Sarah Palin writes in Wall Street Journal

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Hmmm...agree 7% is statistically significant...but it appears that the gist of his post was in response to the following:

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07
She's exactly right. Really well written and most assuredly agrees with the majority of the country right now. That is what scares the left so much, she's dead on correct and people respect her. She busts through their lies and deception.

Yeah, they respect her so much that she has a 43% favorable rating. This is how low the bar for Republicans has sunk, if only 6 out of 10 people dislike you, you're looking good!

To expand on your 'logic'...one could conclude that Pelosi's 62% disapproval rating as well as Obama's disapproval rating exceeding his approval rating by 8% are both ''statistically significant' indicators of just how low the bar for Democrats has sunk...no?

You are incorrect. Obama's disapproval rating does not exceed his approval rating by 8%. In fact his approval exceeds his disapproval by ~4% according to the RCP average. (in many polls, also 'statistically significant!') You are mistaking the strong approve/strong disapprove for straight up approval. That most certainly speaks to the current polarized opinions about Obama, but I'm not really sure what it would say about 'how low the bar for Democrats has sunk'.

As for Pelosi, uhmm.... sure. Of course I never see leftists on here trumpeting the amazing qualities of Nancy Pelosi, and since my comment was specifically about how pathetic it was that the person he was trumpeting couldn't even muster a 50% approval rating, I'm not exactly sure why it is relevant. There are plenty of unpopular Democrats.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Thank you...someone who can read, instead of getting all bent-out-of-shape about one misused word. I do find it amusing how he got all up-in-arms arguing about the word "statistical", immediately resorted to the insults, and never addressed the points I made. Deflect and insult. It gets tiresome.

He acts like Palin's approval numbers are in the 20s and Obama's are in the 70s. That would be significant. Instead, the difference is 7%...not that great by any stretch of the imagination.

I think we've already shown that your grasp of what is 'significant' leaves something to be desired.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
He acts like Palin's approval numbers are in the 20s and Obama's are in the 70s. That would be significant. Instead, the difference is 7%...not that great by any stretch of the imagination.

Huh. I guess you didn't look up statistically significant after all.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: yllus
Pretty vacuous: Lots of words, little actually said.

Her statement of government usually making things worse is generally true. However, there are times in which it's wrong. It's not like a public option / single-payer / more socialized medicine is an unrealistic dream that no nation on Earth has ever successfully implemented - quite the opposite. So why still go back to that as an argument?

What's wrong with appointing people to this Independent Medicare Advisory Council? Not every position should be filled via a popularity contest. The point is to get obscenely well-qualified people into those chairs, not people whose skillset must include the ability to work a room for votes. Skepticism about partisanship is healthy, but this idea that every major position requires an election is childish.

Agreed. I will say that as an independent who voted for Obama and was generally horrified by Palin's statements during last year's election, this article is generally well-written and articulates a number of the opposition's concerns well. It's a refreshing change from the paranoid hysteria about the rise of socialism and the end of freedom in America.

Obama has been pushing (at least ostensibly) for bipartisan support on this bill for a while (Palin's remarks on this are misleading in my opinion), and I'm hoping that he will take a better lead at addressing these concerns about costs in healthcare: round 2.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Hmmm...agree 7% is statistically significant...but it appears that the gist of his post was in response to the following:

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07
She's exactly right. Really well written and most assuredly agrees with the majority of the country right now. That is what scares the left so much, she's dead on correct and people respect her. She busts through their lies and deception.

Yeah, they respect her so much that she has a 43% favorable rating. This is how low the bar for Republicans has sunk, if only 6 out of 10 people dislike you, you're looking good!

To expand on your 'logic'...one could conclude that Pelosi's 62% disapproval rating as well as Obama's disapproval rating exceeding his approval rating by 8% are both ''statistically significant' indicators of just how low the bar for Democrats has sunk...no?

You are incorrect. Obama's disapproval rating does not exceed his approval rating by 8%. In fact his approval exceeds his disapproval by ~4% according to the RCP average. (in many polls, also 'statistically significant!') You are mistaking the strong approve/strong disapprove for straight up approval. That most certainly speaks to the current polarized opinions about Obama, but I'm not really sure what it would say about 'how low the bar for Democrats has sunk'.

As for Pelosi, uhmm.... sure. Of course I never see leftists on here trumpeting the amazing qualities of Nancy Pelosi, and since my comment was specifically about how pathetic it was that the person he was trumpeting couldn't even muster a 50% approval rating, I'm not exactly sure why it is relevant. There are plenty of unpopular Democrats.

I understand that you prefer a straight up approval rating to an index based on strong approval/disapproval (Rassmussan)...but an -8% index is 'statistically significant' no matter how you'd like to spin it.

Regardless...it appears that you fail to see my point...you equate Palin's 43% approval rating to 'just how low the bar for Republicans has sunk'...yet struggle with saying the same thing in reference to Pelosi....passing her off as an unpopular Democrat. One is an ex-Presidential candidate no longer holding a government office and the other is Speaker of the House...one of the most powerful positions in our country. Yet...it's Palin's 43% approval rating that shows us 'just how low the bar for Republicans has sunk'. If approval rating is your measuring stick for political parties...then you should have no problem saying the same thing about Democrats. But I can see that would be difficult for you to do....even-handedness does not appear to be your strong point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Thank you...someone who can read, instead of getting all bent-out-of-shape about one misused word. I do find it amusing how he got all up-in-arms arguing about the word "statistical", immediately resorted to the insults, and never addressed the points I made. Deflect and insult. It gets tiresome.

He acts like Palin's approval numbers are in the 20s and Obama's are in the 70s. That would be significant. Instead, the difference is 7%...not that great by any stretch of the imagination.

I think we've already shown that your grasp of what is 'significant' leaves something to be desired.

You're being trite...7% isn't that significant of a difference. He admits to misusing the term 'statistical significance'...yet you insult...hmmm.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Phokus
83% support a public plan. you're an idiot.

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefs..._IB_7-2009_HCS_091.pdf

Hey Phokus - It's September, dude - how about you provide a source that's actually relevant to TODAY'S political opinion, since it's actually SEPTEMBER - NOT JULY.

1. Spidey07's post and his poll directly contradict each other.

2. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/...h_care_kaiser_8411.php

Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans?
59% Favor
38% Oppose

Nice :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

I don't know what you guys are smoking, people DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH care.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._health_care_57_oppose

"Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan. "

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I don't know what you guys are smoking, people DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH care.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._health_care_57_oppose

"Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan. "

single payer is off the table, why are you even talking about it?


besides, most people don't even understand the basics of the debate or definitions, any poll on this is effectively meaningless

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I don't know what you guys are smoking, people DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH care.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._health_care_57_oppose

"Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan. "

Which is not what is being proposed. Now find #s for the public option ....

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spidey07
I don't know what you guys are smoking, people DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH care.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._health_care_57_oppose

"Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan. "

Which is not what is being proposed. Now find #s for the public option ....

(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spidey07
I don't know what you guys are smoking, people DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH care.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._health_care_57_oppose

"Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan. "

Which is not what is being proposed. Now find #s for the public option ....

(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

I was going to add that in my post ....

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jonks


(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

Government run healthcare is essentially government being the single payer which is the stated goal of Obama and democrats in power. Americans do not want this by a very large margin.

 

[Pens1566]

I can't tell if :

1) jonks is 100% correct
2) spidey is incorrect in his understanding of currently proposed legislation to put it nicely
3) all of the above

I think a poll is in order

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Hmmm...agree 7% is statistically significant...but it appears that the gist of his post was in response to the following:

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07
She's exactly right. Really well written and most assuredly agrees with the majority of the country right now. That is what scares the left so much, she's dead on correct and people respect her. She busts through their lies and deception.

Yeah, they respect her so much that she has a 43% favorable rating. This is how low the bar for Republicans has sunk, if only 6 out of 10 people dislike you, you're looking good!

To expand on your 'logic'...one could conclude that Pelosi's 62% disapproval rating as well as Obama's disapproval rating exceeding his approval rating by 8% are both ''statistically significant' indicators of just how low the bar for Democrats has sunk...no?

You are incorrect. Obama's disapproval rating does not exceed his approval rating by 8%. In fact his approval exceeds his disapproval by ~4% according to the RCP average. (in many polls, also 'statistically significant!') You are mistaking the strong approve/strong disapprove for straight up approval. That most certainly speaks to the current polarized opinions about Obama, but I'm not really sure what it would say about 'how low the bar for Democrats has sunk'.

As for Pelosi, uhmm.... sure. Of course I never see leftists on here trumpeting the amazing qualities of Nancy Pelosi, and since my comment was specifically about how pathetic it was that the person he was trumpeting couldn't even muster a 50% approval rating, I'm not exactly sure why it is relevant. There are plenty of unpopular Democrats.

I understand that you prefer a straight up approval rating to an index based on strong approval/disapproval (Rassmussan)...but an -8% index is 'statistically significant' no matter how you'd like to spin it.

Regardless...it appears that you fail to see my point...you equate Palin's 43% approval rating to 'just how low the bar for Republicans has sunk'...yet struggle with saying the same thing in reference to Pelosi....passing her off as an unpopular Democrat. One is an ex-Presidential candidate no longer holding a government office and the other is Speaker of the House...one of the most powerful positions in our country. Yet...it's Palin's 43% approval rating that shows us 'just how low the bar for Republicans has sunk'. If approval rating is your measuring stick for political parties...then you should have no problem saying the same thing about Democrats. But I can see that would be difficult for you to do....even-handedness does not appear to be your strong point.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, eh? You've just put an argument in my mouth and then wondered why it's inconsistent.

You are attempting to make my original statement mean something it did not, and use that to cram this thread into the same theme that you always use. Do not mistake my confusion as to why you even brought up Nancy Pelosi to begin with for being unwilling to accept her unpopularity. I was dismissing an irrelevant statement, not struggling with talking about her.

My statement addressed the fact that spidey was running in here with something Sarah Palin wrote, talking about how much America agreed with her and how great she was. I merely noted that America apparently didn't think she was so great after all. That's it. I'm not sure why, but at this point you introduced the Democrats, who weren't even the topic of discussion. I have never made any claims whatsoever as to the quality of Nancy Pelosi's popularity, and your numbers about Obama were dishonest.

On that subject, while 8% strong approve/disapprove is most certainly statistically significant, it's still apples and oranges. In fact, this is a similar deceit to that Washington Times editorial, where they attempted to conflate strong/weak approval ratings with up or down approval ratings. My 'spin' is that to make an honest comparison between two political figures we should use a consistent metric for them both. Your 'spin' is that strong dislike being greater than strong like, even within the context of overall positive approval is akin to someone having 43% approval. It's not.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Thank you...someone who can read, instead of getting all bent-out-of-shape about one misused word. I do find it amusing how he got all up-in-arms arguing about the word "statistical", immediately resorted to the insults, and never addressed the points I made. Deflect and insult. It gets tiresome.

He acts like Palin's approval numbers are in the 20s and Obama's are in the 70s. That would be significant. Instead, the difference is 7%...not that great by any stretch of the imagination.

I think we've already shown that your grasp of what is 'significant' leaves something to be desired.

You're being trite...7% isn't that significant of a difference. He admits to misusing the term 'statistical significance'...yet you insult...hmmm.

Yeap, he deserves to be insulted too. Next time he posts I'll probably insult him again. Anyone who has read a significant number of posts should be able to see exactly why.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks


(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

Government run healthcare is essentially government being the single payer which is the stated goal of Obama and democrats in power. Americans do not want this by a very large margin.

which is why single payer is off the table, because that's there goal, because spidey said so.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks


(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

Government run healthcare is essentially government being the single payer which is the stated goal of Obama and democrats in power. Americans do not want this by a very large margin.

How you can have continued to read and post in so many healthcare threads and not have the most basic understanding of the plans in controversy is testament to your trollhood.

Simple question: do you get that the "single payer" plan is not the same as the plan including a "public option"?

If you just looked at the names of the plans you'd be able to see that you can't have a "public option" if the government is the "single payer", because then there would be no option, i.e. as in England.

Public Option can only exist where there are also Private Options and therefore cannot co-exist with a Single Payer Gov't run Healthcare system. The poll you linked shows only 32% favor a "Medicare for all" single payer system as they have in England. As this is not being proposed by Obama or anyone in congress it's rather irrelevant. Support for a Public Option hovers in the 70s.

 

[spidey07]

With Pelosi still saying a house bill must include a public option, Obama saying something else, Senator Baucus saying it's off the table and something totally different, all the different versions of different bills from different committees it's difficult to know what the hell is up to tell you the truth.

But Obama, pelosi, reid, frank, etc ALL want single payer as their end game to eliminate private insurance - they are on record as saying as much. It may not be stated directly in various bills (well, it is...indirectly) that that's the goal, but it is. Anybody with a brain can see that.

But the people are waking up to what they are trying to accomplish and fighting back. Just compare any of the various poll options before the recess to now.

Palin's op-ed is very true and straight to the point, anytime gubment tries to "solve" big problems more and bigger problems are created. No child left behind, prescription drug plan, cash for clunkers, and on and on.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
With Pelosi still saying a house bill must include a public option, Obama saying something else, Senator Baucus saying it's off the table and something totally different, all the different versions of different bills from different committees it's difficult to know what the hell is up to tell you the truth.

But Obama, pelosi, reid, frank, etc ALL want single payer as their end game to eliminate private insurance - they are on record as saying as much. It may not be stated directly in various bills (well, it is...indirectly) that that's the goal, but it is. Anybody with a brain can see that.

But the people are waking up to what they are trying to accomplish and fighting back. Just compare any of the various poll options before the recess to now.

Palin's op-ed is very true and straight to the point, anytime gubment tries to "solve" big problems more and bigger problems are created. No child left behind, prescription drug plan, cash for clunkers, and on and on.

whats the problem with getting rid of private insurance?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Palin's op-ed is very true and straight to the point, anytime gubment tries to "solve" big problems more and bigger problems are created. No child left behind, prescription drug plan, cash for clunkers, and on and on.

That old saw, Republicans say government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks


(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

Government run healthcare is essentially government being the single payer which is the stated goal of Obama and democrats in power. Americans do not want this by a very large margin.

How you can have continued to read and post in so many healthcare threads and not have the most basic understanding of the plans in controversy is testament to your trollhood.

Simple question: do you get that the "single payer" plan is not the same as the plan including a "public option"?

If you just looked at the names of the plans you'd be able to see that you can't have a "public option" if the government is the "single payer", because then there would be no option, i.e. as in England.

Public Option can only exist where there are also Private Options and therefore cannot co-exist with a Single Payer Gov't run Healthcare system. The poll you linked shows only 32% favor a "Medicare for all" single payer system as they have in England. As this is not being proposed by Obama or anyone in congress it's rather irrelevant. Support for a Public Option hovers in the 70s.

C'mon.

Everybody knows the argument that the public option will eventually drive out the private insurers leaving us with a single payer system.

While not everyone agrees that will happen, it's a bit silly to forcefully/legitimately argue it won't since (at the very least) we don't know all the details of any public option that might make it to a vote.

So, need to quible over the semantics since for many the two are one-in-the-same.

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks


(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

Government run healthcare is essentially government being the single payer which is the stated goal of Obama and democrats in power. Americans do not want this by a very large margin.

How you can have continued to read and post in so many healthcare threads and not have the most basic understanding of the plans in controversy is testament to your trollhood.

Simple question: do you get that the "single payer" plan is not the same as the plan including a "public option"?

If you just looked at the names of the plans you'd be able to see that you can't have a "public option" if the government is the "single payer", because then there would be no option, i.e. as in England.

Public Option can only exist where there are also Private Options and therefore cannot co-exist with a Single Payer Gov't run Healthcare system. The poll you linked shows only 32% favor a "Medicare for all" single payer system as they have in England. As this is not being proposed by Obama or anyone in congress it's rather irrelevant. Support for a Public Option hovers in the 70s.

C'mon.

Everybody knows the argument that the public option will eventually drive out the private insurers leaving us with a single payer system.


Fern

It didn't happen in Germany, they have both public & private options.

 

[sandorski]

Protip: Solutions to any Problem by any Person or Organization always cause New Problems. The crux of the matter is: Are the New Problems less severe than the Original Problems that were addressed.

If New Problems are your criteria to not do something, then you should never do anything again.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Protip: Solutions to any Problem by any Person or Organization always cause New Problems. The crux of the matter is: Are the New Problems less severe than the Original Problems that were addressed.

If New Problems are your criteria to not do something, then you should never do anything again.

Or you let The Constitution rule your actions.

Government is not the solution to our problems, they are the cause.