Statistician Nate Silver from 538 analyzes several polls on the public option for healthcare reform

[Phokus]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

 

[Paddington]

Polls are irrelevant. The Democrats are trying hoist a massive new government plan on the public with no way to pay for it, with a government already heavily in debt.

 

[Paddington]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

By definition you will be, assuming you're not a welfare leech right now that pays no taxes. Where do you think that money will come from?

There's basically 4 groups of people right now who are uninsured:

1) Illegal immigrants
2) People who comfortably make good money who choose not to buy health insurance
3) People covered by Medicaid/Medicare who just aren't signed up for it (you'd be amazed how common this is)
4) People just above the Medicaid line who don't qualify

Group 3 is already covered; they just don't sign up until they actually get sick one day and come in to the ED. Group 2 is taking a chance, but that should be their right to do so. Perhaps coverage for their children should be mandated though. Group 1 is already covered for emergent situations, and I'm not a big fan of handing out entitlements to folks who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. The only group that I might have some sympathy for is #4, which are the "working poor" that don't qualify for Medicaid yet can't afford health insurance. The best type of healthcare reform should be targeted at this group of people, preferably with some financial incentives to help them buy (or make up the difference for) healthcare insurance or perhaps expand Medicaid to cover them.

 

[Fear No Evil]

85% of Americans also want sharks with laser beams on their friggan heads in the oceans as well.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Polls are irrelevant. The Democrats are trying hoist a massive new government plan on the public with no way to pay for it, with a government already heavily in debt.

Some posts are irrelevant, too.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Paddington

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

By definition you will be, assuming you're not a welfare leech right now that pays no taxes. Where do you think that money will come from?

There's basically 4 groups of people right now who are uninsured:

1) Illegal immigrants
2) People who comfortably make good money who choose not to buy health insurance
3) People covered by Medicaid/Medicare who just aren't signed up for it (you'd be amazed how common this is)
4) People just above the Medicaid line who don't qualify

Group 3 is already covered; they just don't sign up until they actually get sick one day and come in to the ED. Group 2 is taking a chance, but that should be their right to do so. Perhaps coverage for their children should be mandated though. Group 1 is already covered for emergent situations, and I'm not a big fan of handing out entitlements to folks who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. The only group that I might have some sympathy for is #4, which are the "working poor" that don't qualify for Medicaid yet can't afford health insurance. The best type of healthcare reform should be targeted at this group of people, preferably with some financial incentives to help them buy (or make up the difference for) healthcare insurance or perhaps expand Medicaid to cover them.

And according to cbo about 1/2 of those uninsured have insurance again within 6 months. There are very few that are chronically uninsured.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
85% of Americans also want sharks with laser beams on their friggan heads in the oceans as well.

I'm for that as well, but it just isn't high on my priority list...

Here is the list.

1) Overhauled drug legislation
2) Nationalized Healthcare
3) Net Neutrality
4) Returning to a more constitutional protection of citizens rights.
5) Sharks with laser beams on their frikken' heads.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
85% of Americans also want sharks with laser beams on their friggan heads in the oceans as well.

100% of people who choose 'Fear No Evil' as an internet user name are idiots

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
85% of Americans also want sharks with laser beams on their friggan heads in the oceans as well.

Down with democracy!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You already subsidize others in our current system and you will continue to subsidize others' health care so long as you live in any industrialized nation on earth.

 

[Paddington]

The Kaiser Foundation, which is a liberal group, says the true number of persistently uninsured is 8-13 million. Though we should still note that even this group still has ED/inpatient coverage under EMTALA, and these numbers still don't account for the many local (below state level) programs that are in place to cover folks for many things.

 

[ProfJohn]

These polls are worthless at this moment.

No body knows what they are actually coming out in favor of. Wait till the details are in place and then start polling people and see what you get.

Ask people the follow two questions and what do you think the answers would be?

1. Do you support President Obama's plan to expand healthcare to millions of uninsured?

or

2. Do you support a plan to spend $100 billion a year in order to provide healthcare to only a third of the countries uninsured?

Question 1 gets huge approval, question 2 gets laughed at.

 

[Paddington]

Yup, pretty much.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
These polls are worthless at this moment.

No body knows what they are actually coming out in favor of. Wait till the details are in place and then start polling people and see what you get.

Ask people the follow two questions and what do you think the answers would be?

1. Do you support President Obama's plan to expand healthcare to millions of uninsured?

or

2. Do you support a plan to spend $100 billion a year in order to provide healthcare to only a third of the countries uninsured?

Question 1 gets huge approval, question 2 gets laughed at.

That's because you phrased it in an incredibly dishonest way, Pro-Jo. This is why you don't run a polling firm.

You will claim the polls don't mean anything up until the day the bill is passed... and long after probably. It's because polls that fly in the face of your ideology are to be ignored or discounted.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Paddington
The Kaiser Foundation, which is a liberal group, says the true number of persistently uninsured is 8-13 million. Though we should still note that even this group still has ED/inpatient coverage under EMTALA, and these numbers still don't account for the many local (below state level) programs that are in place to cover folks for many things.

No, they aren't.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
These polls are worthless at this moment.

No body knows what they are actually coming out in favor of. Wait till the details are in place and then start polling people and see what you get.

Ask people the follow two questions and what do you think the answers would be?

1. Do you support President Obama's plan to expand healthcare to millions of uninsured?

or

2. Do you support a plan to spend $100 billion a year in order to provide healthcare to only a third of the countries uninsured?

Question 1 gets huge approval, question 2 gets laughed at.

That's because you phrased it in an incredibly dishonest way, Pro-Jo. This is why you don't run a polling firm.

You will claim the polls don't mean anything up until the day the bill is passed... and long after probably. It's because polls that fly in the face of your ideology are to be ignored or discounted.

Oh.. you are right... it is $160 billion, not $100 billion... my bad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31...politics-capitol_hill/

WASHINGTON - The latest cost estimates for health care legislation in Congress are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years, two Senate sources said Tuesday as concerns mounted over the price tag for the sweeping overhaul.

Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

On Monday, the budget office said the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee version would cost $1 trillion over ten years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
These polls are worthless at this moment.

No body knows what they are actually coming out in favor of. Wait till the details are in place and then start polling people and see what you get.

Ask people the follow two questions and what do you think the answers would be?

1. Do you support President Obama's plan to expand healthcare to millions of uninsured?

or

2. Do you support a plan to spend $100 billion a year in order to provide healthcare to only a third of the countries uninsured?

Question 1 gets huge approval, question 2 gets laughed at.

That's because you phrased it in an incredibly dishonest way, Pro-Jo. This is why you don't run a polling firm.

You will claim the polls don't mean anything up until the day the bill is passed... and long after probably. It's because polls that fly in the face of your ideology are to be ignored or discounted.

Oh.. you are right... it is $160 billion, not $100 billion... my bad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31...politics-capitol_hill/

WASHINGTON - The latest cost estimates for health care legislation in Congress are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years, two Senate sources said Tuesday as concerns mounted over the price tag for the sweeping overhaul.

Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

On Monday, the budget office said the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee version would cost $1 trillion over ten years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured.

Yeap, and your question is still incredibly dishonestly phrased. That's why you would be laughed out of a real polling firm.

 

[bamacre]

I would imagine the majority of Americans also support lower taxes. The majority of Americans opposed the bailouts. More people supported legalizing marijuana over Obama's stimulus package. The majority of Americans want to have their cake and eat it too.

But in my opinion, the majority of Americans don't have any rights. Only individuals have rights, and the majority of Americans certainly do not have the right to rule over the minority of Americans.

UHC is just another attempt by government to cure the symptom rather than the disease. Instead of tackling the high costs of health care, UHC only transfers the burden of those high costs. This is the way government works, when it deals with domestic issues or foreign policy, it is the same, always attempting to cure the symptoms rather than the disease. But it is never surprising because often it is the disease.

 

[ProfJohn]

Read my post again... my whole point was that people have no idea what they are voting for in these polls.

"Free healthcare" sounds great until you get the bill or understand how much taxes have to go up to pay for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Read my post again... my whole point was that people have no idea what they are voting for in these polls.

"Free healthcare" sounds great until you get the bill or understand how much taxes have to go up to pay for it.

But then they realize that we're already paying for these people in our current system, and so the price tag being affixed to it doesn't account for the fact that we WON'T be paying for them the way we already are... making your phrasing of the question insanely dishonest.

Furthermore, quite a few of these polls explain at length the outline of Obama's plan. You would know that if you had read any of the polls, which I sincerely doubt you have done.

 

[TruePaige]

If 100B a year would insure 1/3, then 300B a year could insure everyone.

So 1000 a yr per person.

So 83 a month.
20 a week
2.97 a day.

For $2.97 a day we can insure all of America. Go for a true nationalized system instead of playing nice with these lobbyist insurance company people who perpetuate the "status quo" and I know we could get that much lower.

$2.97 a day to take care of every uninsured American in this nation. Sounds pretty good.

 

[Paddington]

The figure they cited was $1.6 trillion to cover 1/3 of those currently uninsured. The "currently uninsured" numbers are highly dubious, but using the most generous "45 million" estimate, that means 15 million people. So $160 billion a year to cover 15 million people, works out to over $10,000 *per person* cost to the taxpayer at large. That's far too costly, and the plan should be rejected.

So 1000 a yr per person.

$1000 a year is a significant cost. You casually dismiss $300 billion as if it were nothing. This is money the government doesn't even have right now. $1000 per head is about 5% of GDP. Is America ready to whack 5% off its GDP to expand health insurance when it can't afford to do so?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Go for a true nationalized system instead of playing nice with these lobbyist insurance company people who perpetuate the "status quo"

:laugh: Go look at all the money Hillary received in campaign donations from health care companies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
If 100B a year would insure 1/3, then 300B a year could insure everyone.

So 1000 a yr per person.

So 83 a month.
20 a week
2.97 a day.

For $2.97 a day we can insure all of America. Go for a true nationalized system instead of playing nice with these lobbyist insurance company people who perpetuate the "status quo" and I know we could get that much lower.

$2.97 a day to take care of every uninsured American in this nation. Sounds pretty good.

That is $300 billion (actually $480 b) to cover only 50 million people. That means covering the WHOLE country would cost us 6 times that amount or $2.8 trillion!!!!

Our entire budget for 2008 pre TARP was only $3 trillion.

Now we do already pay about $1 trillion a year via the Federal government. So we are only $1.8 trillion away from providing all Americans with healthcare. (at the cost of this plan which of course won't actually work when expanded to cover all Americans)

Coming up with $1.8 trillion would would require us to raise all federally paid taxes in this country by more than 50%

Pull out your last paycheck and increase 'Federal income tax" by 50% and then deduct whatever your health insurance premium is and tell us if you come out ahead. For me... I would end up with perhaps $75 less per paycheck, not an insignificant amount.