If this doesn't give you pause about Healthcare Reform...

[Buzz]

When insurance CEO's start saying we shouldn't try and repeal it, it makes me a little suspicious. Just not worth the energy, lol! Maybe he should drop a call to McConnell and the tan man.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A834D20101109

"I don't think it's in our society's best interest to expend energy in repealing the law," David Cordani told the Reuters Health Summit in New York. "Our country expended over a year of sweat equity around the formation of it."

.
.
.

Cordani, whose company is one of the largest U.S. health insurance providers, said he does not see any immediate significant changes and is "knee-deep" in implementing various provisions affecting his company and other insurers.

[BonMallari]

always follow the money trail...usually leads to the people with their hands in the till

[cotts135]

I think just yesterday I seen that the overall healthcare industry had a 41% increase in profits from last year. You think the two might be related?

[YardleyLabs]

Here's a lightly different look. Only 20% of Americans like the health bill in its current form. 42% believe it went to far and most of those believe it should be repealed and a new bill should be passed instead. 29 believe it did not go far enough.

Stated another way, 49% of Americans believe the health bill should either stay as it is or be made more comprehensive, 25% believe it went too far and should be rewritten, but not necessarily scaled back, 7% believe t should be rewritten and scaled back significantly, and only 10% believe it should be repealed and that we should go back to where we were before. Where are those mandates when you need them?

[Hoosier]

Here's a lightly different look. Only 20% of Americans like the health bill in its current form. 42% believe it went to far and most of those believe it should be repealed and a new bill should be passed instead. 29 believe it did not go far enough.

Stated another way, 49% of Americans believe the health bill should either stay as it is or be made more comprehensive, 25% believe it went too far and should be rewritten, but not necessarily scaled back, 7% believe t should be rewritten and scaled back significantly, and only 10% believe it should be repealed and that we should go back to where we were before. Where are those mandates when you need them?

A bunch of Democrat Congressmen, who just lost their jobs, would probably dispute your numbers.

[YardleyLabs]

A bunch of Democrat Congressmen who just lost their jobs would probably dispute your numbers.

They are not "my" numbers. Democrats were defeated by two different factors: independents shifted toward Republicans, and Democrats stayed away from the polls. Much of the Democratic disaffection stemed from the belief that the administration was too timid in using its voting power to promote a more aggressive program. Many of the Democrats that lost were actively campaigned against by the more progressive wing of the party, much as tea party supporters withheld support from some Republicans. Approximately 20-25% of the opposition to health care reforms bills has consistently come from thse believing the bills did not go far enough.

[david gibson]

They are not "my" numbers. Democrats were defeated by two different factors: independents shifted toward Republicans, and Democrats stayed away from the polls. Much of the Democratic disaffection stemed from the belief that the administration was too timid in using its voting power to promote a more aggressive program. Many of the Democrats that lost were actively campaigned against by the more progressive wing of the party, much as tea party supporters withheld support from some Republicans. Approximately 20-25% of the opposition to health care reforms bills has consistently come from thse believing the bills did not go far enough.

what? but i heard obama say just the other day that the reason they lost was because he didnt "communicate" his message and agenda well. in other words, the masses just dont understand his superior intellect.

are you saying he misspoke?? imagine that

[Buzz]

They are not "my" numbers. Democrats were defeated by two different factors: independents shifted toward Republicans, and Democrats stayed away from the polls. Much of the Democratic disaffection stemed from the belief that the administration was too timid in using its voting power to promote a more aggressive program. Many of the Democrats that lost were actively campaigned against by the more progressive wing of the party, much as tea party supporters withheld support from some Republicans. Approximately 20-25% of the opposition to health care reforms bills has consistently come from thse believing the bills did not go far enough.

Me and several Democrats I know around Brookings SD voted for Kristi Noem. I'm registered independent but voted for Herseth-Sandlin the last two go arounds, this time I voted for Noem. Why? We all figured if we were going to have a representative that votes like a Republican we may as well have a republican in there.

Kristi Noem has great potential to be the next Michelle Bachman in that looney tea bagger kind of way. The next couple of years promise to be very entertaining.

[menmon]

I think just yesterday I seen that the overall healthcare industry had a 41% increase in profits from last year. You think the two might be related?

I know they are...their lobbiest wrote it. And the spin doctors spun it the way they wanted it.

[YardleyLabs]

what? but i heard obama say just the other day that the reason they lost was because he didnt "communicate" his message and agenda well. in other words, the masses just dont understand his superior intellect.

are you saying he misspoke?? imagine that

I'd say that goes hand in hand with comments suggesting that younger voters shouldn't be allowed to vote because their overwhelming votes for Obama and Democrats suggest that they are mentally incompetent. It is always more comfortable to believe that anyone with whom you disagree is either stupid or ill informed. It is clearly impossible for anyone who is intelligent and well informed to reach a different conclusion. Right?

Analyses of voter behavior have always been interesting. They have also always confounded partisans from both the left and right. The most liberal and most conservative voters are generally the best informed concerning issues in each election and the positions of the candidates involved. Those in the middle are significantly less well informed. However, one cannot assume that means that their votes are more or less rational. Interestingly, projections of election results done three months before elections are held are generally more accurate than polling results at any time prior to the actual election. The models that are most accurate in predicting outcomes generally focus on simple issues such as regional trends in party affiliation, gender, race, income, religion, etc. While polls fluctuate wildly, they trend toward the model predicted levels as the election draws closer. Final poll results in November tend to have prediction error rates that are 4-5 times higher the error rates of model based predictions made at the beginning of September. (seehttp://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/graphics.course/bjps1993.pdf)

The interesting historical reality is that the issues that dominate a political campaign seldom turn out to be the most important issues addressed during the following political cycle. Obviously a classic would be Bush assertions that he would get us out of the business of nation building, only to launch two nation building wars. He didn't break a promise, he responded to a world that was different from the one in which he campaigned. Policy wonks and ideologues, by contrast, are like old generals. They are always fighting the last war and being surprised by the next one. If those in the middle are focusing on more pragmatic assessments, maybe they are doing the rest of us a service.