Health Care Reform Dead

[LadyShea]

More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll

Is 1000 people that respond to a poll even remotely representative of "Americans"?

[erimir]

It would be, if it is a truly random sample with a high response rate, although obviously it has a margin of error that could be reduced with a higher sample size.

The reported margin of error is ±4%, which suggests that the true proportion could be much closer, or even slightly tilted the opposite way, and that is a 95% confidence interval, giving a 5% chance that (absent any methodological errors) that the true proportions fall outside of that ±4% range. For example, they used 400 cell phone respondents and 600 land-line respondents, and then weighted them according to their overall proportions in the US - I don't know enough to know whether that is accurate, but if that doesn't adequately account for cell-phone-only Americans it probably is underestimating support for the bill (as cell-phone-only Americans tend to be more liberal). On the other hand, it might be that that is a sound way to account for those people. Another thing to look at is how they asked the questions - their wordings, what order the questions were asked and so forth. These can be biased in some ways, often unintentionally, although if a wording is both biased and the dominant way that the debate is framed, it would still be informative to look at that for the probable outcome (that would probably be more important for looking at ballot initiatives than this case, particularly if the wording on the ballot is biased in the same way).

I'd have to read more into the methodology to figure that out, and even then I might need to know more about those demographics. Gallup is generally a good pollster, though, so I would say that their methodology is good in this case, and at least not intentionally biased.

So I would say, broadly speaking, that it is justified to conclude that Americans are divided on the issue, with somewhat of an advantage for the anti-PPACA side (but not an overwhelming advantage). Another way you can look at it is to look at the margin of error, and so look at the 95% confidence intervals for each part (43% to 51% against PPACA, 38% to 46% for PPACA) and see how they overlap - in this case, about 20% of the area within the confidence interval consists of numbers where the pro-PPACA side is the larger number. So in that case you can say that while the anti-PPACA side is probably the plurality, there's a not insignificant chance that they're actually slightly outnumbered.

[Stephen Maturin]

Since the goddamn Justice Department has partially thrown in the towel on the issue of severability and completely thrown in the towel on the Anti-Injunction Act issue, the Supreme Court has appointed two lawyers as amicus curiae to brief and argue those issues.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Since the goddamn Justice Department has partially thrown in the towel on the issue of severability and completely thrown in the towel on the Anti-Injunction Act issue, the Supreme Court has appointed two lawyers as amicus curiae to brief and argue those issues.

What does Justice plan to argue during the election cycle?

[erimir]

In the survey here: Section 7: Views of Government | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Turns out that while many Americans have a negative view of the health care bill, this does not mean that they all do so for the same reason. This survey says that 31% of Americans think the health care bill should be expanded, 22% think it should stay the same, and 38% think it should be repealed.

That means that in reality, if the question is to repeal it or not, probably about 53% of Americans would say to keep it, and only 38% would say to get rid of it.

I think that's an important distinction to make - not everybody is as tactical as I would be faced with that question. If given the option to say it doesn't go far enough, I would always pick that, but if the question is simply to keep it or get rid of it, I would say to keep it because it's better than nothing, or anything the Republicans are likely to come up with.

ETA: That is, some of the people who say they think it should be expanded or that we should have a public option/single payer may be included in the group of people who "disapprove" of the bill or something like that. In a situation like that, I would say that I approve of the bill, even though really I think it's pretty meh compared to what it should be.

[ChuckF]

Well gosh

Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because she was passionate about the issue.

Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month.

But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address.

Who will pay the medical bills she didn't pay? The people who actually pay their bills, that's who! And as we have learned from this whole contraceptive hoodoo, if any person, no matter how attenuated the relationship may be, is required by law to pay any funds that may wind up benefiting another person, this is an attack on individual rights. Why does this plaintiff hate the Constitution?

[SR71]

Yeah wow, so what now that the Supremes have kicked the legs out from under the health care bill, stick a fork in it it's done? In retrospect, Obama's early agenda should have been more along the lines of the chunks man's earlier post that I can't find now.

Some 10 point plan along the lines of -

1. Punch CitiGroup in the face
2. Kick Countrywide in the crotchal area
3. Flay executives of Goldman Sachs
4. Raise tax rates on the top bracket until their heads explode
5. Etc...

[Jerome]

Obama-care got to collect taxes for a couple of years without having to pay for anything.
The dream realized!

[SR71]

Not enough taxes.

[Jerome]

Hey, didn't Clinton roll out a health-care plan in his first term, it failed, but if only you re-elect him will he be able to get it done.

[LadyShea]

Employee health benefits could shift to private market - latimes.com

The approach resembles existing 401(k) retirement plans in which employers put a fixed amount of tax-deferred dollars into employees' retirement accounts and leave it to the workers to manage the money. In the case of health benefits, employers gain more control over their spending and avoid the hassle of picking plans for their workforce.

Huh, this might actually create more choices for individuals. For so long your health insurance plan was purchased by the employer so you were stuck with what they chose and couldn't shop around, and many people stayed tied to jobs because they couldn't buy insurance due to pre-existing condition.

So free marketers, this seems like a positive side effect for consumer choice and a competitive marketplace, yeah? Employers would be able to offer contributions toward employees health plan as a benefit, and the insurers would be competing to gain many individuals rather than large corporations full of captive people with no say so.

They'll have to offer better plans and customer service if any individual can move on at any time. Isn't that great!

[The Bodhisattva]

The Republicans are demonizing Obamacare for political reasons.
In all actuality though, with or without Obamacare, the American healthcare system is still going to be highly dysfunctional and beauracratic. Not much real improvement is being made.

Modern governance is all a political game where the middle class pays higher taxes no matter which way you look at it. The two party system is dualstic and polarizing. It sets up a right/wrong paradigm which is used as media bias and psychological distortion.

In summary, Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin seeking personal power and wealth. They really don't care about us because they are too far removed to relate. There is a whole lot of Hollywood in Washington. That's just my humble opinion.

[Angakuk]

George Carlin

said it most eloquently.

[MonCapitan2002]

Yet another reason why nationalized health care is a moral, ethical, and social necessity. Also, I highly doubt that $40,000 antidote cost anywhere near that much to manufacture.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

Yet another reason why nationalized health care is a moral, ethical, and social necessity. Also, I highly doubt that $40,000 antidote cost anywhere near that much to manufacture.

How much more are you willing to contribute?

[ChuckF]

Ok, I have no sympathy at all for that woman, and it's because of personal responsibility.

After she was stung by a scorpion, did she behave like a smart consumer, motivated by rational self-interest? Did she go inside and research the costs of scorpion anti-venins? Did she identify the species of scorpion, and make a spreadsheet comparing the different anti-venins available? Did she even call around to area health care providers to get price quotes? Did she make any effort at all to educate herself about the what the market had to offer, and to negotiate a fair exchange? No, she behaved like a typical nanny-state liberal on the government teat and just "went to the hospital for medical treatment," without even acknowledging the objective fact that health care is a marketplace, just like any other. Buying healthcare is the same as buying dish detergent - she just chose to make a wildly irrational choice. She probably took an expensive ambulance to the hospital instead of taking some personal responsibility and driving herself. Did she even consider lifting herself up by her bootstraps, and synthesizing and administering the anti-venin herself? Leave it to a commie lib to blame the anaphylaxis and neurological impairment from scorpion venom! It's always somebody else's fault to them.

If this country were truly free, she could have just purchased some high-quality, low-cost anti-venin on the free market. Or just something labeled anti-venin. Then she could taken personal responsibility for conducting her own clinical trials, instead of having Big Brother force innocent job-creating pharmaceutical companies to conduct job-killing clinical trials before selling their product as medicine! If she wanted to know if a substance was safe to use as anti-venin, she should have developed the expertise to determine that herself, through prayer.

You know who the real victim is here, right? The target of this liberal media hit piece? The poor insurance company, which is just asking a consumer to pay her fair share of her own medical costs. Why is she trying to force the insurance company to pay her hospital bill for her? Typical liberal, trying to quash innovation and prosperity by conning an entrepreneurial insurance company into bailing her out of a jam.

She is punishing them for being successful and taking risks.

[chunksmediocrites]

Toot toot or sommat. Wherein I point out that this antivenom is available in Mexico for Mexicans for $100 per dosage.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Wherein I point out that this antivenom is available in Mexico for Mexicans for $100 per dosage.

lol @ pointing out how little regulation reduces cost.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, I have no sympathy at all for that woman, and it's because of personal responsibility.

It's like I've always said: subsidized health care incentivizes risky behaviour. Maybe if this woman hadn't been under the mistaken impression that somebody owes her communist doctoring, she wouldn't have voluntarily signed up for the N. Sue Ciant Scorpion Risk Massage ride at the Shitzengiggles Amusement Centre.

[The Man]

Insurance Company Celebrates 50 Billionth Fucking Over Of Customer | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[LadyShea]

Foundation Slams Romney Health Proposals

The Commonwealth Fund, with the help of Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, PhD, modeled three scenarios: if the ACA were fully implemented, if it had never been implemented at all, and if Romney's proposals were to take effect. It estimated the number of insured, the cost of insurance, the impact on Medicare, and other outcomes.

[Clutch Munny]

Okay, I'm in the US and just saw an ad on TV for the flu shot: only $29.99 at Rite-Aid.

You pay for the fucking flu shot?

What the fucking fuck? Fuck!

[Sock Puppet]

My employer pays for mine. The invisible hand, mothafuckas!

[BrotherMan]

I know there are some pharmacies that offer free flu shots so it's not completely a libertarian wasteland of health for money.

[ChuckF]

Yeah I never really got that either.

Free flu shots kinds of makes sense for the economy, what with fewer people calling in sick to work or requiring medical care. And they are crazy cheap and easy, so why not just give them to people that want them?

Or, you know, just wait for people to go to the emergency room for the flu.