Monday, March 15, 2010

Jumping off Pelosi and Obama's cliff

As those few wavering Democrats debate whether or not they want to jump off the cliff with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, they might be interested in the poll results from their own districts. A poll of such swing districts shows that the plan is incredibly unpopular and that people are engaged on this issue.
The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.

Seven in 10 would vote against a House member who votes for the Senate health-care bill with its special interest provisions. That includes 45% of self-identified Democrats, 72% of independents and 88% of Republicans. Three in four disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan (64% strongly so), and 81% say any reform should focus first on reducing costs. Three quarters agree that Americans have the right to choose not to participate in any health-care system or plan without a penalty or fine.

That translates into specific concerns with the Senate legislation—and none of these objections would be addressed by the proposed fixes. Over 70%—indeed in several districts over 80%—of respondents, across party lines, said that the following information made them less supportive: the bill mandates that individuals purchase insurance or face penalties; it cuts Medicare Advantage; it will force potentially millions to lose existing coverage; it will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years; and it will grant unprecedented new powers to the Health and Human Services secretary.
And for this mess, these Democratic representatives are going to vote away their electoral future? Amazing.

17 comments:

Sokmnkee said...

The long-time incumbents who would vote for ObamaCare in my part of the nation have decided to retire and not run for reelection. That's fine with me.

I do believe most of them WANT to vote for it, but know that doing so is career suicide, which it is. They go home to angry constituents during recesses and the hometown people inundate their offices with e-mails and phone calls telling them how they want them to vote. The incumbents won't meet with the constituents because they know they hold a view different to those people whom they are supposedly representing.

Here we have a radio station that invites candidates to come on and take call-in questions about their various views before a major election takes place. That allows us, the public, to make informed choices in the voting booth. The only ones who won't come on and answer questions are those who hold liberal/socialist views. They're invited. They just won't show.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

my, my, my - this does seem to be quite the week for the fox to be solicitously offering advice on how to protect the chickens from harm

joated said...

If they do vote for this monster, dog catcher might be the best they could hope for in the future. Oh, some might get to handle the pooper scooper....

Bachbone said...

Republicans should put added pressure on those Democrats who are willing "to give up their careers" by voting for this monstrosity, against the wishes of their constituents, by making it clear now that the day after regaining the majority they will start the process of repealing it even if it takes re-writing every paragraph, going all the way to SCOTUS, and/or coaching states that wish to avoid complying how to pass legislation do so.

Migration from the dust bowl states would be mild compared with what we'd see from people moving out of states refusing to pass such laws.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

by making it clear now that the day after regaining the majority they will start the process of repealing it even if it takes re-writing every paragraph

when is senator brown going to do the same thing for the very similar health insurance reform that former governor mitt romney put in in massachusetts?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

it will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years

the person who wrote the article this was taken from failed to provide any sources for this number. it conflicts with today's news reports, which state:

The cost of the overhaul is expected to total $950 billion or more over a decade.

which would be roughly the same as the cost of the iraq and afghanistan wars since 2002. however:

It would be covered by higher taxes on the wealthy as well as on some health care providers and high-cost insurance plans

in contrast to the way the bush funded the iraq and afghanistan wars, by supplemental bills passed after the regular budget was passed, which were funded entirely by adding to the deficit - that is, solely by borrowing. which results in an even higher percentage of the federal budget dedicated to interest payments on the ever-growing national debt

Pat Patterson said...

The Heritage Foundation numbers at least explain where they come from which is more than I can say from news reports that don't really seem to exist. Please, if you quote say where it is coming from.



http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/The-Presidents-Health-Reform-Proposal-More-Like-25-Trillion

Tacitus Voltaire said...

The Heritage Foundation numbers at least explain where they come from which is more than I can say from news reports that don't really seem to exist. Please, if you quote say where it is coming from

i don't know why i should dig up the NYT article again when your heritage foundation article quotes exactly the same numbers:

However, Administration officials have claimed that it would cost $950 billion over a decade, is “fully paid for,” and would cut the deficit in the short and long term.

Each of these claims, which were made also about the House- and Senate-approved bills, rests on highly questionable assumptions. A closer look at the President’s plan shows that:

Its costs are likely to come in well over $1 trillion over 10 years,
Ten full years of implementation would cost closer to $2.5 trillion


well, the iraq and afghanistan wars have already added nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt, but somehow nobody seems concerned about that

so, tell me, since you are so good with numbers - what would expect the total federal budget to be in 15 years, and what percentage of that (if you include SS as part of the federal budget) would the heritage foundation's estimated annual added cost of $250 billion be?

if that's too hard, try finding out how big the federal budget is now, and how much goes to the military, medicare, and SS.

Pat Patterson said...

If you were able to cut and paste then why is it so hard to find the article now? Where is the article? Its not very ethical to quote from something and then refuse to provide the source. Actually its quite childish and a little dishonest.

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson,

What TV has done here is to partake in the time honored tradition of using the words or ideas of somebody else without proper attribution. Because he has used italics for those words, he feels that he has just narrowly skirted the next level of this offense - to have Bidened another person's ideas.

Sometimes when a person does not have a good command of the facts they will cherry pick a few lines here and there but not supply a link so that the borrowed phrase or concept cannot be subjected to full scrutiny.

It may be an issue of ethics or just laziness but when the reputed "source" is the NYT, I'd just call it repetition.

Pat Patterson said...

Plus after I cut and pasted the original "quote" it didn't turn up a source. And trying to find a specific article or opinion piece on the NYT is not that easy. Also it seems that TV has agreed that the $2.3 trillion figure is correct after first denying its valididty. But without the source its simply printed noise.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

yet again you have wasted the chance to stop making fools of yourselves by learning something. here, i'll ask the questions again. i really do believe that you are capable of answering them, although perhaps you really want to look like you can't use the internet, use actual facts, and do arithmetic. your choice! :-)

1) what would expect the total federal budget to be in 15 years, and what percentage of that (if you include SS as part of the federal budget) would the heritage foundation's estimated annual added cost of $250 billion be?

2) if that's too hard, try finding out how big the federal budget is now, and how much goes to the military, medicare, and SS.

since a little arithmetic seems to scare you so much, maybe Betsy's students could help you out with it.

also, from below:

listen, i gave you guys a chance to find out how SS operates, but you seem to be determined to keep on making fools of yourselves instead. i'll bet one of Betsy's students can spend a few minutes on the internet and actually learn how pension funds operate. i'm sure they would be willing to help you out with that

Tacitus Voltaire said...

What TV has done here is to partake in the time honored tradition of using the words or ideas of somebody else without proper attribution. Because he has used italics for those words

what tfhr has done is stupidly failed to read the article that pat quoted. that is where i cut and pasted the italicized sentences from. i do clearly say in my last comment that it is from the heritage foundation, the name of which is clearly visible in pat's URL. did pat also fail to recognize the quote from the article he linked? really?

is it really humanly possible for you guys to be so dumb? is it some kind of act?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Betsy has said that her students read this blog. i hope they are learning from tfhr and pat the importance of being sure of your facts before you speak

tfhr and pat are demonstrating to us what happens when a person gets their facts from editorials instead of doing a little research themselves. they are demonstrating what happens when a person would rather engage in personal insults than serious, fact based debate. the first causes them be taken in by specious reasoning since they don't take a few minutes to put the numbers in context. the second causes them to waste time trying to score personal points instead of learning something

don't let this happen to you!

now, going forward, we will see whether or not tfhr and pat can get themselves out of put-down mode and go and do some independent research instead. anybody want to take bets?

Pat Patterson said...

Now you're claiming the article was from the Heritage Foundation and not,"... the NYT article again when your heritage foundation article quotes exactly the same numbers." I simply asked for the original citation and you have wasted two or three comments when you could have said either you didn't know where it came from or you got it from the Heritage Foundation which I find more than unlikely but simply unbelievable.

And if you accept the latter's numbers doesn't that mean that you were wrong on your original comment?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

And if you accept the latter's numbers

i didn't, though

also, i think mr patterson needs a little education on the difference between predictions and estimates as opposed to facts

and, pat, you missed my entire point, and you didn't do the homework i assigned to you

Pat Patterson said...

Start from the beginning and provide a link and quit changing the subject. Does your source exist or not? If so then why are you now agreesing with the numbers when you denied their validity before?