View Full Version : Obamacare Support at All Time Low!!!

08-30-2011, 11:48 AM
I guess they haven't gotten the message out yet.

<span style="color: #000000"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Obamacare support at all time low</span>
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.c...rt-all-time-low (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low)

Americans' opinion of Obamacare has reached an all-time post-passage low according to the Kaiser Health Tracking poll. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law, two points below the previous nadir of 41% first set in May 2010. Forty-four percent of Americans have an unfavorable view.

While there continues to be a sharp partisan divide over the law, the Kaiser poll shows Americans' views converging. Democratic and Independent support for Obamacare has fallen to all-time lows of 60% and 33% respectively. But Republican support for the law is at an all-time 24% high.

A plurality of Americans, 47%, believe the law "won't make much difference" in their own lives while 31% believe it will help and 14% say it will hurt. Asked how the law would help, a respondent told Kaiser, "Coverage will be available to me and my family." A respondent who believed the law would hurt explained that the law is "going to increase taxes a whole lot and make it difficult to find a job and take more paperwork and take decisions out of doctors [hands]."

Kaiser also found that the public's awareness of some of the law's key provisions has also declined. While 65% of Americans know that Obamacare forces all Americans to buy health insurance, up from 64% in December 2010, the percentage of respondents who know that the law provides subsidies to low and moderate income Americans fell from 72% to 58%. The percentage of Americans who know that Obamacare expanded Medicaid also fell from 62% to 49%.</span>

08-30-2011, 05:29 PM
Three observations.

One, this same tracking poll shows its results from back when the law was passed, and surprisingly to me, showed that at some occasions in the past, support was more than opposition. This goes against the anti-health care reform position that it has always been unpopular, in terms of being opposed by more than those who supported it. Not true, by these numbers, which see.

Two, this result is about within the margin of error of +/- 3 points. Add 3 to 39, you get 42. Subtract 3 from 45, you get 42.

Three, if advertising is effective, as the expenditure of countless amounts of money by smart capitalists would tend to support, then why WOULDN'T people be trending to disapproval of the ACA, given that over $100 million had been spent advertising against it in 2010 alone, AFTER IT PASSED? I'd guess that had $100 million or more been spent advertising FOR it, we'd show a different result.

08-30-2011, 05:40 PM
I thought you swore you didn't slavishly defend the Obama regime from any and all criticism?

08-31-2011, 12:02 PM
Let's try this example:

Me: I don't like all red wines.

(Later) Me: I like a glass of Chianti Classico now and then.

You: I thought you swore you didn't like all red wines, and did not slavishly defend them from their critics on all occasions?

So we find the confusion here between 'some' and 'all.' I can truthfully state I don't like ALL the red wines, and admitting I like SOME of them is not any kind of contradiction.

Some vs. all. Not that tricky. A distinction most 5th graders can understand completely.

LWW? It's over his head, <s>he swears [/LWW]</s> apparently.

"You SWORE you didn't like ANY of the reds!!!?!?!!!"

As soon as he completes the remedial reading requirement for his GED, perhaps it will become more clear.

No, I didn't swear to anything, but the fact remains I do not 'slavishly' defend the O administration against any and all charges.

Here's me AGREEING with a charge from you earlier today:

LWW: Either that, or the Obama regime is complicit in the cover up.
ME: You do not need a coverup, if blatantly obvious charges are not brought. People get jailed upon charging; no charging, no jailing.

And yes, that's exactly why Cheney remains at large. The O administration ('looking forward, not backwards') refuses to even investigate these charges, still less, bring charges on their findings. [here I point out a dereliction of duty, which is a CRITICISM, not a defense, btw, to be clear]

Same as with the Clinton administration, with regard to any number of crimes of the Reagan/Bush years, which they refused to prosecute (IraqGate, etc.). [pointing out the similar dereliction of duty by another Democratic president's administration]

It's apparently a kind of professional courtesy, the kind that sees for example, the past history of all presidents of Mexico leaving office as a billionaire, so long as they do not look into how their predecessor in the office became a billionaire when it was their turn. [comparing this situation to an entirely corrupt one south of the border]

08-31-2011, 01:06 PM
What percentage of the time in these discussions do you take the side of the demkrooks? The side of Obama? The number is very close to, albeit not quite, 100%.

Now, if you say you dislike all red wines when you actually like one or two ... your point would be valid.

OTOH, if you were at a wine tasting where you were to judge the top 100 wines of 1,000 reds and 1,000 whites ... and then said you disliked all reds, even though 99 of your top 100 were reds?

Well ... a logical person you only assume you were, and I'm being nice, being less than honest about your distaste for red wines.