Pollster.com

Holy wrong party ID, Kaiser Poll!

Its look like the Republican party cant run on appealing the HC bill anymore.Am sure when the Minority leader see this he is going to freak out,because this clown have been going on every Network the past few weeks,telling the media as soon as the GOP take back the House they're going to appeal the HC bill,which was a politico stunt anyway to motivate his base,because this clown knows you got to have two-thirds of the House vote to appeal anything.

This poll is a joke right?

Kaiser was a big supporter of Obamacare

Good old Kaiser. If they weren't set to make billions off of Obamacare and put these phony polls out, Obama wouldn't have any good news at all.

The current pollster average is 40% support, 47% oppose. That only makes Kaiser an outlier by 22 points.

What's up with the party ID? 37% democrat and 22% republican? In what universe do democrats outnumber republicans by 52%?

Based on the pollster average, they should have sampled 30% republicans if they sampled 37% democrats. Since republicans universally hate Obamacare, that means you have a house effect of 8 points. Then you have 11% that would not identify themselves as democrat, republican, or independent. That sounds like democrats who are ashamed to admit it. That adds at least 5 more points to the house effect

So when you apply the 13 point Kaiser house effect, the numbers are 37% favorable and 58% unfavorable. That's right it line with real polls.

You make me laugh, melvin. I have a feeling you are a mad little middle-school student spenging you summer vacation posting on internet sites.

First of all, it is repeal - not appeal. And they don't need two-thirds to repeal anything. They need two-thirds to override a veto if Obama has the cajones to veto it - but then all they have to do is refuse to fund it for 2 years until Obama is voted out of office.

Didn't you learn anything from Nancy Pelosi. She threatened to kill American soldiers if Bush vetoed their spending bills. The republicans would never threaten to kill Americans like she did, but they would absolutely withhold funding for Obama's pet projects. Hopefully, Obama would be so arrogant and bullheaded that he would shut down government. That might be the only thing that keeps us from spending ourselves into the poor house.

58% currently support repealing this monstrosity. There was a vote in congress last month for repeal and it was only 42 votes short of passing.

Obamacare is only 42 votes away from being repealed. That is encouraging for people who don't want our healthcare system destroyed.

Did you hear about England and its healthcare system? They are admitting that socialized medicine is a complete failure and they have to start privatizing it in order to save it.

Obama is about 25 years behind the times, isn't he? All the countries that flirted with socialism realized what a disaster it is and are backpedalling as fast as they can. Not Obama, though. He's "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead."

real-american: Am only human,but the GOP do have a big problem if the HCB becomes very popular.

Real_american

"All the countries that flirted with socialism realized what a disaster it is and are backpedalling as fast as they can."

What dimension do you live in?

Pollster.com is irresponsible by not disclosing the conflict of interest carried by the company that made this poll. Why does Pew show the bill LOSING support?

"Did you hear about England and its healthcare system? They are admitting that socialized medicine is a complete failure and they have to start privatizing it in order to save it."

Um no... your read that article wrong. They are changing the system to be more like American medicare. So, medicare for all is a great system being emulated by other countries. Just shows how much Medicare is a stunning success over here. Just ask any senior if they want to go back to finding private insurance (Ha! No way a senior gets insured at any cost!).

You cannot claim that the private health care system is a success when 40 million people have no access to health care, and millions more get bankrupted by it even with "good insurance".

Everyone should fear getting sick in the U.S. It is a sure route to bankruptcy. How many folk can't get leave their dead end jobs and start their own businesses 'cos of health care?

It's amazing that anyone would defend such a broken system as ours.

X, oh, you're a socialist too? Like BOBO, huh.

Socialism was a huge hit around the globe in the 20th century, and it's on it last legs now. Even friggin Cuba allowed for some small private farming about five years ago, when they faced famine. The only remaining strongholds these days are N. Korea and the White House.

BTW, some words from UK on their touted free care.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html

LM,

That is a ridiculous comparison. Of course medicare is liked by seniors. They paid into it all their lives and receive the same care as people who aren't in medicare. It is also completely subsidized by private insurance purchases which is why insurance premiums are rising so fast.

England has a two-tier health care system. The NIH runs the public plan while people are allowed to buy private insurance and see private doctors. Guess which has the better outcomes?

If you were forced to pay 2% of your paycheck all your life and when you turned 65, you received all your groceries for free- the same groceries that everyone else can buy- wouldn't you think its a great program when you're 65?

Medicare for all or any type of single payer would be a disaster and would set us back decades in new technology and drugs. Why do liberals want to return to the 19th century? They are so regressive and such knuckle-draggers.

"You cannot claim that the private health care system is a success when 40 million people have no access to health care,"

Oh - its 40 million now? What do you guys do - make up a new number whenever it suits you? Are you counting the illegal immigrants again?

There are zero people in this country with no access to healthcare. Zero. They might not have all the coverage they would like to have - but there is not one single person with no access.

I didn't say the total healthcare system is a total success - never have, never will. But that is no reason to completely destroy it and replace it with something 5 times worse. That's just plain stupid.

During our HC debate last year, Sarkosy commented something to the effect "are you nuts? we are trying to be more like you and you are trying to be more like us? Our %$@# doesn't work!"

Most French have been buying "supplemental private coverage" lately for "elective procedures and care". You think "elective procedures" are face lifts and boob jobs? Well, not in France. There, it is hip replacements and cataract fixes. Since you don't die from a bad hip, it's elective baby. You wanna free care for that? Take a pain pill and hop on into a wheelchair.

A little about Free French Care..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

Everyone should fear getting sick in the U.S. It is a sure route to bankruptcy. How many folk can't get leave their dead end jobs and start their own businesses 'cos of health care?

That's been refuted as a big myth. Less than 1% of US citizens file for bankruptcy each year and of those, 3-5% can plausibly say its because of health care costs.

I'm not saying our system doesnt need to be fixed. It does. We do need universal private care available to everyone, one way or another. We also need to increase the supply of new doctors and nurses somehow. But we will never get to better care with the far left proclaiming single payer to be this utopia of health care.

Wow you Republicans are freaking out on this poll. Now am waiting for hotair or politico to put this poll up on theyre website.

Yeah - this is probably a biased enough poll for hotair or politico. You do realize that we republicans know that those are extreme left-wing liberal websites, don't you?

Why do you think it would bother a republican to see this poll up on politico? It's probably already there as well as huff-po and kos. We know what kind of garbage they put on their site. Conservatives don't pay any attention to anything they post.

Am 100% sure Ed Shultz is going to mention this poll on his show today,but you wont hear a word about this poll on Fox News.This is the 1st poll that shows the HCB with a positive approval rating,am sure the White house knows about this poll,but like i said before am waiting for the Major media to report this happy news for the Obama Administration.

@Real_american

Wow, slow down there a little. I agree the party id looks a bit off even for an all adult sample. (I am pretty sure they do not weigh for party-id). So lets go with your 37D, 30R, 33I sample. For the sake of simplicity let us assume 100% of dems are in favour, 100% of reps are against. That would leave the indies split one-third in favour, one-third against, one-third don't know/refused. Recalculating using your sample would give about 47%-41%.

The average non-dem/rep/indi response (while varies largely between pollsters, some of them have it much higher than 11%) for an all adult sample is about 7.5% (from the pollster average). So for the sake of arguement say the all of those extra 3.5% of non-identifiers are secret democrats. So if you reweigh to get back to 37/30/33 sample, that would take the overall number to about 45%-42%.

You don't apply the house effect to both sides.

"Did you hear about England and its healthcare system? They are admitting that socialized medicine is a complete failure"

Er, say what. If you can find one quote from anyone in this (or the previous) UK government who said anything even remotely like that, I would be astonished. While the NHS has numerous problems and areas which can be improved on, it remains highly popular in the UK.

Good article statypolly. Here is another about the wonderful UK health system. Where can i sign up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7916509/John-Radcliffe-heart-unit-had-serious-shortcomings-says-report-into-deaths-of-four-babies.html

LordMike:
I personally believe that changes were needed. I just find this one to be a monstrosity.

A 2400 page bill is a nest of vipers, especially when it was written by folks from far left organizations and lobbyists,which absolutely is the case for each of the monstrosities being passed by this Congress.

Yes, Republicans should have passed their own reforms when they had control. Given what happened to one proposed by Dole, dems would have fought it with every passive-aggressive tactic they could come up with. The same will happen if the reps win in November and try to pass their own version.

Dems have both an emotional attachment to socialized health care (it belongs to THEM) and a strong belief that it will pad their support the way SS and Medicare long provided senior support.

I just hope that reps go toe-to-toe for an alternative that helps with catastrophic loses without regulating health care to morbidity, as this one will surely do.

Your bankruptcy scenario is the great bait and switch of health care reform, much like passing a preservation of species act while citing lions and tigers then applying it to bugs and animals threatened only in specific habitats. If bankruptcy is the issue, the answer is catastrophy insurance, not full-scale HMO type medical coverage and tight regulation of every aspect of medical care. The rest of it is sold on the basis of alleged cost-savings, such as the laughable canard about reducing emergency room visits (MA has been and is experiencing ever higher use of emergency rooms).

Finally, politicians usually have sense enough to make changes one step at a time, wherever possible. Cameron and friends are going as far as they can towards a privatized system. The first step is downsizing the jinormous bureaucracy in NIH (much like the one we will soon have) and replacing it with physician control. This will not only eventually save costs, it will destroy a built in lobby for continuing the stranglehold by the government.

As a Canadian, I find this debate to be absurd. The notion that a person can be bankrupted for getting sick is a retrograde one. In Canada we get universal healthcare that is far cheaper per capita than in the US and has better overall outcomes. My family and I have all enjoyed the benefits of our healthcare system when we needed it and we never ever had to worry that it wouldn't be there when required. We can choose any doctor we like, anywhere in the country.

This nonsense about "socialism" is particularly foolish as it is simply used to brand any publicly funded program that one opposes. Is having a police force that is available to the public (at public expense) socialist? How about firefighters? The military? The library?

I meant NHS, not NIH.

real-american: You must forgot the huffington post owns pollster.

Canada sponges off the US. When was the last time Canada produced a new drug or medical technology on its own? Also, how many Canadians come to the US for medical care each year versus the other way around? That stat says it all.

Lastly, personal bankruptcy is higher in Canada than in the U.S.

* The personal bankruptcy rate was actually higher in Canada in 2006 and 2007 (0.30 percent for both years) than in the United States (0.20 percent and .27 percent).

* Medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies -- medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.

* Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

* Non-medical expenditures comprise the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States; the inability to earn sufficient income to cover these costs -- not exposure to uninsured medical costs -- is the real explanation for almost all bankruptcies in either country.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18175

I really don't care what ANY poll says about how many people support or oppose health care reform.
Obama ran on this, was elected, and proceeded to do what he said he would do, despite the lies (death panels), etc put forward by those who don't want Americans to have healthcare.
We were the only industrial country NOT to provide health care for all of its people. The other countries do this for considerably less cost, but the right wing nut jobs acted like some people were looking for welfare and don't DESERVE healthcare.
It was just more of race baiting politics that the Republicans have played like a fiddle since 1964.
It was the right thing to do, I don't care what ANY poll says, pro or con.

Canadian dude, you must be very young and healthy.

There are hundreds of thousand individual policies bought by Canadians across the border. There are large agencies in US border towns that specialize in selling insurance to Canadians and are doing brisk business.

I could go on and on, but that is one sure sign of how Canadians feel about their FREE care.

@FM

I am not sure picking out individual cases proves anything, other than no matter what the system there will still be blunders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11830537/

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/31/us/panel-orders-a-hearing-in-bizarre-harvard-case.html

I've read a good deal about Canadian healthcare, but one little article I saw on Yahoo front page a couple of years ago really got stuck in my mind.

It was about a young couple from Calgary. She went into early labor and every hospital in town gave them the runaround. "We are full right now, go to that other hospital over there". They ended up driving to Montana, where she gave birth in a hospital there.

Rdanay:
The US has a very different ethnic mix than Canada. For example, low-birth weights for poor Asian women is something like 1/2 the rate for middle class white women and 1/4 the rates for middle class black women. Clearly, differential health care is irrelevant and either biology or behavior is the active variable.

That is not an unusual disparity in health outcomes. For example, blacks have a enormously greater problem with "uncontrollable" high blood pressure than whites or Asians, regardless of social class (and whites have worse outcomes than blacks for some diseases). Perhaps, as some have alleged, it is because of the stress of racial prejudice in the US. Nothing I have read that makes that argument has cited lower problems with blood pressure for blacks in Canada to make their point.

It is not at all clear that all of these disparities can be traced to inadequate health care. Articles that make that claim are largely anecdotal or posit are used arguments that are tautologies. They state that since blacks have worse outcomes it must be due to inadequate health care. That may be true or not, but these studies are of little use in deciding the issue.

Perhaps it is attributable to social faults in the US, but it may be unfair to ascribe them to the medical care system.

Likewise, comparison of almost every measure of morbidity and mortality are complicated by differing definitions and classification systems. For example, many countries do not consider an infant "viable" if it does not live for a month and specifically exclude all premies. The US is far more inclusive.

Second, the aging UN report often cited to prove the low rank of the US system used data from the 70's and was extremely shoddily done by folks with an axe to grind. I am not saying that that is the evidence you are citing; it is simply part of the background accepted "wisdom."

Unlike Canada, which I understand generally restricts immigration to the well-educated, generally middle class or higher and whose few illegal immigrants are rarely Latino, the U.S. has an overwhelming influx of generally uneducated illegal immigrants. The same people in Canada would experience far worse outcomes because of the ways their educational and cultural backgrounds would affect their behaviors. The legal immigrants in the US from Europe and Asia generally do extremely well, whatever their income levels in the US.

So, have you seen a study that compares for the two countries (or the US to Europe) whites to whites, blacks to blacks, etc? I doubt it. Those comparisons are generally actively avoided because they raise extremely uncomfortable issues.

Even within the US, there is a tremendous level of self-censorship. For example, a recent article on poor results on language proficiency in NY conspicously failed to list the pass rates for whites or Asians. I understand the desire to avoid affecting the self-esteem of minorities, but failing to face how minorities (excluding Asians) are differentially affected often distorts arguments and makes realistic solutions harder to come by.

For example, suppose it was shown that educational achievement by US whites and Asians was the same as European whites and Asian Asians and that the poor achievement of blacks was the same in France as it is in the US? That would make it very clear that the educational system in the US and France are failing blacks, not all students. It would also suggest that measures needed for mostly black schools would be pointless for suburban white schools.

My understanding is that whites in Europe do somewhat better than whites in US, but the gap between the countries is mostly due to blacks and Hispanics. Interestingly, those of northern European extraction do much better in the US and Europe than do other whites.

Likewise, the sad truth seems to be that blacks do relatively poorly academically in Europe and England, perhaps as poorly as in the US. I am not saying that makes it okay either here or there, just that it is important information when we try to do something about it.

And make no mistake, the academic achievement gap between blacks (and to a lesser degree, Latinos) and whites and Asians is an issue that will become more explosive every year. The convenient villain in this story today is teachers and teacher unions. As sorry as both can be, it is very unlikely that demonizing them will help at all.

Seg, we have the best outcomes in the world for every major killer disease. There are countries that have better longevity, but beside our infant mortality rates, the major reason is our higher murder and incidental death rates. We do murder more, but we have more accidents. Because we drive more and enjoy other high risk activities more than most of the rest of developed world. Skydiving, skiing, bungee jumping, etc..

Lots of driving and disposable income combined with our free spirit, leads to higher death rates at younger age, bringing longevity down considerably.

Staty Polly;
No Canadian comes to America without purchasing an out of country card to cover health care costs if something happens to them in the USA.
This is PAID FOR by the Canadian Health Care system, not ours.
You and others on the right continue to make up stories about countries that have universal health care in order to stop it here. I have actually talked to people from Canada and they are VERY satisfied that they don't have the system we have here. In every poll in Canada, over 2/3 of the respondents are satisfied with their health care syste.
On another subject, they did not have the same trouble with their banks as we did because of government REGULATIONS that prevented their banks from doing what ours did.
By the way, Canada, with one tenth of our population, created more jobs last month than we did.

John:

Only 65% of democrats approve. Only 8% of republicans approve. Only 30% of independents approve.

65% of 37% = 24%
08% of 33% = 03%
30% of 30% = 09%

Total approval? 38%

That means that 62% don't approve. That is a 24 point negative spread. Kaiser claims a 15 point positive spread. So my first analysis gave Kaiser too much credit - they are actually a 39 point outlier.

You really want to defend a poll that is 39 points away from average?

AlanSnipes:
"I really don't care what ANY poll says about how many people support or oppose health care reform.
Obama ran on this, was elected, and proceeded to do what he said he would do, despite the lies (death panels)"

So, if Mitch Daniels wins in 2012 on a platform of ditching Obamacare, and Republicans end up controlling both houses then, will you advocate ignoring polls that say "don't ditch it."

I very much doubt it. Libs, in general, had no hesitancy in attacking Rep legislature agendas when Reps were in the majority.

I will be kind and say I find the "we won" argument to be disingenuous. Just because one side loses does not obligate them to roll over. The opposition has the right and obligation to oppose and to advocate their own ideas.

Note that Nancy had lower majorities for her big votes than Reagan or Bush did, even though the former headed the minority and the latter had a small majority for 6 years. The low majorities occurred for one reason: they knew good and damn well that their votes would be unpopular (as they have been).

Representatives can oppose the will of the people, if they wish, but I have no sympathy for them when they or their supporters whine when the American people kick their arrogant butts out of office.

StatyPolly:
Killer diseases.

Don't forget high murder and incarceration rates. The latter is not good for your health.

AlanSnipes:
The critical advantage for Canadian banks is lower allowed leverage rates, pretty much matching what we had prior the late 90s. Second, our easy money and high debt policies since 2003 created asset bubbles.

Also, unlike Canada and the rest of the world, Americans can walk away from a mortgage and be free of debt (but losing the house). In the rest of the world, including Canada, you still have to pay the bank. That policy in America encourages home buyers to take large risks, knowing their liability is limited to their equity in the house.

Otherwise, my understanding is that American banks have been micromanaging more than Canadian banks. More regulation is not the same as better regulation.

Now, we should become incredibly stable since our level of pointless regulations has exploded with the new finance system.

@real

You were complaining about the party-id (justifably so), so I was just showing what effect of adjusting the party-id to a more normal sample would do, (or rather I was correcting your attempt to do so.)

Please give some citation when you are using figures. Where do you get the 65% of dem support, 8% of reps support etc, from? There has been no poll that I know of which has a 38%-62% margin.

(ps it actually adds up to 35.69%)

@AllanSnipes:

"In every poll in Canada, over 2/3 of the respondents are satisfied with their health care system."

Before Obamacare passed, a Gallup poll showed that 83% of Americans rated the healthcare system as excellent (33%) or good (50%).

So the canadian system is great because 66% are satisfied but ours is bad even though 83% were satisfied?

But even if Canadians love paying for their healthcare with high taxes the system itself is in serious financial trouble. Most provinces are currently spending 40% to 50% of their budgets on healthcare.

Manitoba, Onbtario, and Nova Scotia have closed emergency departments because they don't have the money to pay for them.

Many experts say that there will have to be either drastic cuts in medical care or massive tax increases to keep the canadian healthcare system going.

It is amazing how the many defenders of the U.S. corporate health care system will just ignore any information that is contrary to their views. Any poll, any expert opinion, any first-hand testimony can be immediately dismissed if it doesn't fit with their ideology. I guess they think think that the U.S. corporate health care system is so perfect that there could not possibly be a better way to provide health care. Sad.

Don't forget water skiing, jet skiing, propelled scuba diving, turbo whitewater rafting and other motorized water sports. Like drunk-boating. How about redneck olympics? Very dangerous and frequently deadly activities all.

Do the French do any of those? Hardly. They just sit around cafes all day and all night and stare at people. Sure, that gets them bitch-slapped every so often, but rarely results in actual mortality.

Instead of spouting off nonsense and fear-mongering, how about we actually analyze the poll? This is for ALL Adults, not Registered, not Likely voters so of course there are going to be more Democrats in the sample. There are MORE democrats in the country. That's a fact.

However, if you want to adjust to something other than 37/22/30 Party ID that this survey found, the data is available in this poll to do that.

Democrats
Very favorable 33
Somewhat favorable 40
Somewhat unfavorable 8
Very unfavorable 7
Don't Know/Refused 12

Independents
Very favorable 19
Somewhat favorable 29
Somewhat unfavorable 11
Very unfavorable 26
Don't Know/Refused 15

Republicans
Very favorable 6
Somewhat favorable 15
Somewhat unfavorable 16
Very unfavorable 53
Don't Know/Refused 10

Both Democrats and Independents have a favorable view of the bill (73/15 and 48/37, respectively) while Republicans have an unfavorable view of the bill (21/69).

Now, the Pollster.com chart for ALL Adults shows 30.9% Dems, 37.5% Inds and 24.9% Reps. If you adjust the Kaiser poll to the Pollster.com ALL Adults chart and do the math, you get the following results:

As you may know, a new health reform bill was signed into law earlier this year.
Given what you know about the new health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?
Very favorable 18.8
Somewhat favorable 27.0
Somewhat unfavorable 10.3
Very unfavorable 25.5

Total favorable/unfavorable (Kaiser results in parenthesis):
46 (50)
36 (35)

So if you wanted to make the case that this poll is flawed because of its Party ID, you could say it has a +5 Dem lean (+15 vs. +10).

+10 would still be fairly impressive though, given all the lies and fear-mongering that the vocal minority right-wing spewed during our national debate on the issue.

So, if the pollster two weeks ago ( Judicial Action Network or something), had their polls published along with the disclaimer that they oppose the Kagan nomination - a decision I respect 100% - shouldn't Kaiser get a similar disclaimer citing their support for the health care bill?

No, Statypolly, we do not have better outcomes on major dideases. Both infant mortality rates are higher here as well as lifespan compared to other countries with universal healthcare.
Also, we were ranked 37th in the world by ths UN. (Of course you will now smear the UN.

real American: Answer my question: Why aren't Canadians and others changing their supposedly bad health care system to be more like ours?

Also, banks in Canada are not less regulated than here.
You on the right have formulatic answers to everything. But you don't look at the evidence because it contradicts what you want to believe,
not what actually is.
The post from the person from Canada says it all. He lives there and knows what he is talking about unlike you!

lol RussTC3, why go and debunk right wing talking points by focusing on facts. Thanks for the detailed post, I'm always amused by the few here who are talking as if though they are either shilling for Republican or Democratic party....kinda like one word per pay.

ps. Dave, why would Kaiser have a disclaimer? Would you expect Rusmussen or PPP have a disclaimer pointing out they are Conservative or Democratic polling agent as well?

Disclaimer does not exist in actual Stats/polls where you are making up as you go along.

Huda: As I said, the precedent is there, it was applied to Judicial Action Network a short time ago. PPP has a (D) appear next to their name when published on this site, I even wouldn't be opposed to an (R) next to Rasmussen's. It just seems like the same standard is not being applied in this case.

lol, I should say: disclaimer does not exist, unless its 'opinion' article. Polls are based on mathematical equation and unless you are the debunked Research 2000 or that other polling company destroyed by Nate Silver.

About Canadian health care system, as someone who has dual citizenship and lives in Canada whenever I'm not traveling for work, we have one of the best. I only appreciate what I have in my home when I'm in the State and see the horrendous disparity. America has the best health care system in the world, if you can AFFORD it. Hence, why every 3rd world dictator and royalty comes there for health care.

No, Statypolly, we do not have better outcomes on major dideases. Both infant mortality rates are higher here as well as lifespan compared to other countries with universal healthcare.

Actually, we do Alan. We have better outcomes for all four of the major death reasons: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Cerebrovascular disease (stroke).

As stated earlier, infant mortality is higher here for a host of reasons. Also, life span has almost nothing to do with the quality of a health care system.

Field Marshal, America has one of the worse infant mortality rate and pregnancy care in the Western World according to medical research done in the past 10 yrs. Most of the tragic results comes from the South, where many states have horrendous health care condition for its largely poor White and Blacks from South Carolina to Mississippi.

Dave, I agree with you only if Kaiser was not a well established research entity in academia. Yes, its known as somewhat liberal leaning, but they are not a branch of the Democratic party or movement for that matter.

AlanSnipes, I think you hit the nail on the head. I couldn't care less what the polls say or what the public thinks. The public will think whatever the media tells them to. (That goes for both R's and D's.) Whether it's popular or not- that matters for November. It matters for the jobs of the 535 people who represent us. But it does not matter for the millions of people who will now be able to afford their health care bills and for the millions of college kids who will now be able to see the doctor instead of putting it off to save money.

We can argue about socialism, Fox news, Canada, NHS, for as long as we want. The fact is, Obama DID something about our health care crisis, and a heck of a lot of people will be helped, whether they like it or not or know it or not. And that's what we elect people for- to do what's right. Not what's popular.

Huda,

That is just one metric. Accordingly, our infant mortality rate has been just as high compared to other industrialized nations since the 1920's indicating it has nothing to do with the health care system itself. Additionally, the definition of an infant mortality varies greatly among countries.

However, since most American deaths are due to the four ailments i listed above: cancer, stroke, diabetes, and heart disease, and the US has as good or better outcomes in all of these diseases than every other industrialized country, it is incorrect to state that our system is the worst.

My understanding is that pregnant women and children have access to free socialized care in US already. Can't blame infant mortality rates on lack of access.

What you can blame is pregnant women smoking crack, drinking, not going to the doctors.

Not private healthcare's fault.

Huda,

"America has the best health care system in the world, if you can AFFORD it."

85%+ have access to it. Large portion of the remaining 15% choose not to buy access to it. Although they can still get some access to it in ER's. We should do something about those few who fall thru the cracks, but bobocare will ensure that we will no longer have what you describe as "the best health care system in the world".

@Alansnipes: "Answer my question: Why aren't Canadians and others changing their supposedly bad health care system to be more like ours?"

They are. Both Canada and the UK are undergoing programs to privatize major portions of the healthcare system.

"Yes, its known as somewhat liberal leaning, but they are not a branch of the Democratic party or movement for that matter."

It isn't a liberal/democrat thing. This is the "Kaiser Family Foundation". Who is the "Kaiser Family"? Have you ever heard of "Kaiser Permanente"? They do $35 billion per year in managed healthcare. They will double that with special deals they made with democrats in return for their support.

The "Kaiser Family Foundation" gets oodles of money from "Kaiser Permanente. They will get boatloads more if Obamacare isn't repealed. They have an enormous financial interest in making this plan look popular.

@RussTC3:

There isn't a poll anywhere that shows anywhere near 48% of independents supportting this healthcare monstosity. Most of them are in the 35% range.

There also isn't a poll anywhere that shows anywhere near 21% of independents supportting this healthcare monstosity. Most of them are below 10%.

So, this poll shows independent support 13 points higher than average, republican support 12 points higher than average, and is underpolling republicans by 12%. Other than that - very accurate.

"The Kaiser Family Foundation" was started by and is supported by "The Kaiser Family". Ever hear of Kaiser Permanente? They have a gross income of about $50 billion per year in managed healthcare services. Their income and profits could double because of the special deals they made with congress in return for their support of the healthcare bill.

They are a major funder of "The Kaiser Family Foundation". So, "The Kaiser Family Foundation" stands to make a tremendous amount of money if they can make Obamacare look good enough that it won't get repealed.

I think someone with such a huge financial interest related to a federal program should disclose that when they publish a poll about that federal program.

sorry for the double post - I didn't think the first one posted so I rewrote it.

Next year, when we have either a deadlocked or a Republican House and a useless Senate (sorry for the redundancy), war funding will be about the only thing we'll get passed. It's a shame that the only thing our government can do easily is to send more of "our brave men and women" to die. In some countries, I hear universal health care is seen as more important than a nation-building exercise in a random Asian country.

At least, for a brief moment in time, it was possible to pass legislation that will actually help people. Even Mitch McConnell couldn't stop what the people voted for. The Dems may lose both houses by 2012, and the presidency in 2012 or 2016, but there will always be a next time. Trickle down economics and deregulation will always lead to another economic crisis that the Dems will have to fix. So it goes.

Real_American, besides your oxymoronic name, what you claim makes little business sense. Kaiser would make less $ under ObamaCare than if it failed. Why do you think the health insurance industry fought against public option and any real reform for 50yrs? Conservatives can't have it both way. You can't argue in one sense Obamacare would nationalize and bankrupt the private health insurance, then turn around and claim one of them would make a profit under it.

FM: "That is just one metric. Accordingly, our infant mortality rate has been just as high compared to other industrialized nations since the 1920's indicating it has nothing to do

Huda: I don't know what you know about health care, but infant mortality has everything to do with the 'Quality' of healthcare that exist in a given country. When the richest and most advanced nation in the world has a worse record than some of the poorest is not something to be proud of. It shows we need to do better job educating the public about their own health and personal care, make accessible clinics/hospitals, enable people to access medical care without bankrupting them. Many small towns and districts in the US have no hospital, they have to travel miles just to access one and even then the cost is often unaffordable. Health insurance companies tend to penalize pregnancy and child care and for a Conservative, it should matter to you.

FM: "However, since most American deaths are due to the four ailments i listed above: cancer, stroke, diabetes, and heart disease, and the US has as good or better outcomes in all of these diseases than every other industrialized country, it is incorrect to state that our system is the worst."

Huda: One of the major contributor to American costly healthcare system is our ailing population. These diseases show how unhealthy most Americans are and let's not even get into obesity. A healthy nation would ultimately mean a cheaper health care system for all....and for now that's not what exist. Not to mention the facts millions do not seek a doctor until they are @ a critical stage, hence the exuberant amount it costs both tax payers and businesses.

Real_american please provide the specifics of the special deal Kaiser got in the health care legislation?

Regarding the difference between this survey and others on favorability toward the recent health care reform bill - note that the question wording that kaiser uses is very different. Most other pollsters refer to the bill "passed by Congress" or they refer to "Obama's health care law" rather than just "a new health reform bill was signed into law earlier this year" language that Kaiser uses. Thus, anyone who has a gripe with Congress or with the President is more likely to register as unfavorable with the former language. Kaiser's language doesn't add that unnecessary baggage to the question.

"war funding will be about the only thing we'll get passed. It's a shame that the only thing our government can do easily is to send more of our brave men and women to die."

This statement is so short-sighted. You know as well as anybody that Islamic extremists will continue to plot to kill you and me here in the US or abroad if we don't destroy/damage their structure to the point that they can't. We all don't like seeing our young adults die but they do so in order for the rest of us to live without fearing attacks.

RussTC3:
According to Gallup, you are outdated: the number of adults who identify as reps and dems are now nearly equal (see Gallup a few days ago).

"This nonsense about "socialism" is particularly foolish as it is simply used to brand any publicly funded program that one opposes."

Bingo. I'm just waiting for them to move on to screaming "fascism!" when screaming "socialism!" doesn't work.

HookedOnPolls:

"This statement is so short-sighted. You know as well as anybody that Islamic extremists will continue to plot to kill you and me here in the US or abroad if we don't destroy/damage their structure to the point that they can't. We all don't like seeing our young adults die but they do so in order for the rest of us to live without fearing attacks."

That would make sense if the power structure of Islamic extremists was in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, it's in Saudi Arabia, and we can't touch them there because our government is BFFs with the tyrannical Saudi government...the same tyrannical government that fails to (or doesn't want to) sufficiently undermine said power structure.

Huda:
infant mortality

from theStar, a Canadian website for a newspaper:
"In Canada, the infant mortality rate for children on reserves is twice that of non-natives, the study finds. Inuit babies are four times more likely to die."

I will repeat: comparing any health statistic without stratifying by race and ethnicity is bogus. If you don't, any heavily white or Asian area in the US (or Canada) is going to have good statistics.

For example, the incidence of HIV in Africans in France is 15 times the rates for whites. Does this represent a poor medical care system?

Infant mortality: The major difference between the US and Europe is the far higher rate of premature babies in the US. One reason is that the US tries to save extremely low birthrate babies and few others do. Most exclude extreme premies from their count; we do not.

Furthermore, many countries (I vaguely remember France being one, but I could be wrong) who somehow exclude infant deaths after two months from birth as "infant" mortality. We count all the way to 1 year.

Premature births not only affect counting, they are the major cause of infant death:
"In 2005, 68.6% of all infant deaths occurred to preterm infants, up from 65.6% in 2000. Very preterm infants accounted for only 2% of births, but over one-half of all infant deaths in both 2000 and 2005. Because the majority of infant deaths occur to very preterm infants, changes in either the percentage of these infants or in their infant mortality rate can have a large impact on the overall infant mortality rate."

Finally, if you had spent nearly a month in a infant intensive care unit as I did, you would have burned into you how many infant deaths are due to truly f****up moms, usually prostitutes and drug addicts.

The infants who die in the U.S. are disproportionately black (2.4 x whites), whether in the south or Seattle. The rates are higher in the south mostly because the percentage of blacks is much higher.

The rates for whites, Cental American Americans, Cuban Americans, Asian American, etc. are nearly equal to or definitely lower than for Canadians. As I said, if you compare ethnic group to ethnic group, the differences largely fall away. Since Central America Americans had LOWER infant mortality rates than Canadians, it is clear that it is not poverty alone that determines the descrepancies. As I stated before, the infant mortality for middle class black women is about 4 times the rate for poor Asian women.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

Chris V.:
I agree that SS, Medicare, and many other things could be classified as socialistic. I could care less what they are called; they perform functions that America wants and supports.

On the other hand, if they create monstrous problems, they are screwed up, whatever you call them.

Obamacare is an 800 lb gorilla trying to do brain surgery. It would do much better to set modest guidelines and stay out of the way as much as possible. I believe that Obamicare is a looming disaster, not so much because it is socialistic, but because it is truly awful micromanaging.

It is like ignoramus science fiction stories where someone gains more minute control over their body, thus providing super abilities some how. The reality is that you do not substitute your judgment for that of anyone's autonomous system any more and for any duration longer than you can help. You do not because it is far smarter than you will ever be.

The same is true for any complex, dynamic system. Central control always produces catastrophe or complete stagnation. It works only when there are numerous intelligent players within the system and a system that daily rewards beneficial behaviors and punishes dysfunctional ones.

Seg: "from theStar, a Canadian website for a newspaper:"In Canada, the infant mortality rate for children on reserves is twice that of non-natives, the study finds. Inuit babies are four times more likely to die."

Huda: but of course, Inuit one of 1000s tribal groups within North American Indians (less than 2% of our population) would have one of the worse. If one looked at any Indian Reservations, will find they have the highest suicide rate, infant mortality, etc in both Canada and the US....and we can all play political guessing game as to why.

What I'm talking about is mainstream populations, where millions experience this phenomenon and the US has the worse. Canada's overall infant mortality is very low.

Statypolly,

If the republicans take control of Congress and try to repeal health care reform I would fight it. Again, because I believe it was right to reform our health care system, I don't care if 99% of the people want to repeal health care reform. The current system is wasting billions of dollars, which people like you are OK with.
I want to reduce health care costs, you do not.
Now, this reform is modest and does not go far enough. But it is something that can be built on.
Those of you on the right who keep condemning it did NOTHING to change the health care system when you had the power to. Why, because you don't care about people who don't have health care, so you smear reform as something that people do not deserve. You've got yours so the hell with everyone else. Yet you have no problem using the power of government to help the rich get richer. Somehow, that is not welfare.
So, those of you opposed to health care reform, go to HAITI or some other country that does not have health care.
Love it or leave it. Reform has started, deal with it or get out of the way!

Seg:

If the republicans take control of Congress and try to repeal health care reform I would fight it. Again, because I believe it was right to reform our health care system, I don't care if 99% of the people want to repeal health care reform. The current system is wasting billions of dollars, which people like you are OK with.
I want to reduce health care costs, you do not.
Now, this reform is modest and does not go far enough. But it is something that can be built on.
Those of you on the right who keep condemning it did NOTHING to change the health care system when you had the power to. Why, because you don't care about people who don't have health care, so you smear reform as something that people do not deserve. You've got yours so the hell with everyone else. Yet you have no problem using the power of government to help the rich get richer. Somehow, that is not welfare.
So, those of you opposed to health care reform, go to HAITI or some other country that does not have health care.
Love it or leave it. Reform has started, deal with it or get out of the way!

That's a great line. Very memorable. "Love it or leave it, reform has started, deal with it or get out of the way!" Classic.

I can imagine in 2003 saying the same thing about Iraq. "The war is coming. Deal with it or get out of the way!

So absurd.... but very illustrative of liberal thought processes.

AlanSnipes:

"I want to reduce health care costs, you do not."

I would like to reduce costs too. But Obamacare won't accomplish that. If anything, it will drive costs up.

AlanSnipes:
"I don't care if 99% of the people want to repeal health care reform

Response: yet you say we are wrong if we continue to fight for what we believe in. Are you saying only those who agree with you have that right? I think you are.

"...you don't care about people who don't have health care, so you smear reform as something that people do not deserve. You've got yours so the hell with everyone else. "

Response: If you have read other things I have posted, then you would know that you are dead wrong. My experience in life has been that people consumed by intolerance and anger rarely are actually upset because of their concern for other people. Unless you are just having a really, really bad day, I suspect that I care about other people much more than you ever will.

If you read what I posted in this thread, you would note that I said that I favor reform to provide catastrophic care. As it happens, I have a strong person stake in having a better system to provide for the less fortunate because several people who are very important to me are facing or may face catastrophic situations. I would just like a much better system than we are about to get. I think we need to start making drastic changes right away before it is too late to avoid the coming debacle.

On the other hand, I think your rant has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. It is enough for you that I disagree with you.

"Yet you have no problem using the power of government to help the rich get richer. Somehow, that is not welfare."
Response: I am far from rich. I started from near poverty and by hard work and discipline I worked my way out of it. I have not forgotten where I come from, and I know that God gave me both the talents and the drive to succeed that gave me the success I have. Because some of those I knew back then are still in poverty, I never forget for a minute that we all have a duty to help those who are less fortunate.
However, I find that doing things in a wasteful and stupid way rarely helps anyone. The poor will suffer the most if we have poor governance. I believe Obamacare will be a debacle. It must be radically reformed.

"Reform has started, deal with it or get out of the way!"

Response: Or what, tough talker?
In any case, unless you apologize, I will not waste my time responding to you again.

Huda,

"What I'm talking about is mainstream populations, where millions experience this phenomenon and the US has the worse. Canada's overall infant mortality is very low."

As it was already pointed out to you, the populations segments in US that have extremely high infant mortality that drag down overall infant mortality to above Canada's level ALREADY have govt sponsored health care. Nothing in new laws or any proposed future laws is going to get them more care. A dentist handing out a toothbrush and a tube of toothpaste to a person who already has ten of each at home, will not make that person brush her teeth anymore than she did before, will it?

Your refusal to acknowledge that point smacks of empty ideologery.

The people who want this bill repealed is because we know that if left in place it will cause more pain, suffering, financial ruin, and death than any bone-headed garbage coming out of congress in history.

You morons on the left don't have exclusive rights to compassion. The most compassionate thing I can do for my fellow Americans is fight this bill until it is dead and gone.

It's a life and death battle, dipwads. I don't care how much you think you are trying to help people - this bill will kill people. There are a lot of people out here that aren't going to let liberal idiots kill Americans to score a symbolic political victory.

You think we're fighting now? You ain't seen nothing yet.

I think that Reps who lick their lips over the prospect of repeal are fooling themselves. History has shown that new entitlements, however dubious at the time of enactment, are almost impossible to repeal. Remember Bush's collosal failure in trying to "privatize" Social Security? Yet most of the Reps who want to repeal "Obamacare" still favor privatizing SS, and many even favor "repealing and replacing" Medicaid and Medicare--by turning them into voucher problems, with our elderly and our poor dumped into the private insurance market! Suppose the Reps get a majority next year and try to do these things? How long do you think that majority will last?

Let's suppose the Reps ARE in the majority of both houses next year. By then many, perhaps most, of the most popular parts of the new health care law will have taken effect--guaranteed issue (GI) for kids with pre-existing conditions (PEC), a ban on recissions, risk polls for adults with PEC (to be replaced with GI in 2014), young adults being able stay on Mom and Dad's plan until 26, and, of course, a phaseout of the donought hole for seniors. Dems will force Reps to specify exactly which of these and other provisions and protections they wish to "repeal"; they will also come up with legislation of their own to fix some problems (like premiums and other costs) that weren't dealt with this year. (It won't get passed in a GOP Congress, but at least they'll be able to say they have an alternative.) As people are made increasingly aware of the new provisions and protections in effect, or slated to take effect over the years, they'll see they have a lot to lose if "Obamacare" is repealed and replaced with something resembling the status-quo-ante--like the GOP's bills this year, which would cover only 8.5% of the uninsured, and wouldn't even end PEC or recissions!

In any case, they won't have a veto-proof majority, and they certainly won't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Reps may try to fold their repeal into the budget to get past a Dem filibuster, and threaten to shut the government down--but Obama will then simply do what Clinton did when the Gingrich GOP Congress tried this little stunt over Medicare. Clinton said he wouldn't cave even if his poll ratings fell to 5%--and of course they rose! Gingrich and his Congress unwittingly assured Bill Clinton's re-election with their hubris--and I'm sure Barack Obama is waiting for Boehner to do the same for him. The longer "Obamacare" stays on the book, the more stuff takes effect (and it's structured so most of the "good" stuff happens first), and the more of a stake Americans have in resisting repeal.

BTW, while some polls show 60% for repeal, many other have it at much lower than 50%. An NBC-WSJ poll (and the WSJ certainly doesn't have a liberal bias) indicates 55% of Americans favor a candidate who'd "give the new law a chance and make changes as need", while only 42% favor one who'd "repeal and start over". A recent poll came out with 50%-48% against repeal. If you want more polls like these, go to http://www.pollingreport.com, which is non-partisan.

Also, you cons might not wish to acknowledge it, but the long-term demographic trends are against the GOP and movement conservatism. Americans with a progressive (aka, liberal) view of government are growing in number faster than those with a reactionary conservative view. Single women, minorities, and people under 30 are making a bigger and bigger share of the electorate with time. And today's young people--who laregly support going beyond the new HC law--tend to be liberal and to turn out more and more each November. Not only did they elected Obama, they almost elected Kerry (47% turnout, for Kerry by 9 points, in 2004)--making GWB the most narrowly re-elected incumbent ever! And young people, minorities, and women may drop off this year, they won't in 2012--particularly if Obama's against a right-winger who wants to gut his accomplishments. Personally, I don't see how the Rep cand gets more than 60% of the white vote--what he'd need to defeat Obama. And it only gets worse in the future, as America gradually becomes a maj-min country.

"And young people, minorities, and women may drop off this year, they won't in 2012--particularly if Obama's against a right-winger who wants to gut his accomplishments."

should be

"And while young people, minorities, and women may drop off this year, they won't in 2012--particularly if Obama's against a right-winger who wants to gut his accomplishments."

ANY REBUTTALS? OR HAS EVERYBODY STOPPED BLOGGING THIS POLL?

BTW, if anybody's reading, you cons all assume that Barack Obama can't adapt and make a Rep Congress work to his advantage in 2012 the way Bill Clinton did. Well, 3 things to ponder:

1.) You guys said the same of BC in 1994; you were writing his political obituary. (We libs said the same of Ronald Reagan in 1982, when the GOP suffered a congressional rout. And my parents probably did about Ike in 1954. And I'll bet you [or your parents/grandparents] were writing Harry Truman's political obit in 1946.)

2.) BO isn't that different from BC. He's a moderately progressive incrementalist. If he were truly a hard-core radical, he'd have pushed for single-payer HC, or at least held out for the public option.

3.) Did you read the last paragraph of my 8/2/10 at 1:48 AM blog about demographic changes? You might also want to read The Emerging Democratic Majority by Jon Judis and Ruy Texiera. Granted, the path to a "Dem maj" is not on a straight line, there were momentary setbacks in 2002 and 2004 (mostly due to 9/11, altough Kerry almost beat Bush), and there may be another this year, but overall, time is not on your side, movecons! The only reason the GOP has even a shot at taking Congress (possibly the House, probably not the Senate) and the "Tea Party" is a force to be reckoned with is the sluggish recovery from the most severe recession since the Great Depression. (When people are struggling, they take it out on incumbents.) If unemployment were at 5%, we Dems might have been slated to make gains in Congress.