The 'public option'...

[Cancel 2016.2]

BAC...

This highlights what I was referring to when discussing the 'overwhelming support' for the 'public option'. Note the various ways the question is asked... especially the way Rasmussen asked the question both ways.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/does_the_public_want_a_public_1.html

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Other polling stations just ask the question. Rasmussen feels a need to insert arguments into their questions.

Rasmussen is toilet paper.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Rasmussen is toilet paper.

That's what your mom said.

 

[Bonestorm]

You mean to tell me that issue polling, unlike horserace campaign polling, is heavily dependent on the phrasing of the question? No. Fucking. Way.


Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - 77 percent support public option

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Other polling stations just ask the question. Rasmussen feels a need to insert arguments into their questions.

Rasmussen is toilet paper.

Read the article trollboy... that was kind of the point... HOW the question is asked helps determine the responses given. Asking generic... 'would you like a public non-profit option that would compete with the insurance companies'... well hell that sounds great. Count me in.

But if you add 'oh, by the way, this non-profit will be subsidized with your tax dollars'.... well crap... my answer is definitely NO.

The point is that many of these 'polls' asked a question that was very vague and painted the 'public option' in a way that would generate more positive responses.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You mean to tell me that issue polling, unlike horserace campaign polling, is heavily dependent on the phrasing of the question? No. Fucking. Way.


Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - 77 percent support public option

good boy... now you can explain it to BAC when he joins the thread.

Now... on that other thread, did I agree or disagree with you after that post? Just curious...

 

[Topspin]

I don't know if there are any good polls on the issue.
Cons frame the question as giant gov take over.
Libs frame it as do you want something for nothing.
hence they both get the answers they want.

 

[Bonestorm]

Read the article trollboy... that was kind of the point... HOW the question is asked helps determine the responses given. Asking generic... 'would you like a public non-profit option that would compete with the insurance companies'... well hell that sounds great. Count me in.

Great. That's what the public option is. We'll sign you up.

But if you add 'oh, by the way, this non-profit will be subsidized with your tax dollars'.... well crap... my answer is definitely NO.

Well, no problem. The public option is funded through premiums and is not subsidized with your tax dollars. This would be a misleading question.

The point is that many of these 'polls' asked a question that was very vague and painted the 'public option' in a way that would generate more positive responses.

Actually, no. The polls accurate describe what the public option is. The public option gets positive responses because it's a good idea.

As an aside, I'd fucking love it if polls asking whether people support military action against Country X included information about how much it would cost in lives and treasure and how long our troops would likely remain in Country X. Sadly, pollsters only include "how will you pay for it and what will it cost" information for things like providing affordable health insurance. Wars are free.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Great. That's what the public option is. We'll sign you up.



Well, no problem. The public option is funded through premiums and is not subsidized with your tax dollars. This would be a misleading question.



Actually, no. The polls accurate describe what the public option is. The public option gets positive responses because it's a good idea.

As an aside, I'd fucking love it if polls asking whether people support military action against Country X included information about how much it would cost in lives and treasure and how long our troops would likely remain in Country X. Sadly, pollsters only include "how will you pay for it and what will it cost" information for things like providing affordable health insurance. Wars are free.

Actually, no, that is not what the public option is. Look at the bill Reid tried to pass yesterday. It was a 'fix' for the healthcare bill that would give about $250 billion to doctors to make up for the cuts they would incur. This is how the government has been playing the game for the past decade.

Also, if you think the government run plan is going to be run solely off of premiums, then you are not nearly as intelligent as I thought you were.... and my opinion of you was already pretty low.

 

[Topspin]

Actually, no, that is not what the public option is. Look at the bill Reid tried to pass yesterday. It was a 'fix' for the healthcare bill that would give about $250 billion to doctors to make up for the cuts they would incur. This is how the government has been playing the game for the past decade.

Also, if you think the government run plan is going to be run solely off of premiums, then you are not nearly as intelligent as I thought you were.... and my opinion of you was already pretty low.

NICE TURD BURN!! PROPS

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, no, that is not what the public option is. Look at the bill Reid tried to pass yesterday. It was a 'fix' for the healthcare bill that would give about $250 billion to doctors to make up for the cuts they would incur. This is how the government has been playing the game for the past decade.

Also, if you think the government run plan is going to be run solely off of premiums, then you are not nearly as intelligent as I thought you were.... and my opinion of you was already pretty low.

First, the bill Reid tried to pass yesterday had nothing to do with the "public option." It was indeed related to the Baucus bill and the Senate consideration of healthcare reform but it had nothing to do with the public option.

Second, I'm just telling you what the public option bill (the one in the House) actually says. You can argue that you think the law will have to be changed if it is passed, but as it stands the law requires the government sponsored heath insurance plan to be funded entirely through premiums. If premium financing is insufficient, you'll see increased premiums and consumers won't choose the public option and it will be a failure.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, the bill Reid tried to pass yesterday had nothing to do with the "public option." It was indeed related to the Baucus bill and the Senate consideration of healthcare reform but it had nothing to do with the public option.

Second, I'm just telling you what the public option bill (the one in the House) actually says. You can argue that you think the law will have to be changed if it is passed, but as it stands the law requires the government sponsored heath insurance plan to be funded entirely through premiums. If premium financing is insufficient, you'll see increased premiums and consumers won't choose the public option and it will be a failure.

I stand corrected on the first paragraph, you are correct, that was a 'fix' that would allow the Baucus bill to be 'revenue neutral'. Not the public option.

That said, if they leave the public option as stated and don't try any gimmicks like this 'fix'... then I am fine with a public option. As long as it competes fairly. I just don't trust the idiots in DC to leave it to itself when it starts to fail. Just look at the current underfunding of Medicare and Medicaid (not to mention SS)... to believe the government is going to get it right this time is a tad nuts in my opinion.