PDA

View Full Version : Early Reaction to Health Bill Adoption



YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 02:37 PM
From Gallup today:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uietbdz8hk6yhexwajrsia.gif

Henry V
03-23-2010, 03:04 PM
Come on Jeff, you can't believe these types of scientific polls. It is obvious that the question is biased by the left wing. Besides, this does not conclude the same thing as the online polls at Faux news, well except for that last column. ;)

Wait until you see the bogus bump in President Obama's approval rating. I suppose you will post that too.

badbullgator
03-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Just depends on who you ask I guess

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Buzz
03-23-2010, 03:10 PM
A footnote to the story.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.


Ah ha ha ha ha ha!

badbullgator
03-23-2010, 03:16 PM
A footnote to the story.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.


Ah ha ha ha ha ha!


and USA Today is koolaide free

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 03:37 PM
I actually found it interesting because it is the first up or down poll on the subject that I have seen where the interviews were all conducted after passage. The question is whether there will be a positive bump simply because the deal is done.

subroc
03-23-2010, 05:22 PM
Come on Jeff, you can't believe these types of scientific polls...

do most believe that opinion polls are scientific?

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 05:48 PM
do most believe that opinion polls are scientific?
Is that a poll question?:)

Polling is very scientific but not all pollsters are equal. There is a big difference between posing a poll question to get a measurement of opinion at a point in time and asking a poll question designed to try to influence the opinion or to help "spin" the opinion.

A poll is never better than the quality of the sampling and the appropriateness of the question asked. Legitimate pollsters routinely ask the same question using different wording to evaluate how the wording affects polling results. They also conduct follow up interviews or non-respondents to see if their opinions very from those of respondents and of respondents using alternative polling methods to determine the effects of the methods used. Rasmussen, for example, uses computer polling where a computer dials the telephone and asks the respondent to record responses by pressing keys on the phone. Gallup uses human interviewers. The two methods produce different results even when the questions are the same. Both use samples of about 1,000 to obtain +/- 3% sample errors with a 95% confidence interval.

Results from pollsters vary routinely in predictable directions. However, to the extent that they ask the same question over time, trends in responses should vary in similar ways if the pollsters are doing things legitimately.

Opinion polling began to be taken seriously in the 50's and 60's and has evolved over time. Much of the information on sampling errors is heuristic -- that is calculated based on actual variations between different samples selected using the same methods -- rather than calculated. This is done because the methods used in sampling are NOT random. Rather cluster sampling techniques are typically used with adjustments for known methodological biases.

Unfortunately, as the political impact of polls in changing opinions became more evident, an increased number of charlatans entered the field.

BonMallari
03-23-2010, 05:54 PM
Polls come out depending on who commissioned them (paid to have them done), it takes $$$ to take polls and news organizations will commission Gallup,Rasmussen, Field and other "independent" research groups to get the data to support their positions on certain subject matters

The House overlooked or ignored many of these polls but will not be able to discount the polls in November

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 06:02 PM
Polls come out depending on who commissioned them (paid to have them done), it takes $$$ to take polls and news organizations will commission Gallup,Rasmussen, Field and other "independent" research groups to get the data to support their positions on certain subject matters

The House overlooked or ignored many of these polls but will not be able to discount the polls in November
More and more often, polling is actually paid on a subscription basis by multiple users with different agendas that may be competing. That helps to reduce bias while also reducing the cost to each subscriber of a poll that is well done. Costs for good polling are very high and most people paying the bill actually want to know real results so that they can adopt strategies to influence those opinions more effectively. Gallup has actually taken a lead in refusing polls that are financed by organizations with a direct stake in the results (e.g., they do not do candidate polling for elections). Others, including Rasmussen, rely on partisan sponsorship to finance much or most of their business.

john fallon
03-23-2010, 06:02 PM
One question that was missing was how many thought it was a ''big F-ing deal'' :eek:

john

sinner
03-23-2010, 06:03 PM
I had to wear my hearing protection at work yesterday here in good old Colorado Springs! I thought the right wing whining would blow my ear drums!
One good thing is that Rush Limbaugh said he would leave the USofA if the bill passed. Lets hold Lush Rimbaugh to his mouth!

road kill
03-23-2010, 06:36 PM
I had to wear my hearing protection at work yesterday here in good old Colorado Springs! I thought the right wing whining would blow my ear drums!
One good thing is that Rush Limbaugh said he would leave the USofA if the bill passed. Lets hold Lush Rimbaugh to his mouth!

Did YOU hear him say that???:cool:



rk

Whistler
03-23-2010, 07:06 PM
Jeff's poll pretty much says it all: Opinoins and a-holes. Everyone has one!!
Is a poll really valid only one day after the possible adoption of the bill!!!
I could come up with a poll too if I really thought it mattered.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 07:10 PM
Jeff's poll pretty much says it all: Opinoins and a-holes. Everyone has one!!
Is a poll really valid only one day after the possible adoption of the bill!!!
I could come up with a poll too if I really thought it mattered.
Your point is absolutely fair. Trends over time are much more important than any one day. However, it did provide an ironic counterpoint to Republican speeches in the Senate saying how outrageous it was for the House to have adopted and the President to have signed a bill opposed by an overwhelming majority of the population.

sinner
03-23-2010, 07:19 PM
Yes, I unfortunately was in the mountains and could not get anything but "good old KOA" and I need a weather report but got "HIM".

Henry V
03-23-2010, 07:30 PM
do most believe that opinion polls are scientific?
Yes. There are scientific polls and unscientific ones. The Gallop poll cited is clearly a scientific poll based on well respected methods and random sampling with a large sample size. You can measure people's "opinions" in a systematic and scientific manner. For more details see Jeff's answers.

dback
03-23-2010, 07:53 PM
Yes, I unfortunately was in the mountains and could not get anything but "good old KOA" and I need a weather report but got "HIM".

I'll call BS on that one......because if you ACTUALLY heard him, you'd know that he said he would leave the US to RECEIVE SOME SPECIFIC health care needs. All you heard was some liberal 'take off' of what he said. Get your facts straight.

sinner
03-23-2010, 08:18 PM
I would agree with you but then there would be two of us that were wrong!

dback
03-23-2010, 10:24 PM
I would agree with you but then there would be two of us that were wrong!

The callers question was where will he go for health care...his answer was that he would leave the country, he'd go to Costa Rica. At no time did he say that he was 'moving' there.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030910/content/01125107.guest.html

I'm pretty sure that even Yardley & DNF will tell you the liberal spin was taken out of context.

Eric Johnson
03-23-2010, 10:40 PM
Has anyone seen the final bill? (BTW.I thought we were to have days to look at it before it was signed.) All the search sites seem to have stories on the bill but nowhere can I find an actual link to the actual bill.

When I searched places like GPO and Thomas...not even there. (Thomas claims there are 7 different versions.)

Eric

Henry V
03-23-2010, 11:20 PM
Did YOU hear him say that???:cool:

rk
RK, I did not hear him say it, but here is the transcript:


CALLER: If the health care bill passes, where would you go for health care yourself? And the second part of that is, what would happen to the doctors, do they have to participate in the federal program, or could they opt out of it? [...]
LIMBAUGH: My guess in even in Canada and even in the UK, doctors have opted out. And once theyíve opted, they canít see anybody Medicare, Medicaid, or what will become the exchanges. They have to have a clientele of private patients that will pay them a retainer and itíll be a very small practice. I donít know if thatís been outlawed in the Senate bill. I donít know. Iíll just tell you this, if this passes and itís five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented ó I am leaving the country. Iíll go to Costa Rica.
Donít you think this is quite an interesting choice given that Costa Rica has socialize medicine. From: http://www.liveincostarica.com/blog/2010/03/costa-ricas-first-class-health-care-system.html

Ö. this is a country with one of the longest standing socialized healthcare systems on the planet. Everyone here (including resident foreigner), are required to pay into the government-run health system, whether they use it or not.

Hew
03-24-2010, 04:16 AM
RK, I did not hear him say it, but here is the transcript:

Donít you think this is quite an interesting choice given that Costa Rica has socialize medicine. From: http://www.liveincostarica.com/blog/2010/03/costa-ricas-first-class-health-care-system.html

The context is that he'd previously been talking with a gal who claimed to be an insurance exec who'd said that the company she worked for expected to be put out of business by Obamacare and was contemplating a policy that would fly people to medical facilities that the insurance company would open and operate in Costa Rica. But hey, I guess it's a lot more fun for all the free-thinkin' and highly intelligent progressives to pretend that a multi-millionaire would really wait in line at a free government clinic in Costa Rica. :rolleyes:

BTW...that's a hint of what to come, though...lower and middle class Americans forced to endure sh!tty care and long waits while the richest among us purchase supplemental policies to do an end-run around the system (just like in England).

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 05:41 AM
Has anyone seen the final bill? (BTW.I thought we were to have days to look at it before it was signed.) All the search sites seem to have stories on the bill but nowhere can I find an actual link to the actual bill.

When I searched places like GPO and Thomas...not even there. (Thomas claims there are 7 different versions.)

Eric
The Senate Bill as adopted was SA 3278 and may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r111apNMco (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/%7Er111apNMco) where it was posted on 12/19, five days before the final vote on 12/24. The House Bill of "fixes" is HR 4872, which has been available since three days prior to the House vote. It may be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/28572002/Reconciliation-HR-4872-Full-Text

The consideration of the Senate Bill in the House was done as H.R. 3590, the text of which was posted three days prior to the House vote and is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text. This is about 2500 pages long if you are downloading it. However, as a matter of law it is identical to the bill adopted by the Senate on 12/24 and has thus been available for inspection for a month. This is the bill that was signed by Obama. HR 4872 is now being considered by the Senate.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 05:44 AM
This morning, Gallup posted the public's report card for the legislative parties involved in health care legislation: Obama, Congressional Democrats, and Congressional Republicans. Nobody received great grades, but the apportionment of the grades is interesting.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/r5zf21swb0oxw03jp_0g7w.gif

Gerry Clinchy
03-24-2010, 07:32 AM
If I had to interpret the Gallup poll, I might say that Obama's approval rating stayed high because he let Pelosi, Reid and others do the dirty work on the health care proposal. By the dirty work I mean being the ones blamed for the arm-twisting and machinations involving the rules stuff.

I think that the Rs rating has suffered because they've done some dumb stuff, and also very little information has been given about the content of the amendments that Rs proposed that were voted down & not included in the bill. I, personally, have only a vague sense that tort reform was among those rejected amendments, but no clue about the specifics of that amendment, and what the reason might have been for rejecting it.

Most of us on this forum have to work at our day jobs & can't read every word spoken in Congress (of which there are bazillions), so we do depend on the media to keep us informed with facts (rather than editorialism).

It does seem unreasonable that such a comprehensive overhaul would not address tort reform at all. Maybe it would save only :-) a billion here and there, but a billion would still buy quite a lot of mammograms, childhood vaccines, etc. If doctors and hospitals are going to provide services for less $, then some provision for control of the costs involved with CYA medicine seems a logical extrapolation to an overhaul as far-reaching as this legislation. What's another 100 pages or so when you've already got 2,500?

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 07:49 AM
...

It does seem unreasonable that such a comprehensive overhaul would not address tort reform at all. Maybe it would save only :-) a billion here and there, but a billion would still buy quite a lot of mammograms, childhood vaccines, etc. If doctors and hospitals are going to provide services for less $, then some provision for control of the costs involved with CYA medicine seems a logical extrapolation to an overhaul as far-reaching as this legislation. What's another 100 pages or so when you've already got 2,500?
The bill includes $50 million for demonstration programs addressing tort reduction through either improved patient safety measures or through alternative dispute resolution approaches. The problem with tort reform is that there is actually no consensus on what it would or should entail. There is a lot to suggest that the primary cause of malpractice awards is ...... malpractice. In addition, the primary component of awards is the cost of the actual injury, not pain and suffering. Finally, a big issue that needs to be addressed is the liability of third party carriers for consequential damages in cases where they deny coverage for treatment in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 08:13 AM
The problem with health care reform is that there is actually no consensus on what it should entail.

Fixed it.

Didn't stop them, did it?

sinner
03-24-2010, 08:44 AM
I guess all BS is in the viewer's eyes.
If I had a brick I would put a note on it and throw it through a window or call Lush a liar, or a gay or put rifle cross airs on his picture.
Naw I have more brains and class than to do that!

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 09:16 AM
Broke it.

Didn't stop them, did it?
Fixed it.

I guess if you can get a bill voted on by 60 senators addressing tort reform (or even one favored by 51), then you would have enough of a legislative consensus to pass something. Instead, bills are passed simply for the purpose of generating sound bytes rather than for the purpose of change.

sinner
03-24-2010, 09:54 AM
I have sent a study done for me while I was with the Coors Brewery (13 yrs) developing & managing their wellness programs. The study was done by the U of Oregon on the cost benefit of health care and wellness for the company. The factors variables measured were health insurance cost (including overhead), productivity, absenteeism, and turnover.
The results were for every dollar the company spent on healthy people the cost benefit to the company was $1.24 and for every dollar on unhealthy employees the benefit was $8.33.
The factor that came out to be the most important was productivity with turnover and health insurance the lowest.
My questions is simple who is paying for health & and insurance now? And have we really looked at the impact of health & wellness on our businesses?
If you want a full copy of the study send me a private message.

Bayou Magic
03-24-2010, 10:07 AM
The supporters of this legislation applaud its passage and point to the items that most everyone favors as justification. Do any of those supporters give a damn that this bill was enabled through blatant corruption? Without the backdoor bribes this legislation would never have made it to the President's desk. Does that not matter to anyone?

fp

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 10:46 AM
Fixed it.

I guess if you can get a bill voted on by 60 senators addressing tort reform (or even one favored by 51), then you would have enough of a legislative consensus to pass something. Instead, bills are passed simply for the purpose of generating sound bytes rather than for the purpose of change.

I don't really consider partisan politics a 'consensus'. Do you?

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 11:12 AM
I don't really consider partisan politics a 'consensus'. Do you?
So had did you feel about the tax cuts, especially the ones passed by a 50 + VP vote in 2003 -- a vote so divisively partisan that it resulted in Jeffers leaving the party and crossing the aisle to give Democrats the majority? The fact is that we require a majority votes to pass legislation. We require a majority of electoral votes (not a majority of public votes as made clear in 2000) to elect a President. There is a price to be paid in reduced cooperation when something is adopted in the face of closely divided controversy. However, that cost is worth no more than the record of cooperation established before the controversy. In this case the cost in Congress was very small. There is also a price paid when the Congressional process is subjected to intense public scrutiny because the process is inevitably ugly. That price is paid by everyone involved and is high. However, so far the public does not rate Republicans better than Democrats or the President on this measure. In fact, the public rates them worse.

Eric Johnson
03-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Jeff-

The OpenCongress link crashes every machine I've tried including the ones here at work which have probably as much bandwidth as any in the country. The Thomas link is dead. I guess we aren't supposed to actually read the bill, just trust them to do the right thing.

Eric

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 11:23 AM
*GROAN*

Dammit Jeff, when will you guys get it through your thick freaking skulls that many of us on here did not like what went on back then and we don't like wtf is going on now? I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT WAS DONE IN THE BUSH YEARS. It does not make anything right. QUIT TRYING TO JUSTIFY EVERYTHING BY 'BUSH DID IT TOO' OR 'I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING YOU COMPLAIN WHEN THE R'S DID IT' OR 'IF R'S WERE DOING IT NOBODY WOULD CARE'. Would you like to start a thread about the Bush tax cuts so that we can actually talk about them on topic and get it over with? Please DO.

Why is it so damn difficult to understand that we don't necessarily approve of all that Bush/Cheney did during their terms? Why is it so damn difficult to understand that the BS needs to stop NOW. It should have stopped then, but guess what? IT DIDN'T. That is too bad. But that is not a valid reason to continue to do it.

Now, once again. Do you consider partisan politics to be a consensus? How about answering the question this time around, Trebek.

John Schmidt
03-24-2010, 11:49 AM
Jeff-

The OpenCongress link crashes every machine I've tried including the ones here at work which have probably as much bandwidth as any in the country. The Thomas link is dead. I guess we aren't supposed to actually read the bill, just trust them to do the right thing.

Eric

I am reading the OpenCongress link just fine. Do you want me to pass the text on to you? It is not a bandwidth problem but a problem with the faulty software you are using. Try either google chrome or firefox. Or just google HR 3590 and use the cache feature of google.

John Schmidt

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 12:08 PM
Jeff-

The OpenCongress link crashes every machine I've tried including the ones here at work which have probably as much bandwidth as any in the country. The Thomas link is dead. I guess we aren't supposed to actually read the bill, just trust them to do the right thing.

Eric
Try this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP03279:

I am pretty certain I could email you copies of the PDF if you want (send me your address).

Marvin S
03-24-2010, 12:42 PM
The supporters of this legislation applaud its passage and point to the items that most everyone favors as justification. Do any of those supporters give a damn that this bill was enabled through blatant corruption? Without the backdoor bribes this legislation would never have made it to the President's desk. Does that not matter to anyone? fp

:) :) You are asking these people to think, a commodity which appears to be in short supply today. But, it is also in short supply within the general population. Ethical behavior is not real common.


So had did you feel about the tax cuts, especially the ones passed by a 50 + VP vote in 2003 -- a vote so divisively partisan that it resulted in Jeffers leaving the party and crossing the aisle to give Democrats the majority?

It is Jeffords, who like Specter was looking for an excuse, his came because his Dairy Farmers were not given the special subsidy that they had previously enjoyed.

But, like ducknwork, I'm getting a little tired of your sniping at TAX CUTS. So why don't you start a thread dealing with that subject? That will give you 1st shot at setting parameters. I will be glad to participate, I'd like to see your justification for separating the earner from the fruits of their labor. :(


*GROAN*

Dammit Jeff, when will you guys get it through your thick freaking skulls that many of us on here did not like what went on back then and we don't like wtf is going on now? I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT WAS DONE IN THE BUSH YEARS. It does not make anything right. QUIT TRYING TO JUSTIFY EVERYTHING BY 'BUSH DID IT TOO' OR 'I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING YOU COMPLAIN WHEN THE R'S DID IT' OR 'IF R'S WERE DOING IT NOBODY WOULD CARE'. Would you like to start a thread about the Bush tax cuts so that we can actually talk about them on topic and get it over with? Please DO.

Why is it so damn difficult to understand that we don't necessarily approve of all that Bush/Cheney did during their terms? Why is it so damn difficult to understand that the BS needs to stop NOW. It should have stopped then, but guess what? IT DIDN'T. That is too bad. But that is not a valid reason to continue to do it.

Now, once again. Do you consider partisan politics to be a consensus? How about answering the question this time around, Trebek.

Eric Johnson
03-24-2010, 02:12 PM
I managed to find a link on Thomas that provided the bill. However, it's less than 1,000 pages? What I've read so far is largely GDG as it is changes to existing law. I'll keep on struggling.

Eric

dnf777
03-24-2010, 03:51 PM
*GROAN*

Dammit Jeff, when will you guys get it through your thick freaking skulls that many of us on here did not like what went on back then and we don't like wtf is going on now? I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT WAS DONE IN THE BUSH YEARS. It does not make anything right. QUIT TRYING TO JUSTIFY EVERYTHING BY 'BUSH DID IT TOO' OR 'I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING YOU COMPLAIN WHEN THE R'S DID IT' OR 'IF R'S WERE DOING IT NOBODY WOULD CARE'. Would you like to start a thread about the Bush tax cuts so that we can actually talk about them on topic and get it over with? Please DO.

Why is it so damn difficult to understand that we don't necessarily approve of all that Bush/Cheney did during their terms? Why is it so damn difficult to understand that the BS needs to stop NOW. It should have stopped then, but guess what? IT DIDN'T. That is too bad. But that is not a valid reason to continue to do it.

Now, once again. Do you consider partisan politics to be a consensus? How about answering the question this time around, Trebek.

Maybe people would stop reminding you that Bush got us in this mess by and large, if others would stop blaming Obama for the mess that was handed to him. I've heard such blatant lies (or blissful ignorance) that Obama has DOUBLED THE NATIONAL DEBT in his first year! That shows a total lack of knowledge of debt, deficit, and the actual numbers.....or it's a willful lie being promulgated to harm a sitting president. Given much of the rhetoric heard at rallies, the latter seems more likely. (not saying this applies to you personally....you're one of the FEW that admits Bush was not the wonderchild he was made out to be!)

road kill
03-24-2010, 03:56 PM
Maybe people would stop reminding you that Bush got us in this mess by and large, if others would stop blaming Obama for the mess that was handed to him. I've heard such blatant lies (or blissful ignorance) that Obama has DOUBLED THE NATIONAL DEBT in his first year! That shows a total lack of knowledge of debt, deficit, and the actual numbers.....or it's a willful lie being promulgated to harm a sitting president. Given much of the rhetoric heard at rallies, the latter seems more likely. (not saying this applies to you personally....you're one of the FEW that admits Bush was not the wonderchild he was made out to be!)

Who made him out to be a "wonderchild??"

No one, but on the other hand, warm tinglys up your leg!!





rk

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 04:01 PM
Just to add another dimension to the early reaction to passage, the following table shows differences in the reaction among different groups.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jy8w6c_d20cmpjepamk0kg.gif

Much of the discussion here has assumed that younger people would object to the bill because they don't want to pay for coverage since they are young and healthy, and that many of the uninsured were voluntarily uninsured and would object to being forced to obtain insurance. The survey shows 58% of each of these groups favoring the adoption. Obviously, higher income people are also the ones being called on to pay most of the cost and the ones who are likely to benefit least from the program since they generally have employer provided coverage now. Yet they favor the adoption by a 49-46% margin. Those with Medicare oppose the legislation by a slight margin. Obviously, their opposition is not ideological but based on the fear that their own socialized coverage will be weakened by extending similar benefits to others.

There is an interesting divide by marital status: "By 51% to 41%, married adults call the bill a bad thing. In contrast, unmarried adults call it a good thing by an even wider margin, 60% to 26%."

BTW, from a statistical perspective, estimates for subgroups are likely to have a much greater statistical "error" than estimates for the populations as a whole.