Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 726
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    where is the poll question that asks' "do you think the government can improve the costs for our healthcare system?" and "do you think the government should be the one to try to fix the high costs of healthcare?"

    pretty sure most would say "no"

    that's why polls are so misleading.
    These would be the relevant poll questions for that:

    HC1. In general, do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose the law changing the health care
    system that the U.S. Congress passed last March?
    • 09 Favor strongly
    • 21 Favor somewhat
    • 30 Neither favor nor oppose
    • 17 Oppose somewhat
    • 23 Oppose strongly
    • 00 Refused


    [ASK IF HC1 = OPPOSE STRONGLY, OPPOSE SOMEWHAT OR NEITHER FAVOR NOR OPPOSE]
    HC1A. Which of the following best expresses your view of the health care law that Congress passed
    last March?
    • 28 I oppose most or all of the changes made by the law
    • 20 I oppose a few of the changes made by the law
    • 23 I favor most or all of the changes made by the law, but I think that law doesn’t
      do enough to improve the health care system
    • 28 I oppose the law because I think the federal government should not be
      involved in health care at all
    • 01 Refused


    [ASK IF HC1 = FAVOR STRONGLY, FAVOR SOMEWHAT OR NEITHER FAVOR NOR OPPOSE]
    HC1B. Do you think that the health care law passed last March by Congress should have done more
    to change the health care system, or do you not think that?
    • 61 It should have done more
    • 36 Do not think that
    • 03 Refused
    Last edited by Orion Antares; 09/27/2010 at 03:00 PM. Reason: Make easier to read lists
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by EVOandBACK View Post
    there you go, believing large companies again. you dont think profit is always their motive? how naive our little moderator is.
    u know who those nasty stockholders are, right? they are your 401k, the retirement funds for unions, etc.

    how are you able to demonize corporations as if they are people?
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by EVOandBACK View Post
    there you go, believing large companies again. you dont think profit is always their motive? how naive our little moderator is.
    whoa, now we have to get personal?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    These would be the relevant poll questions for that:
    no, change isn't defined. change isn't the same as repeal. etc.

    This is why I have to stay out of these OT forums.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    That's what's hilarious. So-called "Obamacare" is actually a virtual carbon copy of "Romneycare," and Romney, the free-market business dude, ran for President on the GOP ticket. The term "Obamacare" is a joke, since the bill that passed does not contain many of the things he said he preferred.
    5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - Jun. 15, 2010

    yay


    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    And of course Canada doesn't spend more money than the rest of the world combined on defense.
    No, it only spends 1.3% of its GDP on defense. Why should it spend more when it can get help from the US which spends 4.3% of GDP (43% of the world total)? The world average is about 2.7% of GDP.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by EVOandBACK View Post
    didnt you hear? According to a vote of our lovely supreme court, companies are equal to people. Or did fox news not have that on their evening lineup?
    i don't have cable so don't make assumptions like that.

    and if they are people, tell me how you plan to put a corporation in jail?
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by EVOandBACK View Post
    didnt you hear? According to a vote of our lovely supreme court, companies are equal to people. Or did fox news not have that on their evening lineup?
    That's nothing new. There have been similar USSC cases supporting that view for different topics going back to the 1800s.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by EVOandBACK View Post
    I dont think this, talk to the supreme court
    you have completely misunderstood what the supreme court said, and they certainly didn't say they can put a corporation in jail.

    apparently you don't have a 401k or belong to a union with a pension fund, so this line of discussion is lost on you because you didn't experience the recent market collapse the way many of us did when we saw our 401k account lose more than 1/2 of it's value.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    where is the poll question that asks' "do you think the government can improve the costs for our healthcare system?" and "do you think the government should be the one to try to fix the high costs of healthcare?"

    pretty sure most would say "no"

    that's why polls are so misleading.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    no, change isn't defined. change isn't the same as repeal. etc.

    This is why I have to stay out of these OT forums.
    Technically it was defined enough for what you asked because this line was included as one of the options:

    I oppose the law because I think the federal government should not be
    involved in health care at all
    with 28% of those who answered "Neither favor nor oppose," "Oppose somewhat," "Oppose strongly," which amounted to 70% of those that answered the lead in question. And then on top of that 61% of the other 30% thought the law "should have done more".
  10. #90  
    Statistics these days in the media are merely shown to convey what they want you to see. As far as this whole thing is concerned, I would just like everyone to be able to have access to coverage and not denied service. I do believe that everyone in this country should have access to healthcare. As far as how we go about doing such a thing is what the great debate is.


    My Themes:CLICK HERE
  11.    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    you have completely misunderstood what the supreme court said, and they certainly didn't say they can put a corporation in jail.

    apparently you don't have a 401k or belong to a union with a pension fund, so this line of discussion is lost on you because you didn't experience the recent market collapse the way many of us did when we saw our 401k account lose more than 1/2 of it's value.
    Yes, it was unfortunate what the republicans did to the stock market through their mismanaged leadership. Nobody wants corporations to fail. But some don't want them to make significant profits (like their highest profits ever) off the backs of working people:

    The top five earning insurance companies averaged profits of $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008. And in 2008 (the last year for which data was available), CEO compensation for these companies ranged from $3 million to $24 million.”
    Think Progress » Health Insurance Industry Defends Massive Profits, Complains It Is Being ‘Vilified’

    As far as I personally am concerned, I applaud any profit by any corporation...as long as it doesn't involve health insurance. Since I don't believe for-profit insurers should even be in the business of health care, I am not interested in their profit motives...like cutting off insurance for children. Is that a good enough reason? Obama didn't cancel their insurance; private for profit companies did.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes, it was unfortunate what the republicans did to the stock market through their mismanaged leadership. Nobody wants corporations to fail. But some don't want them to make significant profits (like their highest profits ever) off the backs of working people:



    Think Progress » Health Insurance Industry Defends Massive Profits, Complains It Is Being ‘Vilified’

    As far as I personally am concerned, I applaud any profit by any corporation...as long as it doesn't involve health insurance. Since I don't believe for-profit insurers should even be in the business of health care, I am not interested in their profit motives...like cutting off insurance for children. Is that a good enough reason? Obama didn't cancel their insurance; private for profit companies did.
    this post made me want to puke after reading just the first 6 words..

    and why i have hit unsubscribe..
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes, it was unfortunate what the republicans did to the stock market through their mismanaged leadership.

    Republicans? Care to back that up?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14.    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post

    Republicans? Care to back that up?
    Lol. I figured you'd address that part of the post and not the part about insurance company profits. Quel surprise.

    Run two unpaid-for and inappropriate wars and sooner or later the economy suffers. Or do you really think it was the careful and controlled government spending during the Bush administration that resulted in the economic crash? Or do you think the stock market knew that Obama would be elected and blew it's beans in advance?

    Or is your argument that the leadership of the country really can't affect the stock market, that economic changes are relatively independent of both congress and the president? You can't have it both ways, now...take your pick.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Lol. I figured you'd address that part of the post and not the part about insurance company profits. Quel surprise.

    Run two unpaid-for and inappropriate wars and sooner or later the economy suffers. Or do you really think it was the careful and controlled government spending during the Bush administration that resulted in the economic crash? Or do you think the stock market knew that Obama would be elected and blew it's beans in advance?

    Or is your argument that the leadership of the country really can't affect the stock market, that economic changes are relatively independent of both congress and the president? You can't have it both ways, now...take your pick.
    I think it was a combination of several things, and has been going on for decades - there's plenty of blame to pass around.

    Meanwhile, we've had another rash of bailouts over the weekend, and the government is taking responsibility for the same type of corrupted bonds that got us all in trouble the last time. Guess they've not learned their lesson. Wait! Is that possible? With both houses and the white house dem controlled?

    But I'm still looking for the smoking gun that's pointing to the republicans as the ones responsible for the wall street mess.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16.    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think it was a combination of several things, and has been going on for decades - there's plenty of blame to pass around.

    Meanwhile, we've had another rash of bailouts over the weekend, and the government is taking responsibility for the same type of corrupted bonds that got us all in trouble the last time. Guess they've not learned their lesson. Wait! Is that possible? With both houses and the white house dem controlled?

    But I'm still looking for the smoking gun that's pointing to the republicans as the ones responsible for the wall street mess.
    Yeah, yeah. Decades. Do you really want to take a look at the graphs of what happened to jobs and the stock market from the passage of leadership from Clinton to Bush? Really? Those Bush tax cuts really helped a lot.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by foosball View Post
    Well for starters I've already lost my health insurance coverage.

    The company I was with had to exit the market in my state because of Obamacare.
    Wait, the company you work for, or the insurance company?

    Why do people talk about changing insurance plans like it's some spooky new thing that's never happened before?

    Over the course of my (too long) time in the workforce, I've probably had to change my health insurance coverage a dozen times (usually for the worse), whether I worked for companies with 12 employees or companies with 10,000. And my choice in the matter every time was . . . squat.

    Employers changing plans because they're too expensive, and insurance companies deciding to get out of markets in which they can't compete has been going on forever. How can this be due to "Obamacare," when, as has been pointed out, the legislation is hardly even in effect yet?
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Yeah but Canadian schools don't have all those huge expensive football and basketball programs to support

    In all seriousness though your point is somewhat valid, but you can't compare the U.S. and Canada equally. Canada's population is much more densely populated than the U.S. meaning that less spending is required for general infrastructure and services - ex. roads and power lines don't have to go as far. And of course Canada doesn't spend more money than the rest of the world combined on defense.

    Are you really getting at the issue of spending priorities via a discussion on tax rates?
    I agree, especially on the defense angle. There's no comparison there, and the same is true of the European countries. Try talking about cutting unnecessary defense spending, though. You think healthcare's tough?

    Also, if your reasoning is correct and our outlay for everything is greater, why aren't our taxes higher than Canadians'?
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah, yeah. Decades. Do you really want to take a look at the graphs of what happened to jobs and the stock market from the passage of leadership from Clinton to Bush? Really? Those Bush tax cuts really helped a lot.
    No, I really don't want to go back over the titfortat Clinton versus Bush items. Been there, done that, many times over the last decade or so. And yes, those tax cuts helped. So did Clinton's, btw.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Last I saw sporting that moustache was Sarah Palin.
    My point stands--did Gingrich get one?
Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions