wreck who has lost half his ad revenue.
btw, conservative southern white guys love beck! and they love fixednoise ie fixed knows where their bread is buttered ...
Well, buttered bread always seems to land butter side down.
I guess I don't see the problem as being Beck himself or Fixed Noise. I see the problem as Democrats who let Faux News manipulate their decision making processes. The proper response to GB's attacks on Van Jones would have been to ignore Beck. Same with ACORN.
Now, Barney Frank has just sold out his own community by opposing the repeal of the one piece of legislation most reviled by the entire GLBT community, the Defense of Marriage Act. This is roughly equivalent to hearing Obama announce that he now favors repealing the Voting Rights Act. Its that level fo insult. And why is Rep. Frank selling out his own people, you may ask? For fear that the bill will die in the Senate, and he will look bad for having supported a bill, no matter how just, that did not pass into law. In other words, he would rather cow to the bigots than to stand up for his own rights.
Harry Reid is a Jellyfish. He has a sixty-seat majority-the GOP never achieved that during the whole of the Bush Administration, and yet they managed to ram through every initiative they wanted. Yet poor Harry cannot even get the votes to pass the EFCA or the healthcare bill, or even find one single Senator (including himself) to sponsor a DADT repeal bill. He's that weak.
And then there's Max Baucus with his backup band, the Gang of Six. Great healthcare bill, Max. Too bad it does nothing for the people it was intended to help.
Beck himself would be harmless if he were ignored by the Democratic leadership. But when Obama is doing Beck's bidding-fire Van Jones, can ACORN, run away from the GLBT community as fast as he can-that gives Beck power.
The cowardly Dem meme is a cop out.
The all powerful rightwing noise machine meme is a cop out.
Time to be honest with yourselves. This has been a center right country for over a generation and continues to be a center right country.
Roper just released the results of their annual poll for the National Constitution Center asking about their views of the Constitution and the government, Their findings are instructive:
Americans simply do not trust their government. 49% say it protects the special interests and only 38% think it looks out after their interests.
Americans strongly oppose allowing the government they do not trust to take partial ownership of private enterprise, even if it would prevent them from going out of business (71%) or losing jobs (66%), or if the failure of the industry would seriously harm the economy (60%).
50% believe that health insurance should it be up to each individual to secure health insurance if he or she wants it and 48% believe that the government should make sure everyone has. The poll did not ask what Americans thought about the government taking over health insurance, but see the results from the last question.
75% believe that the United States Constitution is an enduring document that remains relevant today (originalism) and only 23% believe that the United States Constitution is an outdated document that needs to be modernized (living constitutionalism). This is why Sotomayor lied through her teeth about following the Constitution as written as if she were the first female Scalia on the court.
This is why Dem Reps outside of their urban enclaves campaign as conservatives.
This is why Dem presidential candidates like Obama state in debates that 98% of folks will get a tax cut and he will make a net federal spending cut to reduce the deficit.
This is why Obama tells the lie that he has no intention of running GM, Chrysler and the Banks right after he described how they are following his plans.
This is why Obama tells the lie that the government will not be running your health insurance when the Obamacare legislation grants the President just that power.
That is why Obama tells the lie that Cap & Tax will only cost a few hundred dollars a year when his administration's private analysis is that it will cost every family over $1700 a year.
This is why Obama has to throw close allies under the bus like self proclaimed communist Van Jones and the criminal organization ACORN.
This is why Dems cannot be upfront about their agenda with the center right electorate of this nation and stay in power.
The fact is that your Dem Party values power more than it does its minority left base.
This is why government health insurance and cap & tax are toast and will not pass - period.
Statler, I've called this out enough here but just in case you missed it: glad you're back
@Statler, this is a center-left country (BDP will claim otherwise as will all the conservatives, but they know it is not true). The problem is that the Dems are not one group, but really two or three. The Blue Dogs are in areas which are center-right and they need Republican voters and Independents to hold their seat. The far left enclaves in NY and parts of CA for example are safe seats for progressive Dems just as chunks of the South are safe for conservative Repubs. The center-left Dems may be in safer areas than the Blue Dogs, but they have constituents with their own views. What is notable, which is what you are upset about, is that the Democrats are spineless as a group. They are spineless precisely because many are in areas where the voters could vote D or R on the drop of a hat. The Republicans may not have been spineless, but ultimately it worked against them as many of them got kicked out in 2006 and 2008 as a result.
I do not think it is fair to say that Obama is reacting to Beck. I think it is fair to say that the Dems are sensitive to the more conservative elements in their own party and from the independents they rely on and so they tend to pay attention to whatever has people agitated.
The salient question is when Obama will listen to his own speech and realize that the Republicans (and their unelected zealots) are going to vote against health reform no matter what - they view an Obama defeat as helpful to them in 2010. Note that both sides are more worried about their next election than the people helped or hurt by the Health Bill outcome. Sad, but that is the real truth of politics.
Barf…
I’m sure if we looked hard enough in the Bible we’d find a passage labeling someone exactly like you an “abomination”.
Same is true of polls. You start out with your Fox Noise agenda and by combing through poll results you will find some that seem to support your point of view.
Big deal. You have an audience of zero both here and everywhere else. Why? Too many others crying about the same things. Your voice is just as tiny as all those other GOOPers crying out to be heard. It’s like trying to distinguish the squeak of an individual gnat amidst a cloud of them.
BDP,
Once again, your "this is a center right country" argument is invalidated by your own facts. The poll you mentioned also asks:
Should couples of the same sex be entitled to the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex, or should the government distinguish between
them?
Yes 54%
No 42%
Another:
Judges should interpret the laws as narrowly as possible, taking into account only what is
clearly the intention of the lawmakers.
Agree 43%
Judges should interpret laws broadly, taking into account the broader interests of the nation.
Agree 52%
Hmm... doesn't sound too center right to me.
As for your statement:
Americans simply do not trust their government. 49% say it protects the special interests and only 38% think it looks out after their interests.
How many progressives are part of the 49%? The argument can be made that progressives do not trust their government because of the likes of Baucus and company. What does that do to your argument?
Center right? Don't think so.
@ fert and norman_swingvoter..
If you assume (yeah, yeah, I know...) that IDB can count AND honestly reported the percentages AND rounded .5 consistently up, you'll need at least 83 responses to be able to get all the percentages quoted in the article.
And if it's not exactly 83, it'll have to be more than 100. So, I'll go with 83...
BDP,
Wait, wait, wait,
The context of the first question was:
Yes, should be entitled to the same benefits 54%
No, should distinguish between them 42%
Oh, but wait, wait, wait... there's more for your reading pleasure...
Making sure that our nation is safe from foreign and domestic threats
Good Job 58%
Bad Job 33%
Making sure all Americans feel safe, secure and free
Good Job 53%
Bad Job 37%
And last, but not least...
Making America a better place
Good Job 43% (an increase)
Bad Job 42% (a decrease)
Making sure that all people are treated equally
Good Job 48% (an increase)
Bad Job 38% (a decrease)
BDP, the bottom line is don't pick and choose what you want to listen to. Some of the biggest lessons in life come when you don't want to learn them.
Bart DePalma said...
The cowardly Dem meme is a cop out.
The all powerful rightwing noise machine meme is a cop out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, could not go any further down your Limbaugh talking pts. list lol but I'll comment on your first (2).
1) Speaking of Limbaugh and cowardly Dems, trying to think of one Rep who hasn't kowtowed to Limbo, who of course is the titular head of your party.
know it, live it, believe it!
2) as I said the right wing noise machine ie beck, etc. is harmless, sooo no cop out. Please reread my posts because as it turns out, the total domination of talk radio by rightwing, self-loathing, narcissistic nutjobs like limbo, beck, hannity etc. has been a big plus for the Dems, not a minus and certainly their politically bankrupt echo chamber is nothing to fear.
p.s. again BDP, you're sounding more and more like PK everyday, are you taking your meds ...
What do you expect from an organization as ridiculously hyper-partisan as IBD? Here's a publication for people who think the WSJ is too liberal.
When right-wingers complain about biased polls, they are engaging in a major case of psychological projection.
Once again, your "this is a center right country"
If it's a center-right country (which is possible depending on how you decided to define center-right) then by the same measure Democratic Party is very much a center-right party.
But really Bart's just changing this "right" and "left" definitions .... well, left and right. :) The 43rd President was a left leaning President? No, Bart would just like to believe that fascism and authoritarianism is a "left" only trait. Which is hogwash. Libertarians come in the "left" variety, too. ((the hard leaning ones are called "hippies", or in Europe simply "libertarians")) And "right" has plenty of very authorian minded individuals to go around.
P.S. Truth is I have a serious libertarian bent to a lot of my outlooks. I sometimes wonder why I would bother to move to the US if I was going to do it where the US Constitution has a tendancy to be suspended. ;)
Gen Sherman = shiloh? Or is there just this thing about Civil War buffs that they like to repeat their words 3x? Or is there some sort of conjunctive stuttering problem and they like to type out things the way they speak?
:)
Dwight,
You make a great point as to the definition of "center right." I used it in the context BDP was using it. Most Americans don't have any sort of reality outside of their little reality... their neighborhood, city, or state. Anything larger than that just doesn't exist.
Fascism, Nationalism is right of center; Socialism, Communism is left of center... correct me if I am wrong. The right in this country just does not see it that way.
The right in America is right=RIGHT=white (Yeah, I said it). Get into worldview and you're just getting over their heads.
Dwight said...
Gen Sherman = shiloh? Or is there just this thing about Civil War buffs that they like to repeat their words 3x? Or is there some sort of conjunctive stuttering problem and they like to type out things the way they speak?
:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again, as I said to Walker and hmm others, thanx for caring :) whereas lookin' at Gen. Sherman's profile he's from the Missouri Ozarks and I'm from Ohio, where William Tecumseh was born. Coincidence, I think not lol.
but, but, but ;) my dad being a Civil War buff(expert) is the reason for my interest and my nickname, which btw, is one of the few Civil War battle sites I haven't visited.
trivia: who borrowed a VA militia uniform to be at abolitionist John Brown's hanging in 1859 and later became famous er infamous ...
John Wilkes Booth
carry on
p.s. John Brown grew up in Hudson, OH about (10) miles from Kent and as a child lived w/Jesse Grant, Ulysses' father, I digress.
Who's buried in Grant's tomb?
Where is Grant's tomb? Manhattan
ciao
After Shiloh, the South never smiled!
Wee little Barty de Palmetto?
Since you are sooooooo in love with unrestrained, unrestricted capitalism, and therefore you must believe anything published in the IBD is "Gospel truth," I've got a reading assignment for you.
Ever hear of the macroeconomist Hyman Minsky?
Here's a bit of a background on him, and a brief discussion of his prediction of how the current economic crisis came to be:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/13/why_capitalism_fails
And we expect a full critique from you of his work after you finish reading the article, and any of other information you may care to read about a "Minsky moment" and/or a "Minsky meltdown."
Happy reading !!
Mike in Maryland
Once again, as I said to Walker and hmm others, thanx for caring :) whereas lookin' at Gen. Sherman's profile he's from the Missouri Ozarks and I'm from Ohio, where William Tecumseh was born. Coincidence, I think not lol.
So what is with the word "stutter" then? Do you talk like that? Sounding like Monster Truck ad or an infomercial. :)
The TIPP poll is just made up IMO . If you remember last election they were the only poll that had McCain dead even with Obama right till the end.
The last two days a miracle happened and Obama jumped to a 7 point lead and TIPP could say they called the election correctly.
These guys are so obvious it's criminal. They try to drive a narrative and then whwn it's obvious it won't happen they tell the truth the last second.
Sort of like rasmussen on steroids.
So just how exactly do you feel about IDB/TIPP Nate? Ouch.
As a fan of facts, logic and critical thinking skills, I am amused by the comments here by liberals. Constantly bashing Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck just makes you look foolish. Personally, I find a lot of what they say is factual. And the left's usage of their favorite phrase of "Faux news" is equally amusing. You show me a person who uses this phrase and I'll show you a person not interested in critical thinking skills. God forbid that the conservative side of the argument sees the light of day! It must be crushed, you seem to be saying.
And when the left brings up ridiculous arguments such as "stolen election" and "illegal war", it just makes them look silly and deserving of the derisive "tin-foil hat" name. Their argument on the Downing Street Memo was especially amusing.
Further more, regarding IBD, it was they that broke the story about the 1,018 page health care bill in the House and the notorious page 16. Even Henry Waxman wrote to IBD about it, but IBD noted that Waxman even contradicted his own argument in the letter.
@gingersue
I've yet to hear/read a coherent full explaination, with full and numerous direct quotes, any explaination of how this does the things that it's most vocal detractors purports it to do.
I've seen a few summations with a sprinkling of quotes but reading further these quotes seem interpreted way out of context of the rest of the text. To slip into analogy, it is though they are blindfolded, grab the trunk elephant, and declare the whole of the animal to be a snake. *shrug*
If you have a link to a candidate for something resembling a sane explaination now would be a good time to give it.
Ask THIS Poll Question
Given everything you now know about all primary contenders and presidential candidates, including the outcomes of those contests:
a) Would your present knowledge have changed your vote in the primary?
b) Presuming the general election ballot remained exactly the same, would your present knowledge have changed your vote for President in the general election?
I suspect if this question were asked, Obama/Biden would still win in the general election, and in a bigger landslide.
Obama has not spent his political capital until the answer to this question is different; all the rest of this blather is pointless rhetoric.
gingersue said...
I am equally amused by rightwingnuts such as yourself who, 6+ years into the Iraq Disaster, still think they should be taken seriously about anything.
I find gingersue's accusation against Rush and Sean to be highly offensive. According to her, they are telling the truth only 'a lot' of the time?!? Document the lies that make up the rest of their airtime, please, or retract your vicious slander.
And then to follow it up with a vile attack against the impartiality of Fox News. 'The Conservative view'? They quite clearly say they are 'fair and balanced', and I will not stand for anyone without proof to baldly claim they are lying to our great nation.
@gingersue:
As a fan of facts, logic and critical thinking skills
Ahhh, I think I can diagnose your problem. You can't just be a fan, you must be able to play the game!
You may be a fan of critical thinking skills, but obviously you don't have any yourself. But don't feel bad. I'm a fan of golf, but I'm not a very good player. So perhaps I can empathize with your unfortunate situation.
Gen. Sherman, et al:
I cited the Roper poll for the proposition that this center right majority nation opposes government intervention into their lives.
I do not claim that the nation is a majority social conservative nation because it is not. Social conservatives are simply one branch of the Reagan coalition that also include foreign policy hawks and free marketeers. Thus, the Roper results concerning social issues are not surprising and not relevant to the point I was making.
Dwight said...
If it's a center-right country (which is possible depending on how you decided to define center-right) then by the same measure Democratic Party is very much a center-right party.
Actually, the Dems are very much a party at odds with itself. Michael Barone wrote a fascinating piece discussing how the party bases affect the Dems and GOP differently.
Barone observed that the Dem leadership come from safe states and districts that are urban, gentrfied, African American and solid left. Meanwhile, many of the Dem Blue Dog backbenchers come from center-right Red or Purple districts very much at odds with the true blue leadership district.
This is why you repeatedly have the spectacle of the Dem base and leadership attempting to whip Blue Dogs to the left or declining to act because they do not want to cost their Blue Dog based majority in jeopardy in 2010.
So, you are correct that a minority of the Dem caucus is indeed center right or they lose their jobs.
Davy,
hey, glad to be back. Smooches :)
PK-
Well, if America is a center-left country-and, President Obama's 'district' is therefore center-left-why doesn't he support center-left causes without quavering before the Far Right media? Why fire Van Jones?
Further, Rep. Frank has a very liberal district. Why does he oppose repealing DOMA if its a simple matter of holding his seat?
Senator Franken-very much a liberal before he got elected, this weekend voted to cut all federal grants to ACORN. ACORN's offices in Minnesota are some of the best in the country-they do a great deal of good up there making sure poor people don't die of exposure during the long, hard winters Minnesota is famous for. Are you telling me that cutting funds for a group that could help him hold his seat by making sure the voters most likely to vote Democrat-the poor-are still alive to cast a ballot in 6 more years is strategic for holding onto that seat?
Max Baucus just got hit with the most obvious sucker-punch in Senate history. He saw an uptick in his numbers when he said (Back in August of last year) that he wanted healthcare for all, an extension of Medicare. You'd think that would indicate that holding onto his seat would be helped by HR 676 or a Senate equivalent to that. Instead, desperate for votes from the Right, he gave us the Gang of Six, which delayed action on healthcare till after the recess, allowing the Far Right to really go nuts on healthcare reform, attack the hell out of it-and that kind of delay is exactly what killed the Clinton Bill in 93- and then gave us a compromised bill that benefits the insurance companies but not the uninsured or underinsured. It is the exact opposite of what he called for back in August '08, and the exact opposite of what made his poll numbers rise. That was strategic?
PK, yuou sure do have a weird strategy going on there. Perhaps you mean to tell me that the se Democrats plan to hold onto their seats by employing the ultimate surprise attack-by losing their seats, a function of having betrayed their base and proving themselves to be weak, ineffective, and paralytic. What kind of doublespeak is this?
No, Democrats win when they are effective, not when they are spineless. The electorate voted for Bush twice, not because he was smart (he clearly wasn't) or because he was more qualified than Gore or Kerry-I don't see Bush getting a Nobel Prize anytime soon-but because he was hard. Americans like hard. We like people who have a conviction and stick to it, and are effective in implementing it. You know why Kennedy was so popular?Because he wasn't afraid to stand in front of a camera, and say "I am a proud liberal".
So no, I disagree with your argument. This isn't about electoral math. If it were, these legislators and this President would have the courage to stand up for their principles, knowing that effective implementation of your core beliefs wins more votes than wishy-washy spinelessness. These particular legislators are not voting in accord with their districts-Rep. Frank's district supports DOMA repeal. Baucus' state clearly supported him when he said he wanted Medicare for all. Doingt he exact opposite of the convictions of your district is not, as you seem to suggest, good electoral strategy.
After all, why vote for a wannabe Republican, when you can get the real thing?
Given that "four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they'd consider leaving their practice", how the heck did they get "no answer" from 5% of those 9 doctors and "no change" from 51% of 9? So half of a doctor didn't respond, and 4.5 doctors said no change?
@Statler and @BDP, every Senator and Representative understands that actions they take or try to take can affect the whole party. If Frank started agitating on DOMA, he would rile up the Social conservatives all over America and that would affect Dems in those areas as well. Sometimes you have to bide your time before playing your hand.
@BDP, you seem to confuse people saying they do not trust the Gov and do not want to pay more taxes with being conservative. Taxes are a sensitive issue for everyone. Most people would like to pay less, but their ideology is about how they want the tax money spent, how much they think others should pay, and what they consider "wasteful spending".
Conservative vs. Liberal is about how money is spent, how big the Gov is, what it does etc. Social conservatives love a highly intrusive gov that tells people what they can and cannot do. Liberals tend towards gov that protects people. Fiscal conservatives want less gov involvement at all levels. Libertarians want pay-for-services type gov. So, the Roper poll does not answer any of these things.
Most people distrust gov on a regular basis, even if they think it should be doing something active (social regulations, business regulations, safety nets, etc). They distrust it because it is like making sausage: messy and unpleasant to watch. It is also almost a given that the politician you elected will "lie" to you (will not do what you think they said they would) and will not be exactly what you wanted (will agree with you on some issues but not others).
Distrusting gov does not make them liberal or conservative, it makes them a normal voter. Feeling they pay too much in taxes does not make them lib or con, it makes them a typical taxpayer. Liberals would say we waste money on wars and military and welfare for the rich, conservatives would say we waste money on the poor and education and business regulations and the like.
Let's remember that fiscal conservatives love social conservatives because they are "dumb" - they will fight against their own interest; many are poor and poorly educated, but as long as you throw them a few social issues (e.g. DOMA, Abortion, illegal immigrants), they will fight against gov actions that would help them. Most of them blame others for their situation (since they have been praying regularly, it must be someone else who is messing up what great things God had intended for them), including immigrants (legal and illegal), Gays, liberals, etc. This is all it takes to keep them on your side and you know it (and Reagan well understood that).
@Statler, I did not respond to your comment about Dems. Note that Nate showed a graph of Red-dog type Dems losing their seats; it was when they took bold "liberal" action. This is because the more left voters will always vote for them, the hard right will never vote for them, so it is a matter of the swing (center). The "moderate" voters usually prefer no action to strongly "left" or "right". So, a do-nothing congressman is more appealing.
I've floated this theory before, but I would describe America as apolitical in terms of right and left. I think they want people who will do something. I think that is why Congress always gets low approval ratings, because from the point of view of a normal none geeky non political person, Congress seems to spend its time doing not much.
I don't think most voters pour over party platforms closely, or sometimes even now what the two parties really stand for on most of the important issues of the day. I think most people culturally feel close to one party or the other and vote that way. And judging by recent elections the nation is pretty much 50-50 at the moment, slap bang in the middle, possibly leaning very slightly towards the Democratic Party.
Let's remember that fiscal conservatives love social conservatives because they are "dumb" - they will fight against their own interest; many are poor and poorly educated, but as long as you throw them a few social issues (e.g. DOMA, Abortion, illegal immigrants), they will fight against gov actions that would help them. Most of them blame others for their situation (since they have been praying regularly, it must be someone else who is messing up what great things God had intended for them), including immigrants (legal and illegal), Gays, liberals, etc. This is all it takes to keep them on your side and you know it (and Reagan well understood that).
This is one of the most ham-handed analyses I have ever seen regarding fiscal v. social conservatism and their relationhip in the political sphere. You are obviously basing your logic on anecdotal observations or stereotypes and talking points you've been fed by the left-wing propaganda machine rather than real world facts.
I consider myself mostly conservative on both fiscal and social issues - although I am by no means extreme - and I can assure you that I'm in no way "dumb" or mis-informed or act in ways that are against my self-interest. I can assure you that goes for many other social conservatives you speak so condescendingly towards, and they aren't moping around blaming people unlike themselves for messing up "God's plan" for them (seriously, where do you people get these ideas?).
Any bump from Obama's health care speech that ever existed has now changed back into a downturn.
Gallup polling of adults now has Obama's approval ratings for health care (43%), the economy (46%) and the deficit (38%) tanking well below his nominal overall approval rating of 54%.
The Gallup health care approval rating is about as low among adults as the Rasmussen levels among likely voters.
Looks like most folks are seeing through the lies about Obamacare in the President's speeches. The more Obama repeats these lies, the further support for Obamacare drops.
@Bart
Nevada counts as "gentrified"?
McConnell wouldn't have to end up in a hotel room with a dead girl AND a live boy to lose his seat to Democratic candidate?
I know there aren't many Red Dogs but Olympia and Snowe aren't pillaried as traitors on a fairly regular basis? Spector, while running to the "right" with his voting still had to bail out of the GOP because he wasn't running fast enough to get his party's nomination and realized if he ran any faster he'd hang himself in the general election.
As for that article, I'm not going to bother with every bit of drivel but:
"But partisan districting does not explain the result, because some districts designed to elect Republicans moved enough toward the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 for Obama to carry. The main reason Obama carried fewer districts than Bush is because many districts are overwhelmingly Democratic, while few or none are overwhelmingly Republican."
Ummm, that is EXACTLY what you'd expect from gerrymandering slanted towards the GOP. Gerrymandering works by heavily concentrate opponents into a small set of districts while keeping as many distrincts as possible as semi-competitive but not so competitive that there is a reasonable chance you might lose. In this way you maximize the number of Rep seats for the number of votes you can muster.
But when the electorate tide goes you find yourself caught swimming naked in those close districts.
He appears to be just as much of a nonsense spewer as you.
@Mule Rider, I do not know what this left-wing propaganda machine is; is this the one Fox News keeps telling you about? I will let you in on a secret - it does not exist.
The Evangelicals and the conservative Roman Catholics make up much of the social conservative hard right base. I am not talking about the moderately social conservative.
The Evangelicals/RCs are easily swayed by hot button issues as has been shown by study, by the work of Karl Rove, by PACs, and by Fox News. I put "dumb" in quotes because the point is that they care more about the hot button issue than their own needs; this is laudable in some ways, but they are being played by con artists in the Republican party.
I find it amusing that your way of showing I am wrong is by "anecdotal observations" of yourself and people you know. Hmm, you chastise me because you suggest I am using anecdotal observations (which I am not) and your proof I am wrong is anecdotal observations - not very convincing Mr. Rider.
Like any group, there will be outliers. Not all far right social conservatives are church goers for example. But, a good portion are. I am glad for you if you are not a knee jerk social conservative. I suspect you may also have more education than many of your ideological ilk, and that is likely why; there is actually value in critical thinking. Of course critical "tea bag" rallies - leave your brain at the door and bring only emotion and a susceptibility to strong emotive suggestion.
Dwight:
Reid is the exception to Barone's rule that the Dem leadership generally come from safe solid Blue districts or states. That exception will be corrected in 2010 after Reid loses resoundingly.
Dick Durbin will be a better fit under this rule in 2011.
Yeah, Daschle was in an absolutely safe district.
Of course critical "tea bag" rallies - leave your brain at the door and bring only emotion and a susceptibility to strong emotive suggestion.
The teabaggers are now complaining and threatening lawsuits over a lack of public services in Washington during their fifty-eleven-billion person protest over government interference in their lives.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/tea-party-protesters-protest-dc-metro-service/
Apparently, they don't feel that the Metro system added enough public buses and trains to accomodate them, and in at least two cases they were forced to take a taxi instead. Complaining about being forced to pay out of their own pocket because the government didn't increase spending on public services.. in order to be driven to a protest in order to rail against government spending too much money on public services?
Assuming they have a brain to check at the door may perhaps be over-generous.
Interestingly, if Reid were to lose in 2010, he would be the 3rd succesive Democratic Senate Leader to see his seat go to the GOP on leaving the Senate. (Although George Mitchell did not run in 1994).
As for the Republicans, recent Senate Leaders have represented KY, TN, MS, KS, one has to go back to 1976, and Hugh Scott from PA, to find a Republican majority leader representing a seat that might now be considered competitive, and Howard Baker in the 80s ti find a GOP Senate Leader who served alongside a Democrat from the same state. (To give some comparative illustration, you need to go back to Robert Byrd to find a Democratic Senate Leader to find a Democratic Leader who has not served some time with a Senator from the GOP as part of his states delegation.)
Reid is the exception to Barone's rule that the Dem leadership generally come from safe solid Blue districts or states.
In a way that greatly differs from GOP leadership? ((the ones holding elected office anyway)) So McConnell is another exception to his nonsense "rule"? How about John Cornyn? Ok, so John only carried a 12 point margin over (a fairly strong candidate in) Noriega in 2008. If you can't count Texas as "safe" I guess he's just observing how low the GOP's fortunes have sunk...yet Cornyn is still very much beholden to his "base" lest he get shanked in the primary. Witness our (since I've inhereted him :/) own Governer Goodhair playing to the base with chest thumping about succession.
Although I agree with Nate's broader point, it seems that some comments here have taken it to the extreme.
It is still highly likely that a majority of practicing physicians oppose this legislation. The poll is likely skewed, but the notion that it is 20 points or more off is not supported by Nate or anyone.
Just because the AMA and other lobbies support elements of Obama's plan does not mean the rank and file do.
If you think otherwise, look at the AARP vs. Support of HC reform among retired people or 50+.
They are the strongest opponents of this bill.
The special interests support this legislation because it does nothing to deal with the supply side of the issue.
Where in the bill does it remove the ability of the AMA to artificially reduce the supply of doctors? The AMA does this, and it is a HUGE part of the problem.
Obama is fine with the status quo here.
Where in the bill does it adjust Medicare reimbursement formulas that punish General Practitioners while rewarding high-cost Specialists? This is causing a huge shortage of family doctors in rural and poor areas while making it economically necessary for GP's to spend 10 minutes with a patient and just refer them on to a specialist.
THAT ADDS HUGE AMOUNTS OF COST AND REDUCE THE QUALITY OF CARE.
Obama is fine with the status quo here as well.
If you ask doctors, they hate the fact that they are actually given incentives to NOT treat something that will take too much of their time. They hate it.
All of this is caused by the way Medicare and Medicaid fix prices in the system.
Obama does not address any of this.
Of course the entrenched special interests are happy. They wrote the bill.
Just because the AMA and other lobbies support elements of Obama's plan does not mean the rank and file do.
It is actually the leadership that has lagged the rank and file as, generally, the younger generation the doctor the more likely they are to support this kind of health insurance reform. This was the case in '93 where the leadership was strongly against but the rank and file was much more evenly split.
Dwight:
Barone notes that there is not the same level of concentration of the base in GOP districts and states as there are in Dem districts and states, especially districts.
This is pretty much common sense given that the Dem base is primarily in concentrated urban areas.
P.S. This is causing a huge shortage of family doctors in rural and poor areas If you dig a little deeper I believe you'll find it has a lot to do with those being viewed as crappy places to live by a large majority of doctors.
Barone notes that there is not the same level of concentration of the base in GOP districts and states as there are in Dem districts and states, especially districts.
Did you actually read my first post? He claims that this isn't consistant with GOP slanted gerrymandering. Which means he either doesn't actually understand what gerrymandering is, he's an idiot that is just spouting off without thinking giving any bit of thought to this, and/or he's willfully misleading.
Although it is quite possible for some uneven stratification to more-or-less naturally happen anyway because high density districts are more likely to be able to create high vote count, more homogeneously high desity population districts because of their very nature.
Still, his whole premise is full of more holes than .... that movie Holes. :)
I think you will see clumping naturally, but gerrymandering is intended to force the groupings to the benefit of whoever is in power. So, whereas it may be true that urban centers and University towns have more Ds and very rural areas have more Rs, the point of gerrymandering is more complex. The model for gerrymandering is to make sure you create majorities when you had none and to make sure that the majorities are not so large that you "waste" them (when you could spread them around more). So, it moves from fewer safe seats to far more moderately safe seats.
Fifi…
Au contraire, you are dumb, in fact as dumb as dirt.
Who but an idiot would concoct a lame story about having made $685,000 in the stock market during the worst downturn since the 1930s, then be forced to retract it in less than ten minutes?
The answer: someone who isn’t very bright, and is also pathologically insecure.
Also, how many Nobel laureates do you think threaten to kill people on a public forum who disagreed with them?
How many MacArthur “Genius Grant” honorees have ever used the phrase “I will gut you like a fish!!!!” over and over (and over and over etc.) in a public forum?
Yep, you’re a real Einstein.
Fifi says: “Arf! Arf! Grrrrr Arf!”
Dwight:
The Dem leadership largely comes from states that the GOP did not control and could not have gerrymandered. However, gerrymandering may explain to some extent the fact that the GOP leadership comes from more mixed districts, especially in the South where the GOP cooperated with African American Dems in drawing safe black districts.
IMHO, many of the slavery based Civll War era political distortions have passed and we are actually back to wrestling with the divides that were present just after the Revolution - city vs. rural, large state vs. small state. Our current ideological split corresponds pretty closely to the cultural split between urban and near suburban areas where Dems predominate and the rest of the country where the GOP and Blur Dogs predominate.
BTW, I enjoyed the movie Holes.
I think the comparison of today’s political climate to post-Revolution America is actually pretty apt, although characterizing it as an urban vs. rural conflict is wrong. The friction is between those who saw the Revolution as a means of escaping any form of government vs. those who realized that a strong federal government was the only way the US would ever survive as an independent nation. (This realization came after the disastrous Articles of Confederation experiment, the lessons of which were ignored by the founders of the “Confederate States of America”, who led their “country” to the same destruction.)
The teabaggers are almost identical in their philosophy to the grouches of the Whiskey Rebellion, who insisted that the newly won “freedoms” meant that it was left up to them as to whether or not to pay taxes. (The entire tiff was over the right of the government to tax whiskey production.) The same half-baked theorizing characterizes the teabaggers. Their prime concern is not paying a dime to anyone anywhere at any time that doesn’t directly benefit themselves. The “social contract” to them is something to ridicule, until of course they are forced to fall back on it themselves.
The Dem leadership largely comes from states that the GOP did not control and could not have gerrymandered.
I was talking about his note about 43rd's lower overall percentage than Obama but higher number of winning districts nationwide.
Just give it up Bart, the premise of that article is like the vast majority of your posts. Farsical 3-ways to Sunday. Both in how/if it exists and what that actually means if it did.
Pragmatus said...
I think the comparison of today’s political climate to post-Revolution America is actually pretty apt, although characterizing it as an urban vs. rural conflict is wrong. The friction is between those who saw the Revolution as a means of escaping any form of government vs. those who realized that a strong federal government was the only way the US would ever survive as an independent nation.
Strong federal government is a very relative term.
The Constitution was the product of a debate between those who believed in federalism with a limited federal supremacy and those who advocated a confederacy with no areas of federal supremacy.
The current debate is between those of us in the Tea Party movement who continue to believe in federalism with a limited federal supremacy and those in power today who advocate a federal government with nearly unlimited power.
BTW...
IMHO, many of the slavery based Civll War era political distortions have passed and we are actually back to wrestling with the divides that were present just after the Revolution - city vs. rural, large state vs. small state.
Unfortunately a number of the Civil War era distortions continue on (though the party's have switched positions).
The former has some sense to it. The later not so much (those relatively small population states up in the NE plus HI, weighed against the very large TX, do a lot to balance that factor out...for now).
I also think the reasons for the divide are somewhat different. Although I'd like to hear from someone with a good handle on the reasons behinde the 18th century urban/rural divide.
From what I can tell the urban/rural divide was a good deal of what underlay the Civil War, below even slavery. Just at a more macro scale. Because agriculture based economy (King Cotton!) was at odds with an increasingly industrialized economy in the budding of the rust belt.
[quote]Our current ideological split corresponds pretty closely to the cultural split between urban and near suburban areas where Dems predominate and the rest of the country where the GOP and Blur Dogs predominate. [/quote]
But the agriculture/industrial split isn't the underlying reason. Knowledge is. The information age, and fundemetal requirements for even more community interdependance to function, is upon us .... with the forefront of that in urban areas.
Once again the economic revolution is occuring and as always the rural areas are the last in, and the most logical place to go if you wish to attempt avoiding it. If you are looking to embrace it exburbia is generally not the place to go (but I went anyway because I'm stubborn pioneer spitting in the face of adversity in that way ;) ).
BDP said
'The Dem leadership largely comes from states that the GOP did not control and could not have gerrymandered. However, gerrymandering may explain to some extent the fact that the GOP leadership comes from more mixed districts, especially in the South where the GOP cooperated with African American Dems in drawing safe black districts.'
---------------------------------
Somewhat typical BDP roll back without admitting he was wrong there.
Of course he is wrong. There are more full on 'red states' out there to pick the GOP leadership from, and they tend to come from those areas. The House Republicans have some history for picking some northern, more blue state GOPers, but even they come from red districts. When was the last time the GOP picked a leader from a district or state that they risked losing??
Nate, what a great post, and what great discussions, folks. Well, with one exception.
@Nominalize: It should read:
"because they can only afford two Lexi, not three."
Of all the ridiculous mistakes.
Terry
BDP
'The Constitution was the product of a debate between those who believed in federalism with a limited federal supremacy and those who advocated a confederacy with no areas of federal supremacy.'
-----------------------------------
Actually the constitution was a product of a group of leaders who realised that the US dec of independance provided too weak a government. The debate between strong central government types and states rights types didn't really begin until after the constitutional convention. At the time of the convention, the prevailing wisdom was that of Benjamin Franklin- 'We must hang together or we will hang seperately.' (Though that quote is usually attributed to the signing of the Declaration of Independence)
What the Constitution did was to set up stronger federal institutions than had existed. It set up a comparatively strong central government, that through the Bill of Rights, later, gave its citizens genuine rights to be protected throughout the Union. The debate that sparked later was about what rights the states retained. But generally the debate happened later.
BTW Bart, this was the old "libertarian left".
if you want to see what the new libertarian left looks like here's an example of a place where you can find them in much higher than normal concentration of folks leaning that way.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Dwight, the House health care bill was looked at by IBD. They said..
"It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.""
So, if I quit my corporate job and want to start my own business, it sure looks like I have to join the government option. In addition, if I want to retire to Florida before age 65 (and Medicare), then I must join the government option. That's what sucks about this bill. So, after IBD printed this, Henry Waxman wrote IBD a letter that didn't turn out so well for Henry. I'll post IBD's follow up article later, but I'll wait to see if the post gets posted, as the censors here have already banned one of my posts. It seems they can't take any criticism whatsoever.
Wee little Barty de Palmetto said...
IMHO
Most of us know that IMHO can be interpreted as:
In My Humble Opinion; or
In My Honest Opinion.
However, in your case, IMHO probably should be interpreted as:
"In My Hubristic Opinion", and anything stated after IMHO interpreted in that manner.
BTW - did you read the article about Minsky?
No?
Not much of a person interested in learning then, are you. You only believe in spouting out the talking points that have been spoon fed to you by the Rimbaugh's, Insanity's, Manthrax's, SarahBarracuda's, and the other wing nut, tea bag supporters of the world, don't you.
Mike in Maryland
Just a general comment re: conservative trolls disingenuous outrage about civility as regards to political discussion at a progressive blog, 538, as they try to burrow their way in daily, because quite frankly, conservative blogs suck!
Oh the outrage of someone using sarcasm and facts to rebut their daily talking pts. after ... something conservative trolls really, really, don't want to talk about ie the last (8) years!
And yes I enjoy making light of BDP, because hey, he's 24/7 Limbaugh talking pts. w/an agenda like every other conservative poster at this site wanting to be heard/noticed above the crowd.
And Lehman re: saying what I have typed on this board to a conservative trolls face. You obviously are not aware of the longgg progressive history of protest in America ie unions, civil rights, women's voting rights, fighting against discrimination in every shape or form by marching in the streets and saying the truth to the American govt.
This is what liberals do, whereas conservatives believe in the status quo until, until an African/American family is living in the White House! Then they want to secede and are moaning, groaning, whining I want my country back!
No, even Clinton couldn't get these sheep to march in the streets!
hmm
So let's recap: conservative sites suck, conservative trolls are shocked, shocked progressives aren't having civil political discussion at a progressive blog after the last (8) years of incivility ie cheney/bush. Yea, trolls deflection re: civility at a progressive on the web is somewhat amusing as thew spew their talking pts. trying at all times to avoid discussion re: the last 8 years.
This is the current political reality for conservative trolls on the net as there are no longer any Reps out there, but but but ;) many conservative Independents and Libertarians lol.
After winning the previous 7 of 10 presidential elections and pointing that fact out in political discussions ad nauseam the past 4/5 years, they are now really, really sore losers!
'nuf said!
PK,
I disagree. I think the reason why we are having such a hard time finding a point we can agree on is because we are speaking entirely different languages.
You are speaking the language of Electoral Victory. For many people, politics has as much meaning as your typical sporting event. The only thing that matters is, did the home team win? If you are a Democrat, you hope-no matter what the candidate is or the place or the issues-that the Democratic candidate wins.
I am speaking the language of Issues. I really don't care who wins, just as long as my issues get addressed. I vote Democrat mostly as a function of sharing similar values to Democrats. When I disagree with a particular Democratic candidate, I do not vote for them, and will even vote for a Republican is that candidate is closer to me on the issues than the Dem.
Now, I live in LA-2, where Bill Jefferson faced off against Anh Cao last fall. I could not in good conscience vote for someone so obviously corrupt as Bill Jefferson. I didn't know a thing about Cao, so I couldn't vote for him either. I supported the Green Party candidate instead.
Now, next year, Cao is up for re-election, and so is David Vitter. I despise David Vitter, and given his attitude toward Left-leaning gay men, I'm sure the feelings are mutual. You say it is a given that I will support the Democrat-in this case, Charlie Melançon, who is the only Democrat challenging David Vitter.
You are quite wrong. Charlie melançcon, currently a member of the House, voted in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, which would have (if passed) banned GLBT marriage across the whole of the US. I will not be supporting or voting for Charlie Melançcon, in this or any other election, and this will never change.
Do you see why it is that we're not seeing eye-to-eye? I really don't give a damn if the Blue Team beats the Red Team wins. I'm not rooting for a team here, this isn't a football match to me. Politics to you may be a mere game, but really, if the best you can offer me is Melançcon- then forget it.
IBD says more about the poll today..
""Doctor opposition to health care overhaul proposals is broad and deep, revealing concerns not just about soaring costs, declining care, possible rationing and a lack of limits on malpractice suits, but also about government competence and motives, detailed responses to a new IBD/TIPP Poll show.
As reported Wednesday, 65% of the 1,376 practicing physicians who responded to a mailed questionnaire over the last two weeks said they opposed health care plans that have emerged from the administration and Congress. Just 33% supported them.
Perhaps the most shocking result: 45% of these professionals said they would consider closing their practices or retiring early if the reforms now under consideration were enacted.
The questionnaires were sent out Aug. 28 to 25,600 doctors nationwide. The sample was purchased from a list broker, Lake Group Media of Rye, N.Y. One hundred of those responding were retired, and their answers were not included in the final results.
Our poll also invited those taking part to tell us the reasons why they didn't like the health care reforms — or, in the minority of cases, why they did. The outpouring of written responses IBD received — about 1,300 in all — was stunning.""
For the history buffs out there, here's a little example of something from the Roman Empire, when politics really did devolve into a sporting event-the two teams were described by their color (Blue or Green), each was represented in the Roman Senate, and people not only treated it like a game, it actually became one-and ended in a big riot, where angry mobs went berserk and started setting fire to Constantinople.
Ladies and gents, I give you- The Nikia Riots
Statler N Waldorf said...
For the history buffs out there, here's a little example of something from the Roman Empire, when politics really did devolve into a sporting event-the two teams were described by their color (Blue or Green), each was represented in the Roman Senate, and people not only treated it like a game, it actually became one-and ended in a big riot, where angry mobs went berserk and started setting fire to Constantinople.
Ladies and gents, I give you- The Nikia Riots
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Americans get what "we" deserve. As I've mentioned before it's amazing the Republic has lasted as long as it has.
Just damn luck!
Here, this part: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it.
I asked for something sane. :) They can't change their "plan" itself (this I imagine is to keep the grandfathering straight, fairly standard stuff) but they CAN change their coverage. This is done by transfering to a new [potentially private] insurance plan (which can look a whole lot like the old one plus the desired changes, as long as it conforms to Subtitles B, C, and D ).
The thing about not being able to buy private insurance when leaving your job is also pure nonsense. Again you can purchase a new private policy, provided it "meet[s] standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections" (see Sec 101. ). Setting aside that there isn't anywhere else that says you can't purchase new private insurance, why would that qualification be in there if the government was the only one allowed to sell policies???
This is very basic regulatory stuff...and basic reading comprehension. I can't imagine how someone at IBD misread this accidentally and kept their job.
As for how you are being bamboozled when you have the opportunity to read it....well I guess you'll have to address that.
gingersue said
'The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.'
--------------------------
You make it sound like HSAs have been aroun for such a long time. Not the 6 years they have existed for.
But it simply isn't true that they will be outlawed by any of the bills filtering through the system. The ACP says so, there is no substantiated claim that HSAs will be outlawed. Indeed remember that HSAs are not health insurance per se. They are savings accounts, and as such not covered by the legislation.
IBD, a week later, then says..
"Last week we said the reform plan moving through the House essentially outlaws the private individual medical insurance market. Critics said we were being dishonest. But we're standing by our story.
When we received a copy of the House's 1,018-page health care reform legislation, it didn't take us long to find a passage that made us wince. On Page 16, the language indicated to us that once the bill became law, insurers would no longer be permitted to sell new private individual coverage. While we were expecting the worst out of this legislation, we really didn't anticipate anything quite so radical. Had we simply misread the bill?
Not fully trusting our own interpretation, we asked for confirmation from the House Ways and Means Committee. Sources there agreed: The bill would indeed shut down the individual private health care insurance market.
Our impression was further confirmed Monday when Rep. Dave Camp, the ranking member on Ways and Means, told us that "any existing plan will not be able to enroll members." There will be "a prohibition," the Michigan Republican said, "on enrolling individuals in private health plans" after the bill becomes law in 2013.
It was also confirmed by Ways and Means staff director Cybele Bjorklund, who, in response to questions from Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin during a committee markup session, admitted last week that insurance providers "cannot create new policies outside of that window outside of the exchange."
Many of those who have said we are wrong pointed to this health care exchange mentioned by Bjorklund as evidence.
But the exchange will not be a private market. It will be a program in which Americans can buy individual plans from private companies in competition with the "public option" provision of the bill that will provide taxpayer-subsidized coverage.
But that's only part of the story. The exchange will be a highly regulated clearinghouse of providers that meet the government's standards. Only those providers that follow Washington's stringent guidelines will be allowed to join this exclusive club.
The government, through an unelected health choices commissioner, will set premiums, dictate benefits, determine deductibles and establish coverage. Exchange participants will be required to insure anyone who asks to be covered and to accept all renewals. Ryan believes the weight of the mandates will mean only five or six providers will be able to survive and sell coverage in the exchange.
Anyone who wonders how such an exchange will operate need only look at Massachusetts, home to the only health coverage exchange in existence. The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner testified before the Kansas House in 2007 that "in practice, at least as demonstrated in Massachusetts," an exchange "can quickly devolve into a regulatory body."
In trying to prove the exchange will be a private market, the bill's own supporters actually prove our point. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., complains in a letter on the next page that last week's editorial is "factually incorrect and highly misleading" yet admits three paragraphs later that outside the exchange, providers "can't continue to market" existing "policies to new customers."
continued...
rest of IBD article...
""Waxman, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also claims the legislation "will create a transparent insurance marketplace," apparently unaware that government cannot create a market. The government can create coalitions of private companies, which are eventually co-opted by the state. And it has given itself the power to seize private companies, as with General Motors.
But it cannot fabricate a market. Anyone who thinks it can, does not know how markets work.
A true market is the sum of the voluntary choices of consumers and sellers acting on their own, free of government coercion. A market cannot be created or managed by one man or woman, or a team of bureaucrats, even with the help of a large staff by Washington standards working around the clock.
Anything that is primarily steered by the hand of the government rather than the price signals that free markets so efficiently process on a daily basis would be an agency of the state.
Perhaps most damning to the argument of those who say we are wrong about the House bill outlawing new individual private coverage is the creation of the exchange itself.
If getting coverage from the exchange is the same as buying insurance in the private market, then why do we need it? The authors of the bill could have kept the private option by doing nothing.
We are not alone in challenging the claim that the Democrats' health care reform will let everyone who likes their health care coverage keep it. Others are arriving at the same conclusion by looking at different provisions in the massive tome.""
Back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were no personal computers, mail surveys were the norm.
At Rodale Press, the firm of Don Bowdren & Associates was retained to do subscriber studies for Prevention and Organic Gardening & Farming magazines back in the 1970s. Using a mail survey with a $1 incentive and two follow-up mailings (consisting of a cover letter and additional copy of questionnaire, plus pre-addressed envelope with live postage), Bowdren was able to garner 80% returns. The big NY agencies wanted syndicated research, though, so Rodale subscribed to TGI (later Simmons) and surprise, surprise, the results were pretty much the same.
I wouldn't write off the mail survey, and I would suggest that a physician's motivation to comment on issues that will affect his/her livelihood and ability to fulfill the Hippocratic Oath (which happens to matter to a good many of them) is considerably higher than a newspaper reader's motivation to comment on this, that or the other.
Gingersue, I am not sure you are winning a lot of credibility for yourself by quoting verbatim from IBD, in the comments for a post showing just how bad an IBD/TiPP poll is. Whilst at the same time adding fuel for those of us who would wish to further discredit the poll.
LOL, gingersue.
Critics said we were being dishonest. But we're standing by our story.
... and doubling down on their dishonesty! :D
And you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. They are closing the "private market" in the sense that all private health insurance (as defined by the Health Act) will be sold to customers via the Federal Health Insurance Exchange (or potentially via a similar state-run exchange in the states that wish to set up an exchange, either by themselves or cooperating within a group of states running a single exchage).
You thought this meant that you had to buy a government insurance plan (I assume the IBD author wished to mislead you into believing).
This is what enables any corruption in elected officals, folks. Ignorance. You want to reduce corruption? Stop getting bamboozled and falling for the "governments are only out to get you" scam.
BTW Subtitle A, Sec 201-208 is the core of the stuff on the Exchanges. But don't look for the word "private" anywhere. That isn't the language being used here. :)
Dwight said.."You thought this meant that you had to buy a government insurance plan (I assume the IBD author wished to mislead you into believing).""
Dwight, clearly it IS a government insurance plan. A plan that is heavily regulated and no doubt very costly. After all, if you are forced to buy a policy from a company that must accept pre-existing conditions for that policy, you can safely bet that it will be expensive. By nature, it has to be. Now, there may be subsidies for low-income people, but for the rest of us, the reality is very costly. In addition, there will clearly be no a la carte menu pricing. You will be forced to buy a policy that covers dental, chiropractic, autism, even if you don't want such bells and whistles, thus driving up the cost.
So, again I repeat, if you quit your corporate job or you retire to Florida before 65, you will not be able to keep your policy as it is and the one you MAY be able to buy will be so heavily regulated that it will look nothing like the policy you have now and be much more expensive.
Dwight, clearly it IS a government insurance plan
No it is NOT. Again, read Subtitle A Section 201 through 208. The exchange is "government run" and there will be government insurance plan(s) provided there. But in large part it will be private plans (AKA contracts) bought and sold through it.
This is far more akin to the Security Exchange Commission and the selling of publicly traded private companies. The SEC oversees and regulates the sale to keep the fraud down to a dull roar. ;) But the shares and options that are bought and sold are private transactions!
Wayward Son,
That is so funny about suing Metro for 'not having enough trains and buses'. Anyone who lives or travels in DC, or who has only been a casual visitor, knows that you FIRST look to the subway for transportation, and only take the bus when you can't take the subway.
On September 12, Metro reports that there were 437,624 passenger trips taken on Metro (the subway). Not round-trips, but each leg of a trip.
So how does that compare with other Saturdays since Memorial Day?
May 30 - 357,884
June 6 - 452,464
June 13 - 461,696
June 20 - 384,648
June 27 - 418,691
July 4 - 631,206
July 11 - 398,455
July 18 - 410,085
July 25 - 380,939
August 1 - 364,241
August 8 - 354,662
August 15 - 337,070
August 22 - 293,200
August 29 - 303,997
September 5 - 300,963
So, of the 15 Saturdays after Memorial Day to the Saturday prior to the Tea Baggers' gathering on 9/12, three had larger numbers of trips taken on the subway (6-6, 6-13, 7-4); two had slightly smaller trips taken (6-27, 7-18), but still almost the same numbers as on 9-12; and 10 had a lower number of trips taken.
When you compare a Saturday to weekdays, the numbers pale. In the week prior to the Tea Baggers' 9-12 fantasy 'protest', the numbers were:
Monday (Labor Day) - 165,791
Tuesday - 692,263
Wednesday - 736,434
Thursday - 748,145
Friday - 724,754
And the average number of trips taken each day during calendar year 2009 (INCLUDING Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) is 620,106.
So for the Tea Baggers to complain about 'not enough transportation' is a ludicrous claim that should be thrown out of court in a New York minute.
Mike in Maryland
Gingersue is obviously perfectly happy to live in a country were insurance companies are free to yank coverage away from consumers based on fairly trivial pre existing conditions, or forcing families into bankruptcy by capping the amount of coverage it will pay for. Thats not an America I am proud of at all.
Or perhaps its just that Gingersue wants to defeat the President for purely partisan reasons, and doesn't care about the consequences on normal American's lives.
gingersue?
Did you read the bill itself, not an interpretation of the bill, especially an interpretation by someone who is against ANY reform?
Do you understand what the term 'grandfather' means in law? If not, look it up. Hint - In a legal sense, 'grandfathering' has nothing to do with genealogy.
I guess one of the next things you will be 'battling' will be the mandated government intrusion into our homes to make sure we aren't using incandescent light bulbs, but rather using CFLs? Even if that won't happen.
Mike in Maryland
WV - shedul - 'gingersue' is dull, as in 'has no intelligence'.
gingersue today in far fewer words...
As a fan of facts, logic and critical thinking skills, non sequitur.
shiloh,
Well, maybe so. I oftentimes wonder why it is that we cling to phony constructs, like the idea of a state, for example. In nature, national boundaries do not exist. The clouds don't check their passports at the border, animals do not avoid foreign airspace or worry if they are entering international waters or respect the IBC's rule against building anything on the border. Really, the only place the United States, Canada or Mexico exist is in our heads. Its not real, but we treat it as if it were so real it was worth fighting and dying over.
At the same time, real serious matters like people starving to death or epidemics of preventable diseases are things we treat as if they were abstractions. They're alot more real that the border between Israel and Palestine to the people who are actually starving or infected with them. But to the rest of us, we're not going to fight a war to end HIV or cancer, or hookworm or anemia, or malaria or malnutrition. The fact that 1/3 of all the people who die every year die from diarrheal diseases which could be prevented easily with ORT or by building a decent sanitation system is something we never think about. If they are discussed, there's never any money available to buy Yellow Fever vaccine for the Africans. But we've got lots of cash to buy bombs to drop on their heads!
We make fiction out of reality, and reality out of fiction. We fight wars over silly abstract concepts and ignore tangible matters of gravity.
Is politics a game to any of you out there reading this? Do you ever think of the actual pain you create when you treat it like that? Do you ever think about the corpses left behind after the dust settles on your little playing field?
gingersue wrote:
"But that's only part of the story. The exchange will be a highly regulated clearinghouse of providers that meet the government's standards. Only those providers that follow Washington's stringent guidelines will be allowed to join this exclusive club."
Ever bought a soda? Only those companies that meet the FDA's strict guidelines are allowed to market cans of soda. Notice how the government owns all of the soda companies and that Coke and Pepsi have been run out of business? Me neither.
It's like the government requiring seat belts in cars. At some point, they said that all new cars being made must have seat belts. That didn't outlaw making cars, gingersue. It meant that no new cars could be made unless they had seat belts. It meant that you could not buy new cars without seat belts, not that you could not buy a new car.
Likewise, all new private insurance plans will have to conform to the new regulations. You can keep your old plan that doesn't conform to the regulations, but when you leave your job and terminate coverage under your old non-conforming plan, then you will have to buy a new plan that complies with the new law.
You might want to find something valid to be terrified about.
In nature, national boundaries do not exist.
Sure they do. Dog from Pack A pisses on a tree. Dog from Pack B nears the tree and smells the urine. They knows that they face the options of:
1) turn around, or
2) proceed and potentially end up in a messy scrap with Pack A
We just use more straight lines and metaphorical urine to mark our boundaries. :)
Perhaps. However, even canids feed their own when they are starving. How do we treat our homeless?
It is a sad day when dogs are more civilized than men.
Statler N Waldorf said...
shiloh,
Is politics a game to any of you out there reading this? Do you ever think of the actual pain you create when you treat it like that? Do you ever think about the corpses left behind after the dust settles on your little playing field?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's the nature of the beast in today's 24/7 cable news media minutia. Look how fast "we" forgot about 9/11 as we continued to talk about Princess Di, OJ and Michael Jackson.
People move on w/their lives unless they are directly impacted by a horrific event ie the families of the victims.
And damn us bleeding heart liberals for caring about Darfur, Rwanda, Katrina, etc. and most importantly for protesting cheney/bush's you're either w/us or against us! bogus Iraq war.
"America, love it or leave it, but by all mean, don't you care about your fellow citizens" Rep party meme.
Pretty sure the religious evangelical right is beginning to see how Reps have fooled them over the past 20/30 years into advocating against god's teachings.
They are beginning to see the light!
@Statler, "I really don't give a damn if the Blue Team beats the Red Team wins."
I don't either. But, you are ignoring how politics works. The politicians do care. Congress-people run in packs and when they stray too far from the pack, they get attacked or ostracized by the pack. So, you can complain all you want, but this is how the system works.
Further, most politicians worry very much about whether they will be re-elected (or elected to another position) and so are very conscious of how important votes affect them. Only in movies and TV do you get the selfless types who will vote their conscience, damn the consequences.
Yes, there are scumbag Dems and dare I say scumbag Libertarians too ;)
Btw, since "we" have (2) PK's now, might be a good thing to refer to one as PaulK and the other PK.
Easier to mind one's p's and q's :)
shiloh,
Oh, don't just reserve your bile for the GOP. We have plenty of DINOs in our own party.
Explain to me how it is that the Democrats, and particularly party strategists like PK, can demand that gay men support them unerringly, when they consistently offer us Ronnie Musgrove or Charlie Melançon? These modern-day =George Wallaces have sworn they will not be out-faggoted. Then the DNC thinks us faggots will just sit there and take it. Like we're just mindless robots, an ATM machine with one arm, so we can pull the lever for you while your drain us for cash-and you never have to do a thing in return.
I reject this point of view. I reject the gamesmanship which leads PK and his ilk to 'win at all costs'. Pyrrhic victories are rarely worth the experience. Once your party has completely sold out its principles, you no longer stand for anything, and all your victories are hollow. The elections won should be but means to an end, as defined by your platform, your ideals. However, it appears those ideals are now the means to an end-they are just lies sold to us, the cost our donation money and our votes, and once those are bought, nothing tangible need be followed up upon. Power for the sake of power, an endless hunger that grows and grows, never satisfied, and never for any purpose greater than stuffing your already distended political bellies. What strange political creatures these are, these gamesmen. Lee Atwater, Karl Rover, Machiavelli-and now PK. To be in that company would repulse me, I would need to take a shower upon hearing it. However, for a strategist, it is an honor of untold measure.
Once you lose your principles, your purpose-what have you got to fight for? Mere continued existence? How empty that sounds.
Paul,
I find more and more in life, there are so many people who deride idealists, claiming to be realistic. These are usually guilt-ridden former idealists that sold their ideals out for cheap trinkets and trash. Political operatives who do thus are like dogs that actually catch the car bu,per-they've got it, but now what?
Its a bit of a Faustian bargain, is it not? What good does it do you to win the White House and majorities in both Houses, if you have nothing left to fight for, no principles to guide you, no real agenda beyond the next re-election cycle? You are not, as you claim, the only politicians that exist outside of Hollywood. Both Roosevelts fought for their ideals-why can't you? LBJ and JFK did too.
They all had something to fight for- whether it was the working class (FDR), the environment and breaking the corporate robber-barons (TR), desegregating the South (JFK) or extending JFK's vision to help the economically destitute re-invent themselves and rise above the rags they were given at birth (LBJ). They didn't just win the election and then sit there worried about the next one for the four years following. They got off their asses and stood for something. They had ideals, they were idealists.
What exactly do you stand for? If realism means you won the election and then couldn't do anything because you hadn't thought about anything past the election, then then I'd say those idealists you keep turning your nose up at have got you beat. You,re like George Bush charging into Baghdad-okay, you caught Saddam-now what?
Never mistake small-mindedness for realism. To view reality requires a very broad vision indeed
@Statler, "deride idealists, claiming to be realistic.".
I am not a former idealist, not guilt-ridden, but I am an engineer. So, like any engineer, I understand that some systems can be remolded to your likes - you need to understand how they work to make them work better.
Your type of Idealists are generally people who find a reason to be disappointed most of the time because what they see out of their eyes never matches the world they want to see.
My view is that changes will occur, but they will be harder and slower than we want. Turning a big ship takes a long time as there is a lot of inertia (resistance to change). But, that does not mean that change cannot occur. Many times it takes multiple steps to get there.
I think the thing that probably upsets you the most is how quickly Bush was able to do some pretty outrageous things; but, he used the leverage of fear. The problem with using fear is that it does not last and the aftereffects can take a long time to wear off.
So, I say you have to have some patience for one and you have to accept that not every voter voted for Obama and the Dems for the same reason: do not assume it was all for your agenda.
FDR manages to steer the ship of state using the leverage of hope. Remember hope? That thing we were promised in the campaign speeches?
Ever since Clinton, the Conventional Democratic Wisdom has been thus: court the Left, promise the minorities and women safe harbor, build an alliance of outcasts during your first run. Then, as soon as you win, look for a 'Sistah Souljah' moment- publicly assault your very own base to show the Center and the Right that you were just using those losers to get in, and you're really one of the cool kids. Make your second run nothing but a repudiation of everything you told everybody you were about in the first run, like how Clinton gutted AFDC and handed the gays DADT, and later, DOMA.
Its ugly. Its why the Left didn't trust Mrs Clinton. Its why we went for an unknown first term Senator who was only known for a nice speech 4 years earlier. Rather that than get kneecapped again.
And now, you've showed up, Paul. Right after election day, its like the 'realists, came onto the set, told all the 'idealists' "Thank you, you did a great job winning that election for us. You can go home now, and don,t bother coming back. Don't call us, we'll call you"
And you wonder why we're pissed. Further, you think that if you repeat the Clinton strategy, you'll win in 2010 the way you did in 1994... oh wait. You didn't win in '94, did you? You lost the House to gingrich and Co, and the Senate to Bob 'Viagra Man' Dole. hey, great work, realists, I guess you really knew your shit.
But you just shake your heads and look down at us like a bunch of naive children. Poor, silly idealists. After all, nobody can lose control of Congress the way you can, right Mr Realist?
The electorate doesn't want your slow-moving, ambivalent and half-assed approach. The electorate wants hope and change. And they don't want to be shortchanged. We voted for hope, and goddamn it, you had better deliver us some hope, or I swear to god, you will lose our support, and you cannot win without us.
Do you want Gingrich to come back? Then shut the fuck up and hand us back the reins you stole from us the day after the election. We're driving this cab, not you.
@Statler, whoa - calm down!
The hard truth in politics is that the electorate does not agree on much of anything. We have a big spectrum of views across social issues, fiscal issues, international, etc. You seem to feel that your view is the one shared by most, but I am afraid that is not true. You are as far off that mark as Bart DePalma is (in the other direction).
So, when you are told to be patient, that is because society changes slowly and attitudes change slowly. Gay rights are improving, but it is not instant. Yet, we are a long way from Anita Bryant and certainly from Police raiding bars in NY.
Clinton accomplished a lot by being a moderate. As you probably remember Newt got his when he started playing power politics too hard and the Country noticed. It is a delicate balance. As I said, if politicians push too hard too fast (except in safe seats), they get ejected by the voters. Whether you accept or you don't (and you obviously don't), politicians move only as fast as the voters will let them.
Did you just say we've come along way from the days when cops were raiding gay bars?
In Dallas and Atlanta, cops beat gay patrons senseless and arrested them, hauling them off in handcuffs within the past few months. In both cases, it was later shown the police had acted without evidence or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity-they just wanted to beat up a few faggots.
You really don't have much of a clue what goes on with the GLBT community, do you?
You say there's no Anita Bryant-what do you call Fred Phelps?
Do you know anything at all about the GLBT civil rights situation, or do you just make shit up to make your argument sound nice?
In the US, it is still legal to fire someone or deny them housing based on sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation. The 'gay panic' defense-where someone on trial for murder or assault claims the victim hit on him, causing the perpetrator to black out with rage-is still used, and it still works. In New York, which you think is some kind of safe haven for us, there is a state law that prevents police officers from intervening in domestic violence situations between gay and lesbian partners.
hey Paul, do you know anything at all about what we have to deal with? And you want patience? We're getting murdered, fired arbitrarily, and tossed out of our homes, and you're saying we have nothing to complain about?
Fuck you. You ignorant asshole.
Listen, whatever it is you engineer-whether its civil engineering or designing jets or what have you-stay out of politics. because politics isn't engineering. Politics is people, human lives, not machines. You break a machine, you can rebuild it. How are you going to rebuild the GLBT people who get killed every year from hate crimes? How are you going to repair the lives torn apart because, in this time of recession when there are few jobs to be had, we have to watch our asses and hope nobody at work finds out?
There are two kinds of idiot. One is the kind of idiot that realizes he's an idiot-I probably fall into this category much of the time. At least this kind of idiot is willing to listen, and admit he doesn't know something instead of making bullshit up and hoping nobody notices.
Then, there's the idiot 6that thinks he's a genius. this idiot won,t listen, is convinced he,s smarter than everybody else, they're naive and he's the wizened realist. this is the most dangerous kind of idiot. This is George Bush. This, is you, Paul.
Statler ...
1932 FDR beat Hoover 427/59 ~ 57.4% to 39.7%
Political map of America.
Unemployment was 23.6%
The Dems controlled congress: 313 to 117 ~ the senate: 60/35
1936 Dems controlled congress: 334/88 ~ the senate: 76/17
as FDR won again 523/8 ~ 60.8 to 36.5%
as dubya would say, FDR had political capital!
carry on
@Statler, I feel sorry for you - you are showing the same level of emotional response as the Tea Bag crowd. Makes for exciting TV, but is not what advances society.
People are discriminated all over the country. There are antiquated laws all over the country. Things change slowly. Many minorities still experience serious discrimination - what are you doing about that?
14 States have protection from discrimination against GLB people, but only a few specifically for T (including my State, CA). Would it better if there were Fed laws? Of course. The CRA will get amended, it just takes time. Why? Because the older racists, homophones, sexists, etc die out and are replaced by more moderate and reasonable people, and then they change.
You can rail all you want. I am not the enemy. You need to realize that there are a lot of people out there that hate you, that hate African Americans, that hate Latinos, that hate Jews, that hate Muslims, etc. Why? I do not know. They do not know you. But, they are small minded. Many couch it in religion, but it is just as ugly no matter what they claim the cause. But, they become a smaller and smaller group. However, if you agitate too much too fast, you rally them. A lot of people blame Gavin Newsom for all of the DOMA type laws passing because he pushed too fast too soon. May well be true.
after the 1936 elections the Dems controlled congress:
FDR ruled the U.S. political universe and Reps weren't part of the discussion as they couldn't even say No! back then lol.
Brucestrav wrote: "I spoke to three doctors in the San Fernando Valley in the last two weeks. One of which runs a six doctor practice with 50% Medicare patients.
All three doctors said they will either retire or go entirely private if this passes in anything like the forms which have been proposed. All of them want 'reform' but none of them seemed think that the crap Waxman wrote up would fix anything and adding another gov program would just kill off the only entities which DO pay them for services."
Well, my wife and I are young doctors just starting our practices. Please post the names of your physician friends and we'll happily take on their patient loads. We'll be happy to have the business.
In the meantime, please let everyone else get away from anecdotes and back to, you know, facts and stuff.
Yes, but there were Third Party candidates back in those days that captured a significant percentage of the electorate. Note that FDR's numbers and Hoover's don't add up to 100%. Now, was there any Third Party candidate in 2008 that captured a significant percentage of the electorate? There was not, and I would argue that, had there been, McCain-Palin would have lost as badly as Hoover-Curtis.
Hey, did you know Herbert Hoover was an engineer too? Just like Paul! Those engineers sure know alot about politics, huh? I'll bet if we elect Paul, we could have ourselves another stock market crash just like 1929. Hey Paul, come on, run for office so we can really screw the country up.
I digress. Pelosi's lead in the House is such that over 50 Democrats could fall off the wagon and we'd still win. In the Senate, we control the same number of seats they did in '32-and there were fewer total seats in the Senate back then, because neither Hawaii nor Alaska had achieved statehood yet. Discounting those four votes, the situation in the Senate today is exactly 2 Senators short of what it was in '32 was exactly one seat different than it is now.
Unenjoyment is at 10% and climbing. Not quite 23%, and hopefully it won't get to 23%.
You cannot claim that FDR had a significant advantage over Obama on the basis of re-election just yet, because, as we are frequently reminded, Obama's only been in office for 8 months.
Obama has close to the same amount of political capital FDR did, by the numbers. In the Senate, roughly parallel. In the House, not even close, but still strong enough to ram through legislation. The unenjoyment situation will actually work against Obama if it gets worse at this point, and improve his chances if it gets better, so I don't think we can realistically look at those numbers and make a reasonable comparison between the two administrations on that basis.
While Hoover destroyed the economy-and you could realistically say the rot that led to the collapse actually began under Coolidge, much as Greenspan's Bubble actually started during the twilight years of the Clinton Administration- Bush managed to destroy New Orleans, get us embroiled in not one but two unpopular wars, alienated the gay and Latino populations completely, and invaded US citizens' privacy on levels that would have made Stalin flinch. He bugged citizen's phones and read their mail just like Stalin and they also built a wall along their border, and both men sent people off to gulags to die-which is worse than anything Hoover did.
You could say that BHO's political capital, quantitatively assessed, is comparable if not slightly less than FDR's. Qualitatively, the political capital gained from his opponent party,s mistakes-from his predecessor's mistakes and the mistakes of those currently in Congress as the opposition party-are such that he probably holds a slight lead on FDR.
What he lacks, and FDR did not lack, is the understanding of what to do with that political capital. I think this is partly a function of his choice to surround himself with Clinton era advisers, all of whom seem hell-bent on repeating Clinton's mistakes. Further, he seems to lack nerve, and noticeably so. FDR's reaction to the Glenn Beck of his day was to pretend that Father Coughlin did not exist-he certainly never took marching orders from him. And yet, BHO fires his staff and distances himself from supporters whom beck smears. Further, whereas he should have learned from Clinton that healthcare reform has to happen very quickly if it is to happen at all, he has instead allowed obstructionists to delay things, allowing the Right to find the newest version of Harry and Louise. He should have written the bill himself before even mentioning it, kept everything hush hush right up until the magic moment, waltzed into a joint session of Congress and started handing out copies, announcing it at that moment, and suggesting that Congress reconvene in a few weeks to allow them time to read it, but not so much time that the insurance companies could react.
Why didn't he? because he listens to Rahm Emmanuel and engineers, that's why.
He lacks moxie, basically. He has sufficient numbers, he has, qualitatively, all the political capital he needs. he just has no idea what to do with it.
Paul,
I don't want your pity. In fact, I would rather like to show you personally where you can shove that pity.
You are exhibiting the exact sort of behavior that alienates Democrats from their constituents-usually, right before a major Democratic electoral loss. That,s what happens when you feed on your own kind-they get sick of your shit and stop supporting you. The donations dry up, they don't even bother to come to the polls-and who do you have to blame then?
Now, even in the lowest levels of retail, they teach you that the customer is always right. even when they're wrong. Because, the customer is not obligated to buy what you have to sell, and if you want them to come back, you had better kiss their ass. Maybe they didn't teach you that in engineering school. Anyway, in politics, it's also true. I don't owe you my vote-so stop acting like you own it.
Now, when LBJ pushed the Civil rights Act through, the majority of the country was virulently racist. There are all kinds of ugly pictures of little girls being yelled at by angry white mobs as they are guarded by US Marshalls on their way to school. Those mobs hated those little girls, too. But LBJ wasn't going to cower before the likes of George Wallace or Earl Faubus. In fact, he called George Wallace to the White House-and told him he could chose between racism and the Democratic Party-he could have one, but not both.
It didn't take time-it took balls.
Statler, you may also want to note that FDR got 57% in '32 and 60% in '36 ie not close regardless of 3rd party candidates.
and there was no ad nauseam cable news media minutia back then distorting reality 24/7 for their own agenda. Totally different nowadays as many Americans still aren't that bright, but are now easily led by the fixednoise pied pipers ...
birthers, birchers, deathers, tenthers, secessionists ie every conservative radical minority can get their (15)+ minutes on fixed nowadays.
take care
shiloh,
Its kind of hard to set an effect modifier for the 24/7 news cycle compared to the news media of the day in '32.
I say that because, there were fewer news outlets in '32, and therefore, each one was invested with more trust than the current media situation. further, it was easier to corner the media market back then- people like Hearst controlled a significant portion of the news media in multiple cities much the way that Clear Channel does today, only there was more trust in what hearst was trying to sell.
Then, news reporters had a great deal of respect in society. Even now, the reporters of that era's names are legendary. I have no idea what Edward R Murrow looked like, and I was born long after he was dead-but I know who he was and what he did. Today, the only news 'journalist' anybody trusts is Jon Stewart-a comedian. There are no Edward R Murrows today. people expect the media to lie to them. So, when Father Coughlin got in front of the mike, he had alot more of the public trust than Glenn Beck does.
Therefore, its hard to say the 24 hour news cycle is a handicap for BHO, because while the 24 news cycle distorts 27/7, it also dulls the public sense that it is reliable.
After all, just six years later, Orson Welles managed to convince the majority of Americans that Martians were invading New Jersey. Now, I'm sure a poll of New Yorkers would reveal quite a few think that the Martians did in fact invade Jersey, and now their decedents are invading via the Bridge and Tunnel. All kidding aside, if you're willing to believe the voice on the radio that we're getting invaded by little green men, its safe to say you really trust the media in ways nobody does now.
Dwight said..""No it is NOT. Again, read Subtitle A Section 201 through 208. The exchange is "government run" and there will be government insurance plan(s) provided there. But in large part it will be private plans (AKA contracts) bought and sold through it.""
Are we talking about the same bill? IIRC, The 1,018 page bill in the house doesn't have these "exchanges". It just has the "public option" government plan competing against heavily regulated private insurance plans. The Senate plan, the one with "exchanges" doesn't have a "public option" government plan that the private insurers have to compete with. Perhaps that's the one you are referring to.
Todd Dugdale wrote..""Ever bought a soda? Only those companies that meet the FDA's strict guidelines are allowed to market cans of soda. Notice how the government owns all of the soda companies and that Coke and Pepsi have been run out of business? Me neither.""
Ahem. Logical fallacy. The government is not in the soda business with a printing press that can subsidize unlimited losses that will ultimately wipe out all private competitors in the soda industry. Come now, you liberals can argue better than this, can't you? This is too easy.
It's like the government requiring seat belts in cars. At some point, they said that all new cars being made must have seat belts. That didn't outlaw making cars, gingersue. It meant that no new cars could be made unless they had seat belts. It meant that you could not buy new cars without seat belts, not that you could not buy a new car.
Likewise, all new private insurance plans will have to conform to the new regulations. You can keep your old plan that doesn't conform to the regulations, but when you leave your job and terminate coverage under your old non-conforming plan, then you will have to buy a new plan that complies with the new law.
You might want to find something valid to be terrified about.
Todd Dugdale wrote.."It's like the government requiring seat belts in cars. At some point, they said that all new cars being made must have seat belts. That didn't outlaw making cars, gingersue. It meant that no new cars could be made unless they had seat belts. It meant that you could not buy new cars without seat belts, not that you could not buy a new car.
Likewise, all new private insurance plans will have to conform to the new regulations. You can keep your old plan that doesn't conform to the regulations, but when you leave your job and terminate coverage under your old non-conforming plan, then you will have to buy a new plan that complies with the new law.
You might want to find something valid to be terrified about.""
Another logical fallacy. If I sell my car that doesn't have seat belts, the government will not allow me to buy another car that is on the private market that also doesn't have seat belts. That is heavy-handed government intrusion in the free marketplace, pure, plain and simple. It's a shame that liberals have such blind faith all things government.
shiloh said.."Statler, you may also want to note that FDR got 57% in '32 and 60% in '36 ie not close regardless of 3rd party candidates.and there was no ad nauseam cable news media minutia back then distorting reality 24/7 for their own agenda. Totally different nowadays as many Americans still aren't that bright, but are now easily led by the fixednoise pied pipers ..""
Ha! Too funny. Right back on you with the distortion of reality. Facts are that FDR locked up 75,000 American citizens! In concentration camps and far from home. And then to top that off, another Democrat President, Truman, dropped not one but two! nuclear bombs on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, killing them all. These evil acts are now swept under the rug by Democrats. But us old people with gray hair will never forget them.
Statler N Waldorf said...
Did you just say we've come along way from the days when cops were raiding gay bars?
In Dallas and Atlanta, cops beat gay patrons senseless and arrested them, hauling them off in handcuffs within the past few months. In both cases, it was later shown the police had acted without evidence or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity-they just wanted to beat up a few faggots.
On orders of City Hall and/or the Police Commissioner? Just like what happened until the 1969 Stonewall riots?
No.
It was some asshat individual police officers who decided to do it without orders from above - the police in the incidents you cite 'did it for kicks' and for no other reason.
You really don't have much of a clue what goes on with the GLBT community, do you?
It's apparent that you want what you want, you want it NOW, and you don't give a shit what needs to happen to get from here to there.
You cannot change an overwhelming opinion 180 degrees overnight. It takes time, and lots of work.
In the 1960s and 1970s, it was not uncommon to hear people make scathing remarks about G/L/B/T people. Not in private conversation, but out in the open. It was a very unusual employer who didn't fire any employee they suspected for being a member of the GLBT community. It took lots of work that, because you are so young, and it's horribly obvious that you didn't study history, you don't recognize or acknowledge the hard and difficult work that was done during the 1970s through current to get us where we are today - light years beyond, for example, City Hall and/or the Police Commissioner ordering a raid "on the fag bar".
Does more work need to be done? Hell yes. There are still people who are not ashamed to spout anti-GLBT opinions in the open.
The difference now is that those who do are considered to part of the fringe, not main stream, politically. That was NOT the case until the late 1970s, early 1980s.
Just like Civil Rights. The Constitution was amended in the 1860s to outlaw slavery (13th Amendment, 1865); equal protection under the law (14th Amendment, 1868); and the right of all citizens to be eligible to vote (15th Amendment, 1870).
So why was it necessary for the NAACP to be established in 1909? Why was it necessary for President Truman to ORDER the military to desegregate in 1948? Why was it necessary for the Supreme Court to rule for Brown in 1954 when he sued the Board of Education on the separate but equal principal? Why was it necessary to pass civil rights acts in 1870, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1991?
All of the above, and more, was because of inertia of public opinion, and the battle to change it. And racial discrimination is not nearly as easily defensible 'from a biblical' perspective as the rights of GLBTs.
Yes, you and I want basically the same - the same rights for GLBTs that other citizens in the US have. The difference is that I realize that some things can't be done at the snap of the fingers, but sometimes years, or even decades, of groundwork need to be done to change the political climate.
Saying that changing the public's perception on many subjects (especially subjects such as discrimination) is like changing the course of a supertanker is not an apt analogy. It's more like changing the course of an Antarctic iceberg - it takes a tremendous amount of energy and a long time to get that iceberg to change course, and even then, it's not much of a course change for a long, long time.
Mike in Maryland
gingersue said...
yada, yada, yada
Believe me when I tell you one does not want to get into a good and bad comparison of the (2) major political parties re: the last (100) years. FDR violated the constitutional rights of Japanese/Americans and the U.S. govt. has since apologized and made reparations, which begs the question, how can the the U.S. govt. make up for (300) years of African/American slavery ie never in a gazillion years could there be proper restitution, eh
Truman ended the Japan war sooner and saved American lives by using the h. bombs ie provide for the common defense.
And you are too funny also as you are a Rep tool who would never in a gazillion years say something nice or truthful about Obama or the Dem party. 100% total negativity as you fit quite nicely into the dwindling party of No! Enjoy!
btw, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1862 ...
ginger, if you are looking for Nirvana that ended when Eve and Adam ate the apple, but by all means enjoy your future discourse at 538!
btw, speaking of Nirvana ;) please tell us how you enjoyed the previous (2) term administration, yea the one which started office w/the (2) WTC towers still upright and functional.
happy trails ginger
Nate, I think if you look at polls of doctors that ask if they are considering early retirement, there is always a large percentage that say yes. Having a high stress and high paying job will almost guaranty that a large number will consider leaving early.
Wonder how these same docs would have answered if the pollsters bothered to ask if they agreed with the President for the need of more primary care physicians or do you agree that the uninsured should have affordable care, and so on. I can hardly see the value in a three question poll where one has a standard answer and on is so biased that even supporters of the president would be inclined to answer negatively.
@gingersue, "Likewise, all new private insurance plans will have to conform to the new regulations. "
Do you have a point? It is like being outraged that milk producers cannot have Salmonella in their milk, or that cars cannot blow up. Having regulations on Health Insurance that makes them not violate laws and decency is not a bad thing and not something to be scared of.
If you are scared that they will not be able to cancel your insurance when you have a major illness because they "discover" you had acne as a pre-existing condition, there is something wrong with you. The Health Insurance industry is out of control and has lost its way. They need better regulation to stop their abuses. They will still be able to make good money, but not by saving money through letting people die. If you do not realize the system has serious problems, it is time to come out of the cave.
People will be able to keep the same insurance they have. But, do not fool yourself - you do not have the same insurance this year that you did two years ago. Every major insurance company tinkers with the plan and policy yearly (or more often), all to make more profit. They find new creative ways to collect more premiums and pay less out. So, saying that the plan may change scares you means you must live in constant fear.
Gingersue?
Did you know that during the 19th century, New York City had a series of devastating fires that spread through large portions of the city because most of the structures were constructed of wood? In 1899, the city building code was modified to prohibit the building of new structures out of wood within a 'fire line' in parts of the city.
Why?
1. It was an attempt to prevent more devastating fires from occurring; and
2. Areas outside the 'fire line' were those areas that were inhabited with 'less desirables' (Harlem, for example, or those areas inhabited by Southern and Eastern Europeans).
When those new building codes went into effect, though, any wooden structure within the 'fire lines' were allowed to remain, only to be replaced by non-wooden structures if/when NEW construction took place on that piece of ground - in other words, the existing wooden structures were grandfathered in.
The same with the current insurance policies. They are allowed to remain, and current policy holders will be allowed to keep those policies IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THE POLICIES, and as long as those policies don't change.
If you want to keep your delusional thought process and corrupt political philosophy, though, you are free to do so. Just don't think that you can spread your propaganda here at 538.com and not get challenged when what you post is filled with half-truths or outright lies. There are many commenters here who are quite intelligent, who can see the half-truths and lies that right-wingers post, and they will not be shy on calling you out on them.
Mike in Maryland
Wow so Gingersue is not only happy to push people into bankruptcy through legal insurance malpractice but she is happy for car manufacturers to make unsafe, dangerous cars that threaten not only the drivers, but those outside of the car as well. Unbelievable.
Gingersue: WTF?
[requiring seatbelts] is heavy-handed government intrusion in the free marketplace, pure, plain and simple.
"Heavy-handed?" Seatbelts literally save thousands of people's lives every year; men, women and children, and most especially the young. This was proven statistically by comparison of accidents over decades when seatbelts were an option on many cars.
It's a shame that liberals have such blind faith all things government.
It is more of a pity that someone like you can be so ideologically driven by an idea that is disproven time and time again (free markets) that they still cannot see how morally and socially bankrupt their ideology is. We liberals are not blind, and do not have blind faith in anything, much less politicians and government. We liberals are evidence-based thinkers, not unthinking drones parroting some simple-minded Econ 101 professor about "free markets."
As a result, we do not sacrifice the lives of children and teenagers to some idiotic belief system in which sociopathic corporations rule the world.
Free markets have failed in every instance they have ever been implemented; every great world depression is a result of corruption and lack of regulation, and every great social advance in this country is a result of "heavy handed government intrusion" that outlawed exploitation, discrimination, oppression, usually resisted because it was making people money.
I have very little faith in government, but zero faith in "free markets" and corporations. It is the job of the government to protect the weak from the strong and enforce fair play.
Those that think there is no role for government to play in business have a bankrupt view of the world, they are willing to endorse human misery, privation, and the slaughter of children on the altar of profit no matter what the human cost. They are selfish, self-centered, ignorant, inhuman and hateful people that should be shunned and derided like the diseased minds they are.
Post a Comment