The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

This is just frightening:

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

[pilferk]

And this less so:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

That's the latest gallup poll on approval of the healthcare bill.  Again, it looks to be pretty evenly split, with a SLIGHT nudge (in this poll) toward approval.  I know it's not the only poll, but all 3 "instant" polls (taken after the approval by the house) seem to show similar numbers.

The noteable thing, though, is the swing in approval.  It seems to be trending positive.

To add to that, Obama's approval rating seems to have blipped up, too...and looks to be trending up.

That's not good news for the Repubs......

Edit:

And this is interesting...from a CNN/Opinion Research poll:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country's health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?
Favor: 39%
Oppose: 59%
Unsure: 2%

Which looks bad for the dems until you look deeper:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country's health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?" If oppose: "Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
Favor: 39%
Oppose, too liberal: 43%
Oppose, NOT liberal enough: 13%
Unsure: 5%

In addition:

Who do you trust more to handle major changes in the country's health care system: Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Barack Obama: 51%
Republican Congress: 39%
Both: 10%
Unsure: 1%

Again, that is NOT favorable polling if the Repubs are REALLY going to go in the direction they're currently pointing.

[pilferk]

This is about the best explanation of the CBO scoring process that I've seen:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-fiscal-responsibility-looks

Since I know many of us (including me) are worried about overall costs, I thought you all might find this at least somewhat encouraging.

[freedom78]

This is just frightening:

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

I'm not sure what parts I find most amusing.  In some respect, the Hitler/terrorist stuff is funny because it's just crazy.  The Muslim one is funny,  because it's blatantly racist.  And the socialist one is funny, because this law isn't socialist, but regulatory.  The socialist elements (public option) were stripped in favor of a REGULATED MARKET approach. 

On the other hand, I find none of it funny because these people have easy access to guns and are being egged on by their leaders and some in the media.  I'm afraid there will be violence.

[freedom78]

This is about the best explanation of the CBO scoring process that I've seen:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-fiscal-responsibility-looks

Since I know many of us (including me) are worried about overall costs, I thought you all might find this at least somewhat encouraging.

If we end up on the high end, and save $2.5 TRILLION, I think we can finally give Republicans what they really want.




A chance to invade France.

[sandman]

This is about the best explanation of the CBO scoring process that I've seen:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-fiscal-responsibility-looks

Since I know many of us (including me) are worried about overall costs, I thought you all might find this at least somewhat encouraging.

defintiely encouraging. thanks.

the vocal minorities on both side are crazy. it's a waste of time to even discuss comments made by Rush or some nitwit protesting. it's pointless and actually hurts the republican cause. and the loony left is guilty of these actions as well. i won't even waste time pointing out examples.

and Billy Tauzin is a shrewd guy. there's certainly some irony in his role in the MMA and this bill, as well as the flip flopping most politicians have done regarding medicare.

[freedom78]

Looks like our fight in the Cold War just got a bit cheaper:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36018913/ns/world_news-europe/

[pilferk]

the vocal minorities on both side are crazy. it's a waste of time to even discuss comments made by Rush or some nitwit protesting. it's pointless and actually hurts the republican cause. and the loony left is guilty of these actions as well. i won't even waste time pointing out examples.

The problem is...that's not the only place it's coming from.  The Minority leader in the house called it Armegeddon.  Another Republican Rep called it Communism, and equated it to what Hitler had done (echoing a similar sentiment awhile back by Senator DeMint).  One of the Repub Gubanatorial candidates in NY equated it to being "remembered like 9/11".  That's not the rhetoric from the radical (and usually ignorant) fringe.  That's from the party leadership.

I agree...wingnuts on both sides.  And I expect some of the crazy, lunatic stuff from them.  But the over the top hyperbole coming from THE MAINSTREAM (and party leadership) is starting to approach the same "nutjob" cacophany that exudes from the fringes.  And that's just not good, IMHO.

And the findings of that hariss poll....the % don't lead you to believe those are coming from a tiny minority "fringe". 

[JuicySwoos]

And this less so:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

That's the latest gallup poll on approval of the healthcare bill.  Again, it looks to be pretty evenly split, with a SLIGHT nudge (in this poll) toward approval.  I know it's not the only poll, but all 3 "instant" polls (taken after the approval by the house) seem to show similar numbers.

The noteable thing, though, is the swing in approval.  It seems to be trending positive.

To add to that, Obama's approval rating seems to have blipped up, too...and looks to be trending up.

That's not good news for the Repubs......

Edit:

And this is interesting...from a CNN/Opinion Research poll:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country's health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?
Favor: 39%
Oppose: 59%
Unsure: 2%

Which looks bad for the dems until you look deeper:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country's health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?" If oppose: "Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
Favor: 39%
Oppose, too liberal: 43%
Oppose, NOT liberal enough: 13%
Unsure: 5%

In addition:

Who do you trust more to handle major changes in the country's health care system: Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Barack Obama: 51%
Republican Congress: 39%
Both: 10%
Unsure: 1%

Again, that is NOT favorable polling if the Repubs are REALLY going to go in the direction they're currently pointing.

If one is going to use polls and an indication of "good/bad" for a party, candidate, etc, then a poll with a likely voter sample, or at the very least a registered voter sample is better used.  These two polls are of all adult americans, and we all know all adult americans do not vote.  When you look at the parody of Obama's approval rating, it is usually because of the sample used.  In polls with likely voters, Obama's rating is of majority disapproval, and has been for some time.  Looking at a poll of "all americans", Obama + on the approval side.  One can assume that same parody would apply to a poll about the health care bill if a likely voter sample was used, the percentage of disapproval will be higher.

So if America had a 95% voter turnout, then an "all americans" poll would be a decent snapshot in terms of electoral consequences, but that is not the case.  

In any effect neither type of poll means a damned thing now.

[pilferk]

If one is going to use polls and an indication of "good/bad" for a party, candidate, etc, then a poll with a likely voter sample, or at the very least a registered voter sample is better used.  These two polls are of all adult americans, and we all know all adult americans do not vote.  When you look at the parody of Obama's approval rating, it is usually because of the sample used.  In polls with likely voters, Obama's rating is of majority disapproval, and has been for some time.  Looking at a poll of "all americans", Obama + on the approval side.  One can assume that same parody would apply to a poll about the health care bill if a likely voter sample was used, the percentage of disapproval will be higher.

So if America had a 95% voter turnout, then an "all americans" poll would be a decent snapshot in terms of electoral consequences, but that is not the case.  

In any effect neither type of poll means a damned thing now.

Both types of polls have their place...and when you're looking, mainly, at the tact the Republicans are taking...."All Americans" is a pretty good guage of how that direction is going to resonate with, well, all Americans.

Do you happen to have links to recent "likely voter" polls?  I'd love to see their results. 

Edit: The most recent Rasmussen poll seems to show 48/52 for Presidential approval rating, with the obligatory margin of error...and a 4 to 5 point upward trending swing over the past couple weeks (and 3 points of it since last week).

I can't find any "likely voter" or "registered voter" approval polls for the health care bill, never mind any RECENT ones.

[freedom78]

Assuming the polls are random, likely voters are probably still overrepresented simply because they're more likely to participate in polling (i.e. the civic duty of voting probably translates in willingness to talk to pollsters about politics).  I don't know for certain that the polls were designed to be random, however.

[JuicySwoos]

If one is going to use polls and an indication of "good/bad" for a party, candidate, etc, then a poll with a likely voter sample, or at the very least a registered voter sample is better used.  These two polls are of all adult americans, and we all know all adult americans do not vote.  When you look at the parody of Obama's approval rating, it is usually because of the sample used.  In polls with likely voters, Obama's rating is of majority disapproval, and has been for some time.  Looking at a poll of "all americans", Obama + on the approval side.  One can assume that same parody would apply to a poll about the health care bill if a likely voter sample was used, the percentage of disapproval will be higher.

So if America had a 95% voter turnout, then an "all americans" poll would be a decent snapshot in terms of electoral consequences, but that is not the case.  

In any effect neither type of poll means a damned thing now.

Both types of polls have their place...and when you're looking, mainly, at the tact the Republicans are taking...."All Americans" is a pretty good guage of how that direction is going to resonate with, well, all Americans.

Do you happen to have links to recent "likely voter" polls?  I'd love to see their results. 

 "All americans" are voters at the end of the day. So the verbiaged used by politicians is not really relevant.  If you left out the "good news/bad news" comments, then no worries.

You are right though, both types of polls have their place...an AV (All Voters) sample for a presidential approval rating is more appropriate in general than a RV/LV sample. It is an opinion poll and not an election poll, so all adults should be sampled.  Election polls almost always use RV/LV samples, which are more accurate in terms of electoral consequences. So if someone wants to make and electoral assumption about an AV poll, it is an incorrect one. 

Below is a link to the latest Obama approval ratings.  You will see the parody I speak of.  There is a 12 point swing between the latest Rasmussen poll, which uses a likely voter sample, and the latest Gallop, which uses AV sample.  There are also some registered voter sample polls included, all of which are also lower than the AV samples.   The only polls that Obama is in the plus category is in the AV samples.

So if on is going to use an opinion poll in terms of whether something is good or bad for a politician/party, a LV poll is better quoted, since voters dictate. 

Note:  This is a neat site, the "spread" it uses is scaringly accurate when you compare it to the actual election results. It has the results for the last couple of elections. Although you may not like it, I think the site itself leans to the right.

EDIT:  The Gallup changed, now there is a 10 point spread between that and the Rasmussen

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[sandman]

the vocal minorities on both side are crazy. it's a waste of time to even discuss comments made by Rush or some nitwit protesting. it's pointless and actually hurts the republican cause. and the loony left is guilty of these actions as well. i won't even waste time pointing out examples.

The problem is...that's not the only place it's coming from.  The Minority leader in the house called it Armegeddon.  Another Republican Rep called it Communism, and equated it to what Hitler had done (echoing a similar sentiment awhile back by Senator DeMint).  One of the Repub Gubanatorial candidates in NY equated it to being "remembered like 9/11".  That's not the rhetoric from the radical (and usually ignorant) fringe.  That's from the party leadership.

I agree...wingnuts on both sides.  And I expect some of the crazy, lunatic stuff from them.  But the over the top hyperbole coming from THE MAINSTREAM (and party leadership) is starting to approach the same "nutjob" cacophany that exudes from the fringes.  And that's just not good, IMHO.

And the findings of that hariss poll....the % don't lead you to believe those are coming from a tiny minority "fringe". 

don?t put much stock into those types of polling questions. A large percentage of the country is so tied to ?their? party that they tend to answer questions about the other side quite negatively. I remember polls where some percentage (40 maybe?) of democrats believe Bush knew about or helped plan 9/11. I try to believe in the good in people and I have to believe that those people were just angry on the heels of him winning another 4 years and increasing troop levels.

Although it was interesting to see that a healthy number of Independents and even Democrats responded "yes" to a lot of those questions.    

[pilferk]

 "All americans" are voters at the end of the day. So the verbiaged used by politicians is not really relevant.  If you left out the "good news/bad news" comments, then no worries.

You are right though, both types of polls have their place...an AV (All Voters) sample for a presidential approval rating is more appropriate in general than a RV/LV sample. It is an opinion poll and not an election poll, so all adults should be sampled.  Election polls almost always use RV/LV samples, which are more accurate in terms of electoral consequences. So if someone wants to make and electoral assumption about an AV poll, it is an incorrect one. 

Below is a link to the latest Obama approval ratings.  You will see the parody I speak of.  There is a 12 point swing between the latest Rasmussen poll, which uses a likely voter sample, and the latest Gallop, which uses AV sample.  There are also some registered voter sample polls included, all of which are also lower than the AV samples.   The only polls that Obama is in the plus category is in the AV samples.

So if on is going to use an opinion poll in terms of whether something is good or bad for a politician/party, a LV poll is better quoted, since voters dictate. 

Note:  This is a neat site, the "spread" it uses is scaringly accurate when you compare it to the actual election results. It has the results for the last couple of elections. Although you may not like it, I think the site itself leans to the right.

Couple things:

Again, I'm not making ELECTORAL assumptions.  But the Repubs are taking a very specific political position in relation to this legislation.  Given the poll numbers we're seeing....that might not be good for them, in lots of ways.  It might not be the best direction to head in, going forward, if the American People are starting to turn the worm on their feelings about this legislation.  

I haven't seen much movement in terms of the Congressional races...and I don't expect to.

I don't see a 12 point difference between Gallup and Rasmussen.  Gallup's poll today has a 51% approval rating.  Rasmussen shows 48%.  Perhaps you're looking at the difference between Gallup's "Approval" and Rasmussen's "Strongly Approve" categories?    Rasmussen's calculation (Strongly approve - Strongly disagpprove...currently at -11) never made much sense to me.

Oh, and I don't see the link you were going to post.  It COULD be my work site blocking the link (it happens) but can you actually confirm that the link is there, in your post?  If it is, I'll check it out when I get home. 

Edit:
Never mind!! The link is there.

I see what you're saying about spread...but, there's an issue with comparing that way.

If you look, Gallup doesn't ever equate to 100%.

Rasmussen almost always does. 

So 6 points of the 10 point spread are really almost "phantom points" (the Obligatory "unsure" or "No Opinion").  I try to compare "approval to approval"...or "disapproval to disapproval"....you sort of have to with those two polls.  It's either that, or go with percentages (which is a pain). Spread isn't all that telling within THIS comparison. 

Edit:
Actually, to be honest....I always plunk the "unsure" folks into disapprove when forming my opinon about approval ratings.  You're measuring something.  To my logic, it's either there, or it's not....so I (I know, my own "thing) would look at Gallup and think...50/50.  I guess that's why I take issue with looking at the two polls and considering them so far apart.  Really, to me...their "spread" IS different, but their actual % differences seems marginal.

In any event, ALL the polls seem to be showing an uptick for Obama.

[pilferk]

don?t put much stock into those types of polling questions. A large percentage of the country is so tied to ?their? party that they tend to answer questions about the other side quite negatively. I remember polls where some percentage (40 maybe?) of democrats believe Bush knew about or helped plan 9/11. I try to believe in the good in people and I have to believe that those people were just angry on the heels of him winning another 4 years and increasing troop levels.

Although it was interesting to see that a healthy number of Independents and even Democrats responded "yes" to a lot of those questions.    

It sure was.

I TRY to expect that people are reasonable and educated.  But then I see the polls, above, and have to assume that ONE of the two isn't true.  Either they're ignorant, or they're unreasonable (meaning, unable or unwilling to see reason).  Both discourage me...

[JuicySwoos]

 "All americans" are voters at the end of the day. So the verbiaged used by politicians is not really relevant.  If you left out the "good news/bad news" comments, then no worries.

You are right though, both types of polls have their place...an AV (All Voters) sample for a presidential approval rating is more appropriate in general than a RV/LV sample. It is an opinion poll and not an election poll, so all adults should be sampled.  Election polls almost always use RV/LV samples, which are more accurate in terms of electoral consequences. So if someone wants to make and electoral assumption about an AV poll, it is an incorrect one. 

Below is a link to the latest Obama approval ratings.  You will see the parody I speak of.  There is a 12 point swing between the latest Rasmussen poll, which uses a likely voter sample, and the latest Gallop, which uses AV sample.  There are also some registered voter sample polls included, all of which are also lower than the AV samples.   The only polls that Obama is in the plus category is in the AV samples.

So if on is going to use an opinion poll in terms of whether something is good or bad for a politician/party, a LV poll is better quoted, since voters dictate. 

Note:  This is a neat site, the "spread" it uses is scaringly accurate when you compare it to the actual election results. It has the results for the last couple of elections. Although you may not like it, I think the site itself leans to the right.

Couple things:

Again, I'm not making ELECTORAL assumptions.  But the Repubs are taking a very specific political position in relation to this legislation.  Given the poll numbers we're seeing....that might not be good for them, in lots of ways.  It might not be the best direction to head in, going forward, if the American People are starting to turn the worm on their feelings about this legislation.  

I haven't seen much movement in terms of the Congressional races...and I don't expect to.

I don't see a 12 point difference between Gallup and Rasmussen.  Gallup's poll today has a 51% approval rating.  Rasmussen shows 48%.  Perhaps you're looking at the difference between Gallup's "Approval" and Rasmussen's "Strongly Approve" categories?    Rasmussen's calculation (Strongly approve - Strongly disagpprove...currently at -11) never made much sense to me.

Oh, and I don't see the link you were going to post.  It COULD be my work site blocking the link (it happens) but can you actually confirm that the link is there, in your post?  If it is, I'll check it out when I get home.

Sorry, then I was the one making an assumption...

I agree that people will start to lighten up over this health care bill, much of it is because people don't know how it will affect them, and in general people don't like that. Once they make that determination, they will lighten up. 

I only question the bill because like my preference for vinyl, I am a dinasour...I am a states rights kind of a guy.  I like a bigger goverment at the state level, small at the federal level.  I would have loved to see this bill structured much like the drinking laws, eventually every state would "choose" to implement it.  Plus, from my prism, MN has a great state health insurance program...people who don't have insurance have better insurance than me.  It works in MN, and I don't know what this bill will do the state run program here.  I think it works because it is run at the state level.

We are talking about the same polls...the spread I am talking about is plus to minus.  Gallup is plus 6 for approval, Rassmusen -4 for disapproval...spread of 10.

The link is legit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[pilferk]

Sorry, then I was the one making an assumption...

I agree that people will start to lighten up over this health care bill, much of it is because people don't know how it will affect them, and in general people don't like that. Once they make that determination, they will lighten up. 

I only question the bill because like my preference for vinyl, I am a dinasour...I am a states rights kind of a guy.  I like a bigger goverment at the state level, small at the federal level.  I would have loved to see this bill structured much like the drinking laws, eventually every state would "choose" to implement it.  Plus, from my prism, MN has a great state health insurance program...people who don't have insurance have better insurance than me.  It works in MN, and I don't know what this bill will do the state run program here.  I think it works because it is run at the state level.

Actually, you should be pretty happy.  Medicaid (which is state run health care, actually) is going to see a pretty large expansion, both to it's rolls and to it's funding.  A number of those below the poverty line will now end up in those programs if they haven't already. But before you had to be in poverty (actually 133% of the Federal Poverty level) AND one of the following:
 1) disabled,
2) a child
3) be a family WITH children
4) Be Pregnant
5) Be on SSI (though in some states even that is not enough),
6) Be Medicare eligable
7) Qualify under some "special" state legislative waiver, which vary state to state

Those secondary restrictions go away.

And if you qualify for Medicaid in your state (again, the rules for getting in are getting looser, so you'll see more people in them), you would NOT have to get private insurance (but you could, and receive federal subsidies).

This IS giving the states some power in all this.  But not complete power.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of "Drinking age" mandate come to pass, given the lawsuits and Legislative wrangling going on, currently, in some of the more "red" states.  If you see a state constitutional amendment pass "opting out"....you may see exactly what you're talking about.  And, FYI, the state's will fall in line quicker than snot...because no federal medicaid/medicare/healthcare money will bankrupt pretty much any of them that didn't.

The polls I am referring to take the daily average, and not just the day.  Plus  the most recent numbers have yet to be updated with today's numbers (I think Gallup has since it changed from +8 to +6 while I was typing my last post). 

The link is legit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Yup, the link is good.  At first, for some odd reason, I couldn't see it on your post...but it since popped.

I think my issue with just looking at spread (and I edited my last post to talk about it) is that Rasmussen doesn't allow for "unsure" while Gallup (apparently) does.  So just looking at the spread, to me, isn't a great metric.

For my money, the Gallup poll is a 50/50 poll, while Rasmussen is a 48/52 poll.  Really, those are only about 2% apart.  Their spread would show they have a 4 point difference using my "preconceptions".  To me, that's not a wildly different result...

And if you look at Rasmussen's detail:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

And Gallups:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

You see a decent trend up over the past week or two.  All the polls detail seem to be showing that kind of uptick.  That's not to say it will last...but it's something you have to consider when you're on the other side and forming your strategy for the direction of your party going forward.

[JuicySwoos]

Sorry, then I was the one making an assumption...

I agree that people will start to lighten up over this health care bill, much of it is because people don't know how it will affect them, and in general people don't like that. Once they make that determination, they will lighten up. 

I only question the bill because like my preference for vinyl, I am a dinasour...I am a states rights kind of a guy.  I like a bigger goverment at the state level, small at the federal level.  I would have loved to see this bill structured much like the drinking laws, eventually every state would "choose" to implement it.  Plus, from my prism, MN has a great state health insurance program...people who don't have insurance have better insurance than me.  It works in MN, and I don't know what this bill will do the state run program here.  I think it works because it is run at the state level.

Actually, you should be pretty happy.  Medicaid (which is state run health care, actually) is going to see a pretty large expansion, both to it's rolls and to it's funding.  A number of those below the poverty line will now end up in those programs if they haven't already. But before you had to be in poverty (actually 133% of the Federal Poverty level) AND one of the following:
 1) disabled,
2) a child
3) be a family WITH children
4) Be Pregnant
5) Be on SSI (though in some states even that is not enough),
6) Be Medicare eligable
7) Qualify under some "special" state legislative waiver, which vary state to state

Those secondary restrictions go away.

And if you qualify for Medicaid in your state (again, the rules for getting in are getting looser, so you'll see more people in them), you would NOT have to get private insurance (but you could, and receive federal subsidies).

This IS giving the states some power in all this.  But not complete power.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of "Drinking age" mandate come to pass, given the lawsuits and Legislative wrangling going on, currently, in some of the more "red" states.  If you see a state constitutional amendment pass "opting out"....you may see exactly what you're talking about.  And, FYI, the state's will fall in line quicker than snot...because no federal medicaid/medicare/healthcare money will bankrupt pretty much any of them that didn't.

The polls I am referring to take the daily average, and not just the day.  Plus  the most recent numbers have yet to be updated with today's numbers (I think Gallup has since it changed from +8 to +6 while I was typing my last post). 

The link is legit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Yup, the link is good.  At first, for some odd reason, I couldn't see it on your post...but it since popped.

I think my issue with just looking at spread (and I edited my last post to talk about it) is that Rasmussen doesn't allow for "unsure" while Gallup (apparently) does.  So just looking at the spread, to me, isn't a great metric.

For my money, the Gallup poll is a 50/50 poll, while Rasmussen is a 48/52 poll.  Really, those are only about 2% apart.  Their spread would show they have a 4 point difference using my "preconceptions".  To me, that's not a wildly different result...

And if you look at Rasmussen's detail:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

And Gallups:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

You see a decent trend up over the past week or two.  All the polls detail seem to be showing that kind of uptick.  That's not to say it will last...but it's something you have to consider when you're on the other side and forming your strategy for the direction of your party going forward.

It is not the medicaid I am referring to.  It as additional program for people who do not qualify for medicaid. It is for people like my brother in law who makes $25k a year with no available insurance.  It is called MN care. They pay into it based on income, they get 100% coverage on everything essentially.  Most private plans in this state are average at best, 80/20 with deductables and copays.  Once the federal bill kicks it, people might pay the same, but who says what insurance plan they will receive? What are the parameters for the level of coverage someone is going to receive once they switch from the state insurance plan to the federal version?  I doubt my coverage will change for the better or worse, but for people who aren't poor enough for medicaid or in a line of work that has health coverage, what is going to happen to their coverage?

MN also has a program GAMC, which is for people who would otherwise qualify for medicaid but they are single...which is on the chopping block, but then those people would go into the MN care program and have to pay a very small premium.

So essentially, I am from a state that already has a "health care bill".

[oldgunsfan]

dont quite understand how people can actually believe this plan is going to cut the federal deficit........they must believe in santa clause, the toothe fairy and the easter bunny


and when has any federal program been run efficiently without waiste, corruption, or administrative effectiveness

if anything, this will cause more job loss among small businesses and have the untended consequenses of causing more people too not be covered

hope I'm wrong but it sure seems to me that this will bankrupt the company and add to our deficit

[tim_m]

By the way, did anyone see Joh McCain's comments the other day? He said the senate republicans will refuse to help out for the rest of the year. Are these nutcases really trying to commit political suicide? It seems like it to me.