AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

ican doesn't understand the underlying reasons why polls are against the current legislation now being written on health care. Most Americans want reform, but they don't want a health plan that's going to increase the deficit. Most people believe that our government has no control over spending, and most are afraid of the increasing deficit that seems to grow by big numbers as our government approves all spending without any controls.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
Part III, Chapter II
It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn ... It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.

old europe wrote:

On the other hand, if we're talking about other Rasmussen polls before the last election and outside of election polling, that wouldn't change my objections: if Rasmussen's results outside of election polling are really consistently outside of the mainstream, why then isn't this the case for his election polling - and why are people trying to use his election polling, which is mostly consistent with the mainstream, to show that his other polls are not biased?

I think it's just cherry picking to reach a conclusion they've already decided to reach. I don't think at all that their qualms were with just a subset of polls till the data shows that the election stuff is more accurate than most pollsters.

I haven't seen many, if any, polls asking questions about issues on this thread:

1. Do you want single payer or a free market system?
2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?
3. Do you want Congress to relax regulation so that healthcare insurers and providers can better compete across state lines?
4. Do you want the government to require every citizen to have healthcare insurance?
5. Do you want clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable language in the bill to ensure that there will be no government funding of elective abortions, non essential elective medical procedures, etc.?
6. Do you want clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable language in the bill to ensure that there will be no government funding of healthcare for illegals other than that constituting emergency humanitarian necessity?
7. Do you want assurance that a government option will under no circumstances compete with private insurance, will not increase costs, will not increase deficits, and will not become another intractable entitlement?

I suspect a public poll of such questions would be a good eye opener.

old europe wrote:

On the other hand, if we're talking about other Rasmussen polls before the last election and outside of election polling, that wouldn't change my objections: if Rasmussen's results outside of election polling are really consistently outside of the mainstream, why then isn't this the case for his election polling - and why are people trying to use his election polling, which is mostly consistent with the mainstream, to show that his other polls are not biased?

I think it's just cherry picking to reach a conclusion they've already decided to reach. I don't think at all that their qualms were with just a subset of polls till the data shows that the election stuff is more accurate than most pollsters.

Biased or not, they are all components that go into those approval/disapproval numbers that you so object to in Rasmussen polls. They are all components of what the tea partiers and taxpayer protest marchers are angry about.

Until there is a national debate on these specific issues, we will not--repeat will not--have the approval of a majority of people who will have to live with whatever Congress and the President come up with.

How would you answer each question?
I are fairly sure that my answers on most questions would be quite a bit different, but if we agreed on most, then Obama is in even more trouble than I realized.

Several of your questions are clearly designed to produce the answer you wish. And I believe this is exactly the behavior that Ras engages in

Also, while just 36 percent believe Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, that number increases to 53 percent when respondents were read a paragraph describing Obama’s plans.

Foxfyre wrote:

Biased or not, they are all components that go into those approval/disapproval numbers that you so object to in Rasmussen polls. They are all components of what the tea partiers and taxpayer protest marchers are angry about.

Until there is a national debate on these specific issues, we will not--repeat will not--have the approval of a majority of people who will have to live with whatever Congress and the President come up with.

Right now, Obama's approval numbers are at 50% or above across every major pollster, including Rasmussen - though they are the lowest, of course. SO, despite your protests, it seems that Obama does in fact still enjoy approval by the majority. Your claim is not backed up by the data.

Quote:

How would you answer each question?
I are fairly sure that my answers on most questions would be quite a bit different, but if we agreed on most, then Obama is in even more trouble than I realized.

Only 2 or 3 of the questions are valid questions, the rest are just your way of stating your position as a question.

Cycloptichorn

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

Well, you broke the topic down into unproven assumptions. Here:

Quote:

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

You're essentially stating, as a fact, that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. It's fine if that's your opinion, but I doubt you'll be able to provide solid evidence for it. ican tried to use Texas as an example, and the data he provided so far shows that insurance premiums actually went up after tort reform has been instituted.

If you want to get answers after people know the extent of cost of malpractice suits, you'd get different results. Here:

Medical malpractice suits account for up to 2% of all health insurance costs.* Do you think that tort reform will bring down health insurance premiums?


* I've taken the number from the article ican linked to in this post.

I am stating nothing of the sort. It is an opinion poll. Is that what you do or do not want Congress to do?

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

... As for the insurers, you would think preventing chronic diseases would be good business, but, at least under the current rules, it’s much better business simply to keep patients at risk for chronic disease out of your pool of customers, whether through lifetime caps on coverage or rules against pre-existing conditions or by figuring out ways to toss patients overboard when they become ill.

But these rules may well be about to change " and, when it comes to reforming the American diet and food system, that step alone could be a game changer. Even under the weaker versions of health care reform now on offer, health insurers would be required to take everyone at the same rates, provide a standard level of coverage and keep people on their rolls regardless of their health. Terms like “pre-existing conditions” and “underwriting” would vanish from the health insurance rulebook " and, when they do, the relationship between the health insurance industry and the food industry will undergo a sea change.

The moment these new rules take effect, health insurance companies will promptly discover they have a powerful interest in reducing rates of obesity and chronic diseases linked to diet. A patient with Type 2 diabetes incurs additional health care costs of more than $6,600 a year; over a lifetime, that can come to more than $400,000. Insurers will quickly figure out that every case of Type 2 diabetes they can prevent adds $400,000 to their bottom line. Suddenly, every can of soda or Happy Meal or chicken nugget on a school lunch menu will look like a threat to future profits.
...

All of which suggests that passing a health care reform bill, no matter how ambitious, is only the first step in solving our health care crisis. To keep from bankrupting ourselves, we will then have to get to work on improving our health " which means going to work on the American way of eating.

But even if we get a health care bill that does little more than require insurers to cover everyone on the same basis, it could put us on that course.

For it will force the industry, and the government, to take a good hard look at the elephant in the room and galvanize a movement to slim it down. more

Foxfyre wrote:

I am stating nothing of the sort. It is an opinion poll. Is that what you do or do not want Congress to do?

Then your question would be Do you want Congress to enact tort reform?

Instead, your question was:

Foxfyre wrote:

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

What is your basis for stating that "tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces[sic] premiums"?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am stating nothing of the sort. It is an opinion poll. Is that what you do or do not want Congress to do?

Then your question would be Do you want Congress to enact tort reform?

Instead, your question was:

Foxfyre wrote:

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

What is your basis for stating that "tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces[sic] premiums"?

Focus OE. I made no such statement. The question asks only if that is what the people want Congress to do.

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am stating nothing of the sort. It is an opinion poll. Is that what you do or do not want Congress to do?

Then your question would be Do you want Congress to enact tort reform?

Instead, your question was:

Foxfyre wrote:

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?

What is your basis for stating that "tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces[sic] premiums"?

Focus OE. I made no such statement. The question asks only if that is what the people want Congress to do.

No. No, it doesn't. Really.

Asking Do you want Congress to enact tort reform? only asks if that is what the people want Congress to do

Your question, on the other hand, includes an unproven claim that tort reform that will help insurance companies reduce premiums. Here, let me use some color:

Foxfyre wrote:

2. Do you want Congress to enact meaningful tort reform that will help insurance companies reduces premiums?