Another Preference Cascade: Less than one in three want Obamacare to be upheld.

There’s a reason 0bama so seldom mentions his signature legislative achievement in public; the public loves it not at all.

Or so say those arch Tea Party adherents the New York Times and C-BS.



Support overturning Obamacare in whole: 41%

Support overturning individual mandate: 27%

Support upholding Obamacare: 24%


For the Democrat’s out there, that’s 68% who want Obamacare overturned in whole or in part.

It’s undead, Jim.


Mugshot Of The Day - Tracy Mabb
Half-Wit Hollywood Hottie: Hey Obama, Fire This Cop That Pulled Me Over
  • jim_m

    0bama is a total ideologue. It doesn’t matter if 99.999% of Americans hate 0bamacare.  He knows that 0bamacare is the best thing ever because his ideology tells him so.  No amount of real world evidence will ever overturn that.

    A lot of lefties are in the same position.  They believe their socialist BS despite the abundance of real world evidence that it has failed.

    • retired.military

       Cue Grumpy and his spew.

  • Hank_M

     I see the NY Times is trying to hide the facts behind the headline:

    New Poll: The Supreme Court and the Health Care Law

    Still, don’t expect Obama and the dems to pay attention to this. With the public unions in trouble, they’ll have to double down to maintain their control over our lives.
    Obamacare is the key.

    • herddog505

      No surprise: if it goes down as many expect, Barry will blame “unelected, unaccountable” judges.

      It’s ALWAYS somebody else’s fault with him, isn’t it?

  • jim_m

     Of the three possibilities completely overturning the law gets a clear plurality of support, nearly twice as many people supporting that position over either of the other two.

    THAT is the truth.  No spin involved either for or against the law.

    Deal with it.  0bamacare is unpopular.

  • jim_m

    Rodney, Leave this up as a testimony to Grumpy’s lies.

    I said that a plurality was for complete repeal.  This is a straight forward fact as 41% of those polled were for complete repeal.  No other response got close to that.  Grumpy is bold enough in his lies (or ignorance) to claim that my statement is false.

    Furthermore, he claims that a majority do not want it repealed, where as 68% want all or at least part of it repealed.  Another bald faced lie from Grumpy. Grumpy claims that I said that a majority want it completely repealed. This is also false. I said that the law was unpopular. Grumpy is incapable of basic reading comprehension (a trait remarkably common amongst the left).

    One more example that the left (and Grumpy in particular) have no idea what statistics are, what the truth is, or what complete asses they look like by claiming that they know what they are talking about.

    • I told him, reminded him, and reminded him yet again that he was not welcome via the e-mail he signed up for Disqus with…

  • jim_m

    But the plurality is a minority opinion.

    Indeed it is, which is why in my initial comment I specifically avoided using the term majority to describe the numbers who wanted it repealed. 

    My point was that by putting together two groups you inevitably were spinning the results.  My comment sought to avoid that sort of spin.  Rodney spun it to make his point and you spun it to make yours.

    Face it Grumpy.  You lied.  You misrepresented my comment as saying something it did not.  You are too gutless to admit it.  I never claimed that a majority wanted it repealed until my response to your BS and then I specifically said “All or part of it repealed”, which is true as well.

    You are a liar and a bad one at that.  Bruce has received apologies from me when I was wrong.   You are too gutless to admit it when you are wrong and you are too gutless to apologize for your mistake here.  You’re a gutless worm.

  • ackwired

    Obamacare clearly has become a perjorative around here.  I’m also seeing reports of concern by R’s that the Supreme Court will repeal the law and leave them to fix the health care problem.  If the R’s get control of congress and the WH, they could probably come up with some better solutions.  I’m glad to see that they are starting to think about it instead of just trashing Obamacare.

    • jim_m

       0bamacare was always a pejorative and not just here.  That’s what happens when you pass a crappy law with absolutely zero bipartisan support and do so with the arrogant attitude that 0bama had.

      There are lots of ways to extend health care insurance to the many people that don’t have it without socializing 1/6th of the economy.  0bamacare was never about delivering better healthcare, it was always about government control of the economy.  Why else would they have put in reams of crap regulations like the 1099 rule that was repealed last year?

      • ackwired

        It seems to me that if they wanted to control something they just would have socialized it.  Obamacare is such a monster because they tried to appease every industry and make it a government subsidy to the health care industry as a whole. 

        By the way, in addition to extending health care coverage, costs must be contained, and insurance companies have to start paying for illnesses, two things not accomplished by Obamacare.

        • jim_m

           It seems to me that if they wanted to control something they just would have socialized it.

          From a practical standpoint they had too many people in their own party who were afraid of public backlash if they did that.  I would suggest following people like Jan Schackowsky (D-IL) who has publicly stated that the purpose of 0bamacare was to ultimately lead to a socialized healthcare and that it was deliberately designed to destroy the private insurance market.

          Your comment about costs is spot on.  The problem historically, is that politicians view ‘cost’ as what the government pays, not what the provider spends to deliver the service.  The left is dead set against tort reform and they are dead set against reductions in regulations, both of which add millions per year in costs to providers. 

          I’m not advocating no regulations, but when I was running a lab we had an irradiator for our blood products.  Because it contained Ce 137 we had to spend $100,000’s on renovations to add security measures around it.  We aren’t just talking cameras and needing to type in a password for entrance, we are talking full out James Bond BS.  If you watch NCIS they have less security to get into their “super secure” M-TAC room than we did to get into the lab.  This is the kind of stuff that the public doesn’t see (in fact we are prohibited from discussing details about security measures by the Dept of Homeland Security) but costs the nation millions.

  • Sky__Captain

     Are you trying to get a present from Olaf?
    I really hope so.

  • TomInCali

    Support overturning individual mandate: 27%

    I guess we now count Romney among the 73%.

    Using an argument deployed today by the Obama administration, Mr.
    Romney defended the mandate by noting that taxpayers generally foot the
    bill when the uninsured seek health care.

    “Either the individual pays or the
    taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian,” the
    published op-ed stated. In a line that didn’t make the edited version,
    Mr. Romney added: “An uninsured libertarian might counter that he could
    refuse the free care, but under law, that is impossible—and inhumane.”

    • jim_m

       Technically Tom, if you support repealing the whole thing you support repealing the mandate.  Support for repealing the mandate, therefore, runs at 68%.

      • Support for the law being upheld as written a whopping 24%.

        • TomInCali

          And support for keeping at least some of it at 59%.

          • Are you illiterate, innumerate, or both?

            Overturn all 41%
            Overturn individual mandate 27%
            Keep as is 24%
            Don’t know / no opinion 8%

          • TomInCali

            Ask your question of yourself.


          • Undecided / Don’t know at 8% means you are both illiterate (as they don’t support keeping or overturning) and innumerate!

      • TomInCali

        OK, so then Romney is part of the 32%.

  • TomInCali

    I’d be interested in hearing how you counter Romney’s argument, the same argument that is now offered by supporters of the bill: “taxpayers generally foot the bill when the uninsured seek health care…. Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.”

    Isn’t that often the right’s argument for why government should not pay for things that the individual should pay for? You don’t want to pay for welfare/food stamps; the individual should pay. You don’t want to pay for legal abortions or contraception; the individual should pay. So why do you want the taxpayer to pay for healthcare?

    Perhaps you can argue that abortion/contraception are voluntary, and subject to individual choice. You might even argue that being able to afford food is subject to other voluntary spending choices. But getting sick is not voluntary.

    • jim_m

       Health insurance does not mean that you get free health care.  The
      original intent was that it prevents you from being financially ruined
      by a health crisis.

      Q:  What do you do as a provider with someone who needs a significant amount of care but has no means to pay? 

      A1:  You do what you have done in the past.  You provide charitable care
      for these people.  Hospitals write off some of these charges and in
      other cases they find other charities to pay for the costs.

      A2:  You do the minimum to save the life and then they are on their
      own.  Not everyone needs pretty reconstructions or extensive measures to
      save a limb from amputation.  It might be a heck of a lot cheaper to
      let you pass that kidney stone rather than give you lithotripsy.  You
      are going to feel like crap but, hey, you decided that it would be worth
      the pain in order to save the money on insurance.

      A3:  You let the person deal with the consequences of their poor
      choice.  No one has a right to a liver transplant or a right to a
      coronary bypass.  If they cannot afford it and cannot find the funds
      needed they will have to wait until they find a hospital willing to do
      it for gratis.

      You ask:  What about the poor?  Well we have programs for those people
      already.  The biggest issue is the self employed, the young (who decline
      insurance because they are healthy) and the illegal alien (screw em, if
      they wanted healthcare they should have come in legally)

      Healthcare is not a right.  Period.  All of our rights are founded in
      liberty of personal action.  To declare healthcare to be a right would
      mean that you could legally force a person to perform a service for no
      compensation in order to satisfy your rights.  What the left calls a
      right the rest of the world calls theft.

      • TomInCali

        You float a lot of strawmen in there, not the least of which is: “Health insurance does not mean that you get free health care.” Requiring someone to pay for their own healthcare is not giving it to them for free. However, letting them avoid paying for it by going to ERs and relying on the charity of hospitals is free. You contradict yourself.

        You also require that hospitals become charitable organizations, which seems a stronger mandate. We should cut off taxpayer funding of hospitals, eliminate public hospitals, and require for-profit hospitals to provide services for free (i.e., write them off, as you hand wave)?

        You let the person deal with the consequences of their poor
        choice.  No one has a right to a liver transplant or a right to a
        coronary bypass.

        That’s at least a consistent position. If you choose not to have health insurance, tough luck. Libertarian, but not exactly compassionate. And not a society most people would desire to live in.

        Healthcare is not a right.  Period.  All of our rights are founded in
        liberty of personal action.

        So you advocate the personal action of declining health insurance and mooching off hospitals and taxpayers?

        What the left calls a right the rest of the world calls theft.

        No, the “rest of the world” calls it established policy.

        • jim_m

           You also require that hospitals become charitable organizations,

          Don’t look now but the vast majority of hospitals in the US are non-profit institutions.  That puts them into the category of “charity”.  If you knew anything about the history of healthcare delivery in he US you would know that prior to medicare and medicaid hospitals and physicians used to designate a certain part of their practice to the indigent.  Medicare and Medicaid taught physicians (in fact they require physicians) to charge people for their services regardless of how little they can afford them.

          So you advocate the personal action of declining health insurance and mooching off hospitals and taxpayers?

          No I advocate dying if you cannot afford it and no one an be found to help you.  One of the historical objections to government aid to the poor is that it ultimately forces out private charity (by regulating it out of existence) and thus removes from the people the imperative to take responsibility for their fellow man.  The world was a better place when we took responsibility for one another personally.  The left claims that the government does this.  This is true to a certain extent, but it does not require any commitment on the part of the individual. This country has lost a great deal of its soul by relying upon government to do the things that we as individuals should have been doing.

          Lastly, you correctly point out that much of the world is socialist.  If you think that we should follow the rest of the world and enslave ourselves to the government you are entitled to think that way.

          • TomInCali

            No I advocate dying if you cannot afford it and no one an be found to help you.

            Thank you for clarifying your position. We can only hope that Romney states this view as plainly as you have.

          • jim_m

             Look, what you are either too foolish or too dishonest to admit is that when you socialize medicine you are doing the same thing. There is limited funds to pay for everyone to get healthcare immediately.  People therefore wait for critical care and often die as a consequence.  In Canada half the people with colon cancer die because it advances too far to be treated while they wait for therapy.

            The difference between my method and yours is that I get to have an impact on whether or not I get treated.  I can work, I can raise money from family and friends, I can seek charity.  Under your ideal I can’t do any of that, I am totally at the mercy f the state. Under your ideal the politically connected will get treated and the rest of us will wait and see if the system gets around to us before we die.

            In short in your ideal the state controls your destiny, in mine you control it yourself.  I think that most people will prefer to be able to make their own decisions.

          • TomInCali

            If you want to rant on about socialized healthcare, you should take that to a thread where it is relevant. That isn’t this one. Requiring individuals to purchase their own health insurance is not socialized medicine, no matter how strenuously you object to it (apparently for reasons that you are unable to articulate).

          • Just when did I invite you to be arbiter of what can, and cannot, be discussed in the comments of my posts?