|
Dude...again...Gallup is the recognized leader in polling. It says "gallup" right on the image.
I have zero reasons to lie or go looking for bullshit stats that aren't factual. That's why I said...please Google it for yourself. That's what everyone should do. It takes just a second of your time to confirm what I'm saying. Instead you started googling to find out if the U.S. Justice Dept has ever went after Gallup. And I guess they have. I didn't know that. But I don't see how it could have any bearing on the facts in this case. Just like the Justice Dept. going after Gibson guitars had no bearing on the fact that they make great guitars. Or the Justice Dept. going after Martha Stewart, etc. The U.S. Justice Dept. goes after a lot of people and companies. I have no idea what Gallup did to piss them off. But obviously it was enough to just hand them some money and it all went away. That's "justice" in the U.S.A. these days. lol |
Cool, onwards to the public option or single payer!
|
Quote:
EDIT: Okay, I took my own advice and looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...surance_option Apparently this is what Pres. Obama actually campaigned on according to what I read there...and then backed off on it in favor of ObamaCare when he actually became President. It was basically a govt. run insurance agency that would compete with private run insurance agencies. And of course...just like the "single pay" (income tax paying for it)...there was no way in hell that the giant Insurance companies were ever gonna let that pass. :( |
Quote:
|
Robbie why do you even bother with the likes of Richard, **********, Crockett or Arock??? You might as well just go talk to a brick wall for 15 minutes.
You definitely have a higher patience level than I do! |
Quote:
My granny always used to say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" As I got older I began to understand exactly what she meant. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The stats show different. The total number of people in the United States who are insured is LESS than it was before ObamaCare. I don't know how to make you open your eyes and see. Just use google for yourself. |
Here ya go Crockett...scroll down to the table near the bottom of the page. The top line shows the entire U.S. statistics starting in 1999 and going up to 2012.
Then after you see that with your own eyes...come back and tell me I'm lying and making stuff up...(I would just post the damn thing here for you, but Richard wouldn't believe it then) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States |
To be 100% fair, when you look at the numbers you can see that the biggest spike in those with no insurance came at the same time the recession hit. When all those people lost their jobs they lost their insurance with it.
The numbers are slowly starting to creep back down as more people start to find jobs, but many of those jobs are part time or they are lower paying jobs that don't come with insurance so the number has stayed somewhat high. Has Obamacare helped bring the numbers down some? I don't doubt that it has, but I don't know how much more it will help. Not until the economy really recovers and there are more decent paying jobs will the numbers come back down to where they once were or perhaps lower. |
Quote:
The Rand Corporation reported that by March 2014: "Enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance plans increased by 8.2 million and Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, although some individuals did lose coverage during this period. The authors also found that 3.9 million people are now covered through the state and federal marketplaces ? the so called insurance exchanges ? and less than 1 million people who previously had individual-market insurance became uninsured during the period in question. While the survey cannot tell if this latter group lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number is very small, representing less than 1 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64." |
Quote:
All those "new" people insured were not uninsured before either. "Adding" all those people still hasn't made up for the millions who lost insurance between 2009 and 2012. Think of it like this: If 100 people lose something. And then a couple of years later 50 of them regain it...you can SAY that "Look 50 people got it!" Reality is that "yes" they did. But it's STILL less than what was the original number. I don't know why I'm having to explain this. The NUMBERS are right there on that page. Everything else is moot. There are more people without insurance today than there were in 2008 before ObamaCare. You can spin other numbers all day long. But the reality is...there are LESS people with health insurance now than before ObamaCare. This was supposed to insure EVERYBODY and also save the average American family $2,500 a year in lower prices. That was the whole argument made for it in the beginning...remember? WTF is wrong with people that they can't simply see the percentage of Americans uninsured in 2008 and the HIGHER number now? It's pretty simple...it's not "crockett science" lol |
Obamacare is just a bandaid measure for a fundamentally flawed system.
The United States has one of the least efficient health care systems in the World. Far and away, on a per capita basis, the United States spends more money than any other nation. (17% of GDP!). Nearly double that of most developed nations. http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries So you're already paying the most for healthcare in the World, period. What other benefits come with that? 15% of the population not covered by insurance resulting in lives literally being destroyed financially after a major medical incident. All of this and as an added bonus, a shorter average life span than any developed nation. Only an American could possibly think the American healthcare system works well. Single payer social medical systems completely eliminate the middle layer of insurance bureaucrats and share holder profits. It's money being spent in the name of health care but actually just completely wasted. |
Quote:
It is sad to think that a person can work for years and years building up a decent middle class life for themselves and then lose it all because they got sick. Our system is flawed. Obamacare won't solve it, but maybe it has gotten enough attention that our leaders will actually start working on a reasonable solution. |
Quote:
I like how one of the bright ideas conservatives have is "medical saving account". That's such a dumb ass idea, because if people could save money to pay for medical bills that cost as much as a house, we wouldn't need insurance. And I never said I wanted rich people to pay more for anything. I don't think they should. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Give nurse practitioners more power. They can handle most things before they become big problems and they are much cheaper. My Dad worked in healthcare and he used to say, for most things you dont need a doctor. A medic gets 12 weeks of training and is saving lives on the battle field. Why cant that same medic take care of a sinus infections? |
Quote:
Move on already ... How are you personally hurt financially? PERSONALLY and not some politically decisive talking point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
He wants Sympathy! Well he can look in the dictionary for it, it's between Shit and Syphilis. |
Quote:
He simply calls himself a Democrat. Just like the "other side" in the fantasyland call themselves "Republicans" (I'm talking about politicians...not citizens who aren't politicians). Doesn't matter what these politicians call themselves or pretend to be. At the end of the day they are there to funnel federal money to their cronies and contributors. And the insurance companies have PLENTY of money. They stacked the deck to win either way. If a "Republican" had come into office...things would have stayed the same: high, overinflated, price gouging by hospitals. People still buy insurance because they can no longer afford to pay out of pocket (like I did for most of my life...but even I can't afford it anymore). The gravy train rolls on. With the "Democrat" things still stayed the same: high, overinflated, price gouging by hospitals. A few million less people are uninsured...but that will probably change IF people can get jobs. And the gravy train rolls on. I honestly don't believe that any of these career/lifetime politicians are actually "conservative" or "liberal". They just say whatever they have to to get elected. And then they go right to "work" spending money by passing laws that enrich the people who supported them. :( If Bush were a real "conservative": we would have had a tiny govt., would have never invaded other countries, we'd have lower taxes AND a surplus budget. I think we all know how that went. That's why I said in an earlier post...If you are a "conservative" why on Earth would you vote for a Republican? They NEVER do what they say. And if you're a liberal...why in the world would you vote for a Democrat? I don't see much difference in the big picture between politician/bureaucrats who label themselves one or the other. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
How is this plan different from that? More people uninsured. Higher prices make bankruptcy more likely, not less. Ditto dying. Universal healthcare would be awesome. Free market healthcare would right price to be affordable. Insurance is not healthcare. Did you favor the AIG bailout too? |
Quote:
I don't know if anything special was done for this survey, but Gallup typically uses sample sizes of 1,000. This is fairly standard for social science studies. Pew Research defaults to samples of 1,000 as well, although they sometimes adjust for special populations. Most academics agree that these are representative sample sizes which it is reasonable to make extrapolations from. I think it is fair to say that, at best, the number of uninsured has not significantly improved. |
Quote:
I agree soooooooooooo much with what you wrote. I don't understand how there can be anyone in business who does nor understand that adding money hungry insurance company middlemen has to jack up the cost, with no improvement in actual care. Either end of the spectrum would be so much better than funneling money to billionaire insurance folks and away from doctors and nurses and hospitals and research and actual humans who need care. |
Quote:
Seriously? You think something citing The Commonwealth Fund is more reliable than data directly from Gallup? I know I'd never suspect an offshoot of Standard Oil to have an agenda in favor of big money and big corporations. Oh wait, yes, I would. |
Quote:
and, according to that poll, something that occurred in the past.. 7-8 months? has managed to bring the percentage of uninsured back to almost the levels of 'pre-economic-bank-heist'? what exactly IS 3% of 316,148,990? cause, if that was managed to be done in 6 months with very little economic improvement.. this might actually work when it's finally fully implemented.. set for next year. anyway. as i said originally. one poll isn't 'being slapped in the face with reality'. do you, and the academics, disagree with that? Quote:
|
furthermore, i am gonna just park this right here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87Q1A620120827 Republicans call for crackdown on pornography cause maybe some of us have forgotten. |
In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter |
sigh........
|
Quote:
Because surveys depend on samples and do not have full population data, they should all be considered to have some margin of error. Do you not know what Standard Oil was???? |
you mean the standard of error that wasn't even bothered to be listed on that poll?
how not being slapped in the face by reality. interesting anyway. Quote:
Barry, i am confused, why are republicans using this as some 'obamacare don't work'? |
Quote:
That might be part of why there are zero Republicans in this thread. What is your point? Our leaders don't need to implement good policy, just call themselves Democrats? |
Quote:
Looks like the poll is in for the second quarter and now there are actually more people insured! So that is good news for ObamaCare! |
sorry, right, 'libertarians'
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as standard of error. Maybe you are confusing standard deviation and margin of error? This is why it would be fruitless to post complex statistical models on GFY or in the popular press. I'm still uninsured. I no longer have a primary care doctor. It has become more difficult and more expensive to make appointments with new doctors, as a cash patient. I am worse off post-ACA. I am genuinely disturbed at how many people congratulate themselves for what good humans they delusionally believe themselves to be . . . while having zero compassion for those who are actually suffering from this. |
Quote:
Those 3 words are completely out of context and make you sound like you're insane when you post like that. lol Since I know you, and I know you are a smart guy...you should really not post these random strings of words that don't seem to fit the conversation. Let people know you are a smart person. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why do you need a label? Is it really so unimportant to you to consider the issue of healthcare and how to take care of all Americans? Would you really rather just have your team win than actually think about and issue or actually have everyone who needs care receive it? |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc