74% of Republicans on Obamacare are satisfied with it

[Matt1970]

What's interesting is people claiming ACA to be unpopular when polls show liberals that are unhappy with Obamacare tip the scale to negative "support"...except those 20% of liberals are unhappy because ACA doesn't go far enough in terms of government control, which is why all polls on ACA that break down individual components of ACA show it to be clearly popular by solid majorities when those 20% of liberals are asked how they feel about the individual components. For example, Bloomberg's poll here, reposted below:

A study from June 6-9, 2013 asking opinions about how they feel since the health care law went into effect? The same law that went into effect January 2014? I guess they have a time machine. Not to mention the majority of the law hasn't even kicked in yet.

 

[nehalem256]

What's interesting is people claiming ACA to be unpopular when polls show liberals that are unhappy with Obamacare tip the scale to negative "support"...except those 20% of liberals are unhappy because ACA doesn't go far enough in terms of government control, which is why all polls on ACA that break down individual components of ACA show it to be clearly popular by solid majorities when those 20% of liberals are asked how they feel about the individual components. For example, Bloomberg's poll here, reposted below:

You mean the polls that show people like getting stuff, but don't like paying for it?

 

[Jhhnn]

You mean the polls that show people like getting stuff, but don't like paying for it?

Other than people who qualify for the medicaid extension, everybody pays with the ACA. It's not free.

 

[Jhhnn]

Grandstanding. He's mostly trying to draw attention to the fact that Obama is a criminal. Obamacare is now the law of the land. It went through all of the proper channels, and it passed. Now Obama is trying to use executive orders to overrule congress, which is illegal.

An analogy would make it easier to understand what's going on. Suppose we passed marijuana reform. It goes through the entire process, it goes through congress, the senate, and it's signed by the president. That becomes the new law - marijuana is legal for everyone. But wait, the president signs an executive order saying anyone caught with marijuana will be arrested. Can the president legally do that? The answer is no, and that's why Obama is being sued.
Imagine how angry people would be if Romney were president and he issued an executive order making abortion illegal in all states. He would immediately be sued because his executive order goes against the current laws. The president is supposed to have less power than congress.

Pure nonsense. If Obama is a criminal, then he must have violated a specific criminal statute that has penalties attached. That's how criminality is defined by law. Name it.

Obama's actions wrt the delay are more like his non-enforcement of federal MJ law in CO & WA. Congress already has recourse, always have- it's spelled out in the Constitution.

Congress didn't pass the ACA so that detractors could force failure when unanticipated implementation issues arose. That's been Repubs' goal all along- to force failure on a program they oppose on purely ideological grounds.

 

[First]

A study from June 6-9, 2013 asking opinions about how they feel since the health care law went into effect? The same law that went into effect January 2014? I guess they have a time machine. Not to mention the majority of the law hasn't even kicked in yet.

The Bloomberg poll was done in June 2014, ya derper. Check your RCP link, it was an oversight.

Also, all polling that breaks down the ACA questions that way shows exactly what Bloomberg does; a solid block of liberals disapprove of ACA because it didn't go far enough. So they're not the same as the turds on the conservative side that believe ACA = socialism. ACA has solid majority public support on nearly every single individual metric.

 

[Matt1970]

The Bloomberg poll was done in June 2014, ya derper. Check your RCP link, it was an oversight.

Also, all polling that breaks down the ACA questions that way shows exactly what Bloomberg does; a solid block of liberals disapprove of ACA because it didn't go far enough. So they're not the same as the turds on the conservative side that believe ACA = socialism. ACA has solid majority public support on nearly every single individual metric.

I'm a derper for their mistake? Classy. Well see how people feel when the majority of the ACA is in effect.

 

[First]

I'm a derper for their mistake? Classy. Well see how people feel when the majority of the ACA is in effect.

Don't hate me when I bump this.

 

[UberNeuman]

The most important question to ask is how does Benghazi fit into this?

 

[Matt1970]

Don't hate me when I bump this.

Oh please do.

 

[Jhhnn]

The most important question to ask is how does Benghazi fit into this?

It's because of the birth certificate, you fool!

 

[Spungo]

What's interesting is people claiming ACA to be unpopular when polls show liberals that are unhappy with Obamacare tip the scale to negative "support"...except those 20% of liberals are unhappy because ACA doesn't go far enough in terms of government control

Excellent point.
It's for this reason that polls need to be carefully examined. Penn & Teller did a good job of showing how polls can be messed with. By asking the right question, the pollster was able to get a guy to say that he supports spending money on illegal immigrants, but, at the same time, is against spending money on illegal immigrants. Ask if people support estate tax then ask if people support death tax. People can be for and against a policy at the same time. You can even get different answers based on when a person is asked. People who are tired and hungry are probably a lot less satisfied with everything. You'll get really weird poll results if you ask everyone at 8am. Also, that show Cops was mostly at night. Why? People are crazier at night. The president would probably be a stripper if the votes were all cast between the hours of 2am and 4am on a saturday.

I'm completely dissatisfied with obamacare in its current form because I'm a young woman with no kids. I had one of those high-deductible catastrophic policies that Obama deemed unacceptable. Now I have no coverage at all. If I get sick, I'll just take on piles of debt then file for bankruptcy.
I think Obamacare will improve over time, but right now it's a train wreck. Insurers don't know what to charge because they're not sure who will sign up, doctors don't know if their patients have insurance or not. Even the patients themselves don't seem to know if they have insurance or not. For whatever reason, a lot of people assume Obamacare is free. They sign up for a plan but they don't pay for it, so they think they're covered when they're not.

Ironically, a lot of the blame for the confusion goes to the republicans. Democrats talk about free shit like it's a good thing, and republicans talk about free shit like it's a bad thing. It's not free. This is where the confusion comes from. Stop telling people that it's free. It's only free after you've paid your premiums and the high deductible.

 

[Jhhnn]

Excellent point.
It's for this reason that polls need to be carefully examined. Penn & Teller did a good job of showing how polls can be messed with. By asking the right question, the pollster was able to get a guy to say that he supports spending money on illegal immigrants, but, at the same time, is against spending money on illegal immigrants. Ask if people support estate tax then ask if people support death tax. People can be for and against a policy at the same time. You can even get different answers based on when a person is asked. People who are tired and hungry are probably a lot less satisfied with everything. You'll get really weird poll results if you ask everyone at 8am. Also, that show Cops was mostly at night. Why? People are crazier at night. The president would probably be a stripper if the votes were all cast between the hours of 2am and 4am on a saturday.

I'm completely dissatisfied with obamacare in its current form because I'm a young woman with no kids. I had one of those high-deductible catastrophic policies that Obama deemed unacceptable. Now I have no coverage at all. If I get sick, I'll just take on piles of debt then file for bankruptcy.
I think Obamacare will improve over time, but right now it's a train wreck. Insurers don't know what to charge because they're not sure who will sign up, doctors don't know if their patients have insurance or not. Even the patients themselves don't seem to know if they have insurance or not. For whatever reason, a lot of people assume Obamacare is free. They sign up for a plan but they don't pay for it, so they think they're covered when they're not.

Ironically, a lot of the blame for the confusion goes to the republicans. Democrats talk about free shit like it's a good thing, and republicans talk about free shit like it's a bad thing. It's not free. This is where the confusion comes from. Stop telling people that it's free. It's only free after you've paid your premiums and the high deductible.

IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go to your exchange & get honest answers instead of regurgitating right wing bullshit. We have an exchange plan, works just fine.

Or is the truth to be avoided at all costs?

 

[Zorkorist]

Well yeah, anyone that needs health-care, gets health-care. This was true before Obama Care.

Obama-Care taxes young people from the day they are born for "health care"

Communist. Socialist.

Shameful.

-John

 

[Matt1970]

IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go to your exchange & get honest answers instead of regurgitating right wing bullshit. We have an exchange plan, works just fine.

Or is the truth to be avoided at all costs?

She does have an idea about what she is talking about. She had a policy she was happy with and was repeatedly promised she could keep. She probably wasn't going to go to the emergency room every time she had a headache or fever but had a plan to cover her ass in case of a disaster. A lot of people had that. She was flat out lied to, repeatedly that she could keep her plan. Now she and a lot of others are flat out fucked if they fall in the income group that doesn't qualify for subsidies, can no longer have the catastrophic plan they thought of as a safety net, and cannot afford the new much higher rates a lot of people are seeing. She was rest assured she could keep her plan during a time when people would have spoken up in protest if they knew what was coming, but hey, Obama knows what best for everyone right?

 

[Jhhnn]

She does have an idea about what she is talking about. She had a policy she was happy with and was repeatedly promised she could keep. She probably wasn't going to go to the emergency room every time she had a headache or fever but had a plan to cover her ass in case of a disaster. A lot of people had that. She was flat out lied to, repeatedly that she could keep her plan. Now she and a lot of others are flat out fucked if they fall in the income group that doesn't qualify for subsidies, can no longer have the catastrophic plan they thought of as a safety net, and cannot afford the new much higher rates a lot of people are seeing. She was rest assured she could keep her plan during a time when people would have spoken up in protest if they knew what was coming, but hey, Obama knows what best for everyone right?

You don't know what you're talking about, either, covered by your parents' plan, I'm sure.

There are a variety of exchange plans available, the price of which is limited to an affordable % of income. Well, except for low income earners in states who opted out of the medicare extension. That's not the fault of the ACA at all, but rather the SCOTUS & the state govts in question.

Like all too many well propagandized believers, she probably never went to the exchange at all. If she knew what she was talking about, she wouldn't have posted this claptrap at all-

I think Obamacare will improve over time, but right now it's a train wreck. Insurers don't know what to charge because they're not sure who will sign up, doctors don't know if their patients have insurance or not. Even the patients themselves don't seem to know if they have insurance or not. For whatever reason, a lot of people assume Obamacare is free. They sign up for a plan but they don't pay for it, so they think they're covered when they're not.

Insurors know what to charge, obviously.

Doctors only know what patients tell them until later.

Anybody who has an exchange plan knows they have insurance.

The exchange very plainly tells people what they have to pay when they sign up.

Statements to the contrary are hogwash.

 

[Zorkorist]

You don't know what you're talking about, either, covered by your parents' plan, I'm sure.

There are a variety of exchange plans available, the price of which is limited to an affordable % of income. Well, except for low income earners in states who opted out of the medicare extension. That's not the fault of the ACA at all, but rather the SCOTUS & the state govts in question.

Like all too many well propagandized believers, she probably never went to the exchange at all. If she knew what she was talking about, she wouldn't have posted this claptrap at all-



Insurors know what to charge, obviously.

Doctors only know what patients tell them until later.

Anybody who has an exchange plan knows they have insurance.

The exchange very plainly tells people what they have to pay when they sign up.

Statements to the contrary are hogwash.

Paper's Please.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

"Let Government Help you," he said in a suave voice.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Raegan

 

[Spungo]

IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go to your exchange & get honest answers instead of regurgitating right wing bullshit. We have an exchange plan, works just fine.

Or is the truth to be avoided at all costs?

I guess HHS is now part of this right wing conspiracy you speak of.

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess HHS is now part of this right wing conspiracy you speak of.

Which relates to the gobbledegook you spewed in post #61 how, exactly?

When you went to the exchange during the eligibility period, what was your bottom line w/ subsidy?

Edit- the image is from Forbes, not HHS & you somehow forgot to link the article with it.

 

[Matt1970]

You don't know what you're talking about, either, covered by your parents' plan, I'm sure.

.

Gee, I wonder if there is a clue to my age anywhere here...... Maybe you do see it and just don't believe it.

 

[Spungo]

Gee, I wonder if there is a clue to my age anywhere here...... Maybe you do see it and just don't believe it.

He's too busy watching Fox News. All he hears is how young men are getting destroyed to cover the costs of women. He can't comprehend that more than 1 group can see costs rise at the same time, even when numbers prove it.


Suppose there is a group of 5 people sharing medical costs. 1 of them becomes extremely sick and needs intense medical care. Someone with an elementary school understanding of math would expect 4 people, including young women, to see rising costs to pay for that 1 very sick person. In Jhhnn's world, it's impossible for 4 people to see costs go up at the same time.

 

[jhbball]

Gee, I wonder if there is a clue to my age anywhere here...... Maybe you do see it and just don't believe it.

You're far too stupid to be that old.

 

[werepossum]

What's interesting is people claiming ACA to be unpopular when polls show liberals that are unhappy with Obamacare tip the scale to negative "support"...except those 20% of liberals are unhappy because ACA doesn't go far enough in terms of government control, which is why all polls on ACA that break down individual components of ACA show it to be clearly popular by solid majorities when those 20% of liberals are asked how they feel about the individual components. For example, Bloomberg's poll here, reposted below:

That can go both ways. If polled, I'd say I oppose it as going too far because philosophically I oppose moving to a one size fits all federal health insurance system. I'd also say I'm satisfied with my Obamacare-compliant policy because although it costs me more, I consider it a bearable burden for what it accomplishes. It's not necessarily an either-or situation where if I don't get my druthers on methodology I'm necessarily unhappy with what I do get, and I assume the majority of Americans would be similarly flexible and honest in answering.

Given the poll questions I'd also have to say I'm opposed to repeal. Even though I am philosophically opposed to the Obamacare approach, I see no reason to dismantle the good it does simply for philosophical reasons. I'd prefer something aligned with my philosophy AND producing better results, but I see no reason to again go through the upheaval of changing our entire health insurance system unless and until I'm convinced the pain will be worth it. Thus I can be opposed to Obamacare, but within the parameters of the poll questions also opposed to its repeal. Life ain't simple.

Point is, people and poll results are more complicated than we might wish to make them. We can easily be satisfied with the results of something we oppose on principle, or dissatisfied with the results of something we support on principle. Obviously that can be a direct result of implementation, but less obviously it can simply be a recognition of reality. Philosophically I am against the dole; practically I recognize that modern life (and especially health care) is too expensive for private charity to fill the need for every person. If one's philosophy perfectly aligns with practicality then one is not thinking, because no broad philosophy is best for every situation.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I am a fan of health care reform but keep in mind the survey question is not are you completely satisfied. There are going to be many responses that essentially state they thought it would be horrible but the experience was simply bad. Those aren't results to be proud of.
I'm not a polling expert.