What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
Of course they are. Nobody's going to maintain 70% approval ratings throughout their Presidency. If that's the standard, no President would have ever been re-elected except for maybe Washington since he did win unanimously back in the day
Click to expand...

He wasn't truly "unanimous." (Edit: okay, he was in the EC.) In 1789 the Federalists took 92% of the popular vote. In 1792 they took 71%.


1789 candidates:

George Washington
Edward Telfair
John Rutledge
John Milton
Benjamin Lincoln
John Jay
Samuel Huntington
Robert H. Harison
George Clinton
James Armstrong
John Adams

1792 candidates:

George Washington
John Adams
George Clinton
Thomas Jefferson
Aaron Burr

The real race was for Veep, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Today's poll has bho 'unfav' back up to -4, and the bounce on the hc is gone. Approve is no longer >50%, back down to pre TelePrompTer 45%
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Kepler said:
He wasn't truly "unanimous." (Edit: okay, he was in the EC.) In 1789 the Federalists took 92% of the popular vote. In 1792 they took 71%.


1789 candidates:

George Washington
Edward Telfair
John Rutledge
John Milton
Benjamin Lincoln
John Jay
Samuel Huntington
Robert H. Harison
George Clinton
James Armstrong
John Adams

1792 candidates:

George Washington
John Adams
George Clinton
Thomas Jefferson
Aaron Burr

The real race was for Veep, though.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense, as I seriously doubted John Adams would contest Washington for re-election with anything I've ever read, but back in the day the top 2 finishers became President and VP (hence the odd Adams-Jefferson pairing).

I still think ACORN might have had something to do with the results, and I'd expect a full investigation from Patman at any moment. :cool:

Mookie - Of course he "fixed" his numbers. Can you imagine how many nasty e-mails the dude got from the righties after he dared to show Obama's popularity improving :eek: (a phenomenon also seen in Pew, Gallup, CNN, Washington Post, etc).
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Kepler said:
He wasn't truly "unanimous." (Edit: okay, he was in the EC.) In 1789 the Federalists took 92% of the popular vote. In 1792 they took 71%.


1789 candidates:

George Washington
Edward Telfair
John Rutledge
John Milton
Benjamin Lincoln
John Jay
Samuel Huntington
Robert H. Harison
George Clinton
James Armstrong
John Adams

1792 candidates:

George Washington
John Adams
George Clinton
Thomas Jefferson
Aaron Burr

The real race was for Veep, though.
Click to expand...
The Funk really takes you back, doesn't it?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Well why then would he improve the unfav number?!?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
The Funk really takes you back, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

:D

Mookie - what a sport. Everybody else has Obama low 50s positive to 40 negative, a net approval of double digits, yet your pal has him -4. I thought something was fishy when the "Democrats" he polled were all in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. :eek:
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
Everybody else has Obama low 50s positive to 40 negative, a net approval of double digits, yet your pal has him -4. I thought something was fishy when the "Democrats" he polled were all in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. :eek:
Click to expand...

Rasmussen has a different polling methodology than the other majors but the fact that his numbers tend to skew to the Republicans is not prima facie proof that he's biased -- just that he's got a different view. In 2008 he was the closest of the majors to the actuals. The only questionable thing about his group is it takes money from candidates (of both parties, IINM) to do special polling and you can imagine a conflict of interest if that bleeds over into advocacy, but I don't know of any direct evidence that it has.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Kepler said:
He wasn't truly "unanimous." (Edit: okay, he was in the EC.) In 1789 the Federalists took 92% of the popular vote. In 1792 they took 71%.
Click to expand...

To what extent did they even have popular vote then? I remember alot of states choosing the electors via legislature.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

French Rage said:
To what extent did they even have popular vote then? I remember alot of states choosing the electors via legislature.
Click to expand...
Great question. This doesn't answer it, but is interesting. More on the popular vote, here.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Peeps in the industry (pols and newsies) like his output. I typed before russert was a big fan. And like it reads below, pols on both sides buy his work because he has a good rep.

If that changes and peeps stop paying him for work, you may have something... But don't throw out crappy nyt polls of 'americans', because that doesn't get one elected
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Live with what?!?

I read this and don't see how it helps me (or you).


Rover,
Be a sport and dumb it down for me. Thanks :p
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

You really were a CGS student at BU, weren't you? ;)

How it helps is it cuts healthcare costs which will bankrupt the country if not addressed. It also pays for itself.

In summary: everybody has to get insurance. Medicaid expanded for poor people above 133% of poverty line. High priced medical plans taxed, savings squeezed out of system to pay for the rest. No denial for pre-existing conditions. Health care co-op set up in states.

Basically its a moderate alternative to some of the more expansive plans we've seen passed by some other committees.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
You really were a CGS student at BU, weren't you? ;)

How it helps is it cuts healthcare costs which will bankrupt the country if not addressed. It also pays for itself.

In summary: everybody has to get insurance. Medicaid expanded for poor people above 133% of poverty line. High priced medical plans taxed, savings squeezed out of system to pay for the rest. No denial for pre-existing conditions. Health care co-op set up in states.

Basically its a moderate alternative to some of the more expansive plans we've seen passed by some other committees.
Click to expand...
SOunds like it has many components of the failing Mass plan that everyone loves so much unless they live here.

If there is no provision for increasing Primary providers we are all screwed and I am going to go be a florist cos there aren't enough to care for the mandated insured.

Feeling cynical today.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
You really were a CGS student at BU, weren't you? ;)

How it helps is it cuts healthcare costs which will bankrupt the country if not addressed. It also pays for itself.

In summary: everybody has to get insurance. Medicaid expanded for poor people above 133% of poverty line. High priced medical plans taxed, savings squeezed out of system to pay for the rest. No denial for pre-existing conditions. Health care co-op set up in states.

Basically its a moderate alternative to some of the more expansive plans we've seen passed by some other committees.
Click to expand...

I am going to assume that your summary is accurate since I don't have the time right now to read any in-depth article or the actual bill.

I still don't think this plan will cut costs. At least not for me and anyone else that has decent health insurance.

Every US citizen must have insurance is a plus. But there will still be huge amounts of uncovered people (too lazy or cheap to get insurance, or illegals, etc.) that Hospitals will have to absorb the cost of. So while that's an improvement but not a great one cost wise.

Medicaid expanding is bad. Period. Just what we need to more unproductive people collecting off the taxpayers.

High price plans being taxed is not good either. Like those insurance companies won't just raise rates to compensate for it. Or if they are too expensive then the people that have them will be forced into plans that have worse coverage. Less money usually equals less benefits.

While I think that the pre-existing condition clause could be good. It probably won't be. It just says they can't be denied coverage, nothing about the cost or what type of coverage they get.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
You really were a CGS student at BU, weren't you? ;)

How it helps is it cuts healthcare costs which will bankrupt the country if not addressed. It also pays for itself.

In summary: everybody has to get insurance. Medicaid expanded for poor people above 133% of poverty line. High priced medical plans taxed, savings squeezed out of system to pay for the rest. No denial for pre-existing conditions. Health care co-op set up in states.

Basically its a moderate alternative to some of the more expansive plans we've seen passed by some other committees.
Click to expand...
Well I guess this is different, so there's your "change," and the fact that they can't identify where the savings will come from would be your "hope."

We certainly are getting what we voted for! :D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

LynahFan said:
Well I guess this is different, so there's your "change," and the fact that they can't identify where the savings will come from would be your "hope."

We certainly are getting what we voted for! :D
Click to expand...

Here's the thing. You're unusual in that you're both vociferously attacking Obama's plan and you appear to be, for the most part, sane and of good will. So, sincerely, what do you think the biggest problems with health coverage are and how would you solve them?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Kepler said:
Here's the thing. You're unusual in that you're both vociferously attacking Obama's plan and you appear to be, for the most part, sane and of good will. So, sincerely, what do you think the biggest problems with health coverage are and how would you solve them?
Click to expand...

Question: If the fine is $3,800 for not having health care, does this set the floor for a health plan premium?

Would some companies be willing to pay the fine rather than pay for employees' health insurance?

I'm not saying that this is ideal, but what if everyone bought into this???? US/company pays 75% (max - there is a $$ threshold) of the premium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top