Obama's Health Care Address to Congress

[Trinity]

Poll: Big Majorities Dismiss Leading Right Wing Health Care Attacks As “Scare Tactics”

Wow, this is cause for cautious optimism: Buried in a new Bloomberg poll is evidence that solid majorities dismiss all the leading right wing health care talking points as “scare tactics.”
Not kidding! It’s true. The poll tested a range of attacks and asked whether they were “legitimate” or a “disortion” and a “scare tactic.” The results:

* Sixty-three percent said the claim that “death panels of government officials would decide how much medical care ailing individuals will receive” is a scare tactic, versus 30% who said it’s legit.
* Fifty-nine percent said the claim that “health care would be rationed” is a scare tactic, versus 35% who said it’s legit.
* Fifty-two percent said the claim that “health care would become socialized medicine” is a scare tactic, versus 43% who said it’s legit.
* Sixty-one percent said the claim that “government money would be used to pay for abortions” is a scare tactic, versus 33% who said it’s legit.
* Fifty-eight percent said the claim that “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” is a scare tactic, versus 37% who said it’s legit.
​

Poll: Big Majorities Dismiss Leading Right Wing Health Care Attacks As “Scare Tactics” | The Plum Line

If we are just pulling from the poll whatever we want to high-light:

In general, do you think things in the nation are headed in the
right direction, or have they gotten off on the wrong track?

40 - Right direction
52 - Wrong track
8 - Not sure


Which of the following do you see as the most important issue
facing the country right now?
23 - Health care
46 - The economy
10 - The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
16 - The federal budget deficit
2 - Climate change
1 - Other (specify)
2 - Not sure


Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing
as president? (Follow with Do you approve or disapprove of
the job he is doing:

C. With health care
Approve - 47
Disapprove - 48
Not sure - 5


How would you describe the current health care system-is it
badly broken, has some problems to be fixed, or is really
pretty good?

25 - Badly broken
63 - Has some problems to be fixed
11 - Really pretty good
1 - Not sure

Bloomberg Poll

The poll has stark contradictions in it...and shows the respondents were deeply divided.

 

[Industrialsize]

You've done some poll pulling yourself there. Can you please give me a link to the poll so I can see the internals. As you've cited it, we have no idea where or when that poll was done. The one I cited was current.

 

[Trinity]

You've done some poll pulling yourself there.

That was my point.

Can you please give me a link to the poll so I can see the internals. As you've cited it, we have no idea where or when that poll was done. The one I cited was current.

Sure I can.




IT'S THE SAME POLL.

This should make more sense to you now:

The poll has stark contradictions in it...and shows the respondents were deeply divided.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

That was my point.



Sure I can.




IT'S THE SAME POLL.

This should make more sense to you now:

You mean Industrial didn't recognize a poll that he himself analyzed and interpreted for us? Frankly, I am shocked. :biggrin1:

Thanks for clearing that up Trinity.

 

[Industrialsize]

Our health Care system isn't broken...........BUT:
45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health insurance: Harvard study


A study published online today [Thursday] estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's [Thursday's] online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.


45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health insurance: Harvard study | Science Blog

 

[faceking]

Are we still yapping about this stupid fucking plan. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What next Barrah... you'll show up at the VMAs? Your star power is already in question. Keep calling out the jackasses (one of your few 2009 highlights).

Keep cryin' Nancy. You fucking hypocritical cunt.

 

[faceking]

"A study" and "scienceblog"... may as well post from Faux News... let me guess their intentions.

Our health Care system isn't broken...........BUT:
45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health insurance: Harvard study


A study published online today [Thursday] estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's [Thursday's] online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.


45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health insurance: Harvard study | Science Blog

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Yeah, that's right. Discredit SCIENCE.
Lemme guess, you were brought by stork?

 

[Industrialsize]

"A study" and "scienceblog"... may as well post from Faux News... let me guess their intentions.

I forgot that science and the right wing don't get along.

http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=dpz2-5OGh560fVMPvSuNAu3uPIjBM

 

[Bbucko]

"A study" and "scienceblog"... may as well post from Faux News... let me guess their intentions.

ScienceBlog is merely linking to the original source, which is The American Journal of Public Health. In the time it takes to write a snide remark, you can click and learn. From the AJPH's website:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) is dedicated to publication of original work in research, research methods, and program evaluation in the field of public health. The Journal also regularly publishes editorials and commentaries and serves as a forum for health policy analysis. The mission of the Journal is to advance public health research, policy, practice, and education. Each month, national and international public health professionals turn to AJPH for the most current, authoritative, in-depth information in the field.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] The goals of both the online and the print versions of the Journal, published monthly by the American Public Health Association, are[/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
• To publish the best scientific research in the field of public health
• [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]To serve as a forum for diverse viewpoints on major public health issues and policies [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
• To promote diverse public health practice models
• [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]To increase public and professional understanding of public health problems and their solutions through delivery channels relevant to different audiences and their needs [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
• To work in concert with the 3 main priorities of the American Public Health Association, namely to develop universal coverage, eliminate health disparities, and rebuild the public health infrastructure.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]AJPH, first published in 1911, is the official Journal of the American Public Health Association, 800 I St., NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710; (202) 777-APHA(2742). APHA is a professional society founded in 1872 to represent all disciplines and specialties in public health.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Further down you can learn how the AJPH conducts its process of scientific peer review:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Customized by HighWire Press by HighWire Press of Stanford University, the Journal's electronic peer review tracking system is accessible to authors, reviewers, editors, and staff at http://submit.ajph.org. Access is also available via the Online Submission/Review link at http://www.ajph.org, the Journal's homepage. If you have the appropriate background for serving as a reviewer, we invite you to register. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Authors log on to this system and submit abstract, manuscript, and reference files; tables, figures, and photos; and supplementary material. Authors can save work in progress, proof and submit revisions, download and review proofs, check on status, update personal information, and review their past submission records. References can be checked via links to sources. Decisions are sent to authors via email. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] Reviewers receive an email invitation to review a specific article that they may either accept or decline after viewing an abstract of the article. If they accept, they upload their comments for both the author and the editor. The review process is blinded: authors are not told the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not told the identities of authors. As the review period concludes, reviewers have access to each other's comments, thus providing valuable feedback. Reviewers also have access to an archive of their past papers and performance. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Reviewed papers usually receive careful scrutiny by 3 reviewers and additional assessment by the responsible associate editor, deputy editor, and editor-in-chief. Initial screening results in rejection of the majority of manuscripts within 2 weeks of submission. For those papers that are selected for review, the time to first decision is about 2 months. Overall time from submission to acceptance, which includes revisions by the authors, is about 4.6 months. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Final decisions were made on 2203 papers in 2008. Of these papers, 429 (19.5%) were accepted for publication. Another 1499 papers (68.0%) were rejected upon initial screening by the editors, 217 (9.9%) were rejected after peer review, and 58 (2.6%) were rejected with resubmission encouraged. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

The story is completely legit, unless you discredit the scientific method, in which case nothing will help you.

 

[SilverTrain]

ScienceBlog is merely linking to the original source, which is The American Journal of Public Health. In the time it takes to write a snide remark, you can click and learn. From the AJPH's website:



Further down you can learn how the AJPH conducts its process of scientific peer review:


The story is completely legit, unless you discredit the scientific method, in which case nothing will help you.

Hey, you're cheating again.

 

[Bbucko]

Hey, you're cheating again.

That's me, baby: the fuckin' cheater

 

[Qua]

Thought this cartoon hilahrious

http://thisishistorictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/editorial_20090917.jpg

 

[JTalbain]

Thought this cartoon hilahrious

http://thisishistorictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/editorial_20090917.jpg

[/QUOTE]

OMFG, that's awesome.

I didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if these points have been touched on, but I felt there were a few important parts to this speech. I'd like to preface this by saying I'm actually more Republican than Democrat in most of my ideologies.

1) Obama tried to urge interparty cooperation. He spoke specifically about some initiatives he specifically wanted to introduce from Republican sources, and gave credit to the appropriate sources. These included proposed initiatives from Senator John McCain and the previous Republican administration. Likewise, he also encouraged members of his own party to get on board with the plan, as many Democrats also stand against the reform.

2) He stated that the bill will be mostly paid for by cutting costs. For those that have actually done the research on the amount of wasted money in government, this is entirely feasible. For those that haven't, the knee jerk reaction is to accuse him of lying, because such a thing is "impossible". Was it really that long ago that we were criticizing our government for buying "$38000 toilet seats" and "$9000 hammers"? Is it really so inconceivable that there is no wasted money in government?

3) He stated where some of the money will come from besides cost-cutting. He specifically mentioned a tax on those that refuse to get health insurance when it is made available to them, much in the same vein as basic car insurance, and also a tax on the most expensive plans from insurance agencies, which was revealed to be a hefty 35%.

4) He finally put his foot down and stated he will call out anyone who tries to pass misinformation about the reform. Let's look at a couple of facts: Republicans and Democrats both agree that some measure of reform is necessary. They both agree that it is unacceptable to have so many people living without insurance and placing such a heavy burden on the medical industry. And yet you still have people like Republican senator Jim DeMint saying that they are trying to stop Obama's reform because if they can "It will break him". Both parties acknowledge an urgency in this particular issue, but many Republicans are still playing politics. They are hoping to be able to stall long enough so that the 2010 election will roll around and they can point and say "See? Obama claimed he would bring about change and he has done nothing!" and get more support for their party, winning more seats and having more bargaining power in Congress. Representative government is supposed to be about service to the people who you represent, and putting party politics above that, particularly on an issue your own party supports, is reprehensible. Your focus is supposed to be on how best to serve your constituents, not on how to put screw over one of the other branches of government. I would hope that people will remember this come election time.

Now that I've gotten to the end of that, I'll reiterate that I am mostly Republican. I voted for Obama in the last election, and the rest of my ticket was Republican. Why? Because of the Republican party treating us like we're f***ing idiots is the last election. Nearly all of their campaign was based on wild conjecture with no basis in evidence (or reality for that matter). McCain's official stands on moral issues shifted to secure the vote of the religious right, and his campaign bashed Obama so thoroughly that his conscience forced him to back off of it when senior citizens approached him during a rally, saying they were deathly afraid of what would happen if Obama won. From McCain's own mouth "He's not a bad guy. You don't have to worry about what happens if he wins. He's not going to destroy the country." I don't think that kind of behavior is really politically ethical.

I still talk to people that are diehard Republicans who are convinced that Obama is the antichrist, is secretly Muslim, has an atheist mother, has two Muslim fathers (natural and step), has grandparents who are communist leaders, has close ties to terrorist organizations, is not a legitimate citizen of the United States, is going to declare the Koran as official law, and will have the number 666 appear on his forehead and wrists any day now. I really wish I could say I was joking about that last one.

I just wish that Republicans of the country could suck it up, say they lost the presidency, and get on with trying to improve the country. The politicians do no one any good and show raw political greed and ambition. Meanwhile, the layman Republicans make me disgusted to think that we have similar ideologies. It saddens me to think that the Republican party has based so much on the failure of one person when he's in every position to win.

 

[Industrialsize]

The new "Victims", Health Insurance Executives:

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from FOD Team, Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, Thomas Lennon, Donald Faison, Linda Cardellini, Masi Oka, Ben Garant, Jordana Spiro, lauren, Drew, and chad_carter - Video

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

That's me, baby: the fuckin' cheater

Between snide remarks and cheating, I'll take your cheating every time.

 

[Bbucko]

Between snide remarks and cheating, I'll take your cheating every time.

Thank you, baby.