TPMDC
Opposition To Health Care Law Sinking
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
Opposition to health care reform continues to fall, though opponents are increasingly of the view that the bill should be repealed, according to a new poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
A survey of 1504 adults, including 406 Medicare-eligible seniors finds that 50 percent hold favorable views of the new health care law, while only 35 hold unfavorable views. Back in June, the same poll found that 41 percent viewed the law unfavorably, and going back two more months, the unfavorable numbers were never below 40.
Those surveyed were asked:
"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? Is that a very favorable/unfavorable or somewhat favorable/unfavorable opinion?"
The words favorable and unfavorable were rotated.
A full 25 percent of respondents had very unfavorable views of the law, compared to only 10 percent with somewhat unfavorable views.
That likely explains why 77 percent of those with unfavorable views want the law repealed as soon as possible, up from 66 percent last month. Only 21 percent of opponents say that "the law should be given a chance to work, with Congress making necessary changes along the way."
The survey paints a picture of minimal, but intense, opposition to the law. Only 27 percent of those surveyed would like to see the bill repealed, while a significant majority are either supportive of the law or willing to give it a chance.
Comments (120) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
EnnuiDivine
July 29, 2010 10:45 AM
Waterloo, y'all.
This was a lousy piece of legislation on its own...but people are realizing that for all its flaws, America has finally put into place a system of near universal healthcare coverage.
Once Congressional Dems grow a spine and pass the Public Option Act, it'll be even better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
July 29, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Waterloo, y'all.
And don't forget, armageddon, y'all :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 29, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to geofu54
Where's my Death Panel? I want to see if they'll do a house call at Phyllis Schlafley's house.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ahmedsaid
July 29, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Fifty percent of Americans learn to love Big Brother...with proper training & instruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 29, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Ahmedsaid
Yeah, joining into a social organization does take training. This is sort of like potty training for small children. Only the subject and the age of those who need to interact with society are different between the two cases.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
July 29, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to Ahmedsaid
What a tired talking point. The LEAST "Big Brother" option was the one that required people to account for their own insurance policy. The one that required individuals to get a policy just like they get car insurance - as Mitt Romney put in place in Massachusetts. Yet here are conservative robots like Ahmed who can't get it through their thick skulls that something had to be done. Ahmed, do you have an alternative, or can you only think in two-sentence nuggets?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
July 29, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Only lousy because it lacks a public option..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 29, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to booch221
That's one of many things that needs to be changed, but now at least there is something to change. There is the basic structure for an overall system.
It's no longer a wild west frontier where anyone can stake out their claim and rip others off with impunity.
Wait 'till the media figures out that there are overall rules and that violation of those rules is news that the public wants to know about. It won't be just a bunch of insurance companies each making up their own rules under the excuse that they somehow can "improve the service they provide" (read instead "make obscene profits out of sight of the public.")
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
margoharris
July 29, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to Richardxx
In 1974 Nixon offered Ted Kennedy a comprimise: Nixon would mandate all employers offer their employees health insurance and the government would subsidize people who couldn't afford it. He also offered to open health care clincs in public schools for children. Ted turned it down due to pressure from the left who demanded........single payer. He said it was the biggest political mistake of his career. 36 years ago, what if we took the deal, would we have single payer by now....? Maybe.
What people don't realize is that he is setting up a parallel system and in 2018 when the exchanges are up and running and everybody can buy into it I think the demand for a medicare buy in will be in the cards. Maybe even before because getting younger and healthier people into medicare could save it and strengthen it.
IMHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 29, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to booch221
The public option would have been a disaster. I'm glad the White House didn't support it, and I'm glad it's not part of the final bill. Insurance companies would have used the public plan as a dumping ground for all the patients they didn't want: people with chronic conditions, terminal patients, etc. It would have been the most expensive plan out there, AND it would have been used by the Republicans to "prove" that government-run healthcare doesn't work. And it would have provided the sort of stopgap solution that would virtually guarantee that we wouldn't revisit the idea any time in the future. We don't need a public option. We need single payer. The public option would have made that far less likely, in my opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
July 29, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to hrebendorf
We do need single payer. I thought the public option was the way there but perhaps you are right it would be the dumping ground for everyone not in perfect health. The insurance companies still need to cherry pick to keep themselves profitable and now with no exemption for preexisting conditions I expect the costs to go through the roof. Price controls anyone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 29, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
While I don't agree that this is a "lousy" piece of legislation [I think the law has its merits (e.g., preexisting conditions coverage, emphasis on preventative care, etc.).], I do agree with your other assessments.
Most legislation, especially major legislation, is imperfect in its primary iteration. Social Security, perhaps one of the most often cited examples of "good, progressive legislation," initially did not even cover women and minorities; it was later expanded to include those groups.
This legislation will similarly be improved over time.
People have bashed the law, treating it as if it's the final word on the issue. But, as history informs us, more will be said on the matter.
As you've intimated, absolutely nothing in the legislation prohibits the addition of a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 29, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
you are either confused or being deliberately misleading.
women and minorities were never excluded from social security.
among the job categories exempt from initial iterations (although certainly not all of the exempted job categories) were jobs dominated by women and minorities. but of course, women and minorities who did NOT work in those exempted job categories paid into social security just like everyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
You're either stupid or intentionally misleading. SS legislation did not say "most women and minorities are excluded." But it was drafted in a way that made sure that most women and minorities were excluded by excluding the jobs they held.
It was knowingly written that way because it was the only way FDR could get the Dixiecrats on board.
The result was still the same--it was intentionally discriminatory. The original SS was a shadow of what it is today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 29, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thank you for elucidating the point about Social Security that I failed to make clear, and for emphasizing, more eloquently, the larger point I was trying to make: "The original SS was a shadow of what it is today."
The Affordable Care Act will similarly undergo improvements to make it stronger, better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 8:27 PM in reply to FreeRider
LMAO. Way to get the facts straight FR!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 30, 2010 12:44 AM in reply to chameleon
save yer high-fives louisgirl, my facts needed no straightening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 30, 2010 12:42 AM in reply to FreeRider
and my point STILL stands: "social security ... did not even cover women and minorities" is NOT accurate.
nothing in your unnecessarily abusive and shrill post contradicts my point. and nothing in your unnecessarily abusive and shrill post makes the assertion that "social security ... did not even cover women and minorities" accurate.
that the majority of working minorities and a bare majority of working women were initially exempt from social security is not the same as saying "social security ... did not even cover women and minorities".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 30, 2010 3:59 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Don't be so upset because I spanked you for arrogance and stupidity. The intent of your post was to hewhoha was making shit up when he was, in fact, correct in the larger sense but using a bit of shorthand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 31, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to FreeRider
you have done no spanking. you only insulted while arrogantly and obtusely missing the point of my correction and failing to acknowledge that the statement i was correcting was indeed factually inaccurate as written.
your 'larger point' is neither here nor there because nothing i wrote ever took issue with the author's broader assertion that social security was imperfect or even the implication that (deliberately or otherwise) social security did not include many/most women and minorities.
in my correction i explicitly allowed for the possibility that the author was 'confused'. perhaps the author was only confused in their choice of words, but my correction still stands. and your abusive behavior and unnecessary insults are still, as ever, on full display for all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 29, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
What, in your opinion, in "lousy" about it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
July 29, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Yeah, how's that "Waterloo-ey thingie" workin' for ya?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 10:49 AM
Teabaggers: If you pass healthcare, it will be the end of the Democratic party We will win back Congress by running on repeal.
Firebaggers: If there's no public option, we will primary you and stay home in November because you are no different from the republicans.
Teabaggers and Firebaggers = total toothless losers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 29, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to FreeRider
"Public Option" ...sheesh. Even I have to stop and think about what that means. I wish that Dems had the creativity that the GOP uses here. (Defense of marriage Act" "Death Tax" etc.) Just call the co-called Public Option the HCR "Safety Net" and be done with it. Imagine if the Repukes had to be asked why they were opposed to a "Safety Net" for healthcare?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
July 29, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to CityGuy
Exactly. I call the estate tax The Lottery Tax.
You do nothing, you don't even buy a ticket, and all of a sudden you are awarded a lot of money. Of course you should pay tax on your lottery income.
Republicans make it sound like the dead person is being taxed. In reality the recipient is being taxed. For example, if the dead person leaves all the estate to charities, there isn't a tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to exregis
Personally, I like the Paris Hilton tax
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CammyLea
July 29, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to FreeRider
There's nothing wrong with primarying someone in hopes of getting a more Progressive Dem. That being said, just because they don't win, is NO REASON TO STAY home. I have no patience with those who want to stay home to "teach them a lesson!"
The only lesson Congress will learn is that progressive politics doesn't work because they don't vote, so why try?
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Incremental change is still change; if the radical left think it's moving too slow now, just wait and see what happens if the Repubs get back in power.
In other words I agree with you, but there is something to be said for jolting the party with a primary challenge. Look what happened to Lincoln. Dollars to donuts, she would have backed down on FinReg if she didn't have Halter breathing down her neck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Observerinvancouver
July 29, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to CammyLea
For the Goopers to take over Congress, they have to elect brand new Goopers to add to the old bunch. The way things are going, those new Goopers would likely be even batshit crazier than the current lot. Please don't let this happen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeJ
July 29, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
Firebaggers. That's great and you make an excellent point. Either way the President can't win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Yes, we know you are but don't be so hard on yourself. Given that your parents are siblings, you've done much better than expected, Firebagger DarcyDan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to FreeRider
Clarence Vine is DarcyDancer/Siterkevin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to expat46
Absolutely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm skeptical, FreeRide. I've seen Clarence display some very knowledgeable insight on several subjects, stuff that I don't think Darcy was capable of. I do wonder what happened to Darcy though. He could be reasonable, as trolls go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ugg the Repug
July 29, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to expat46
So, troll evolve. It happens. Har har har.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to Ugg the Repug
Hey, I was doing a pretty good Ugg for a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to expat46
FreeRider is correct. If you don't believe FR or me, ask Clarence Vine. I am sure he won't mind telling you that he is sisterkevin/aka Darcy Dancer. Yes, he is capable of meaningful insight when he's on his meds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to expat46
Clarance = DarcyDan. The rhetoric is exactly the same. You think I'm wrong? No problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to expat46
Well, TY ah TYVM expat. Appreciate the comments. Surprised I got so much attention. It is true, all three wrapped into one. But now back on the meds as Clarance. They were both characters from JP Donleavy's novels, Darcy the raconteur (wow, spelled that w/o spell check)in The Destinies of Darcy Dancer, Gentleman, and Clarance Vine, the undertaker in A Fairy Tale of NY. Surprised Chammy did not google them together. Always out to get me you know. And for some very strange reasons I now actually enjoy FreeRider... to a point, knucklehead that he is.
BTW Chammy, how is Doc Ivy. Confused the poor girl I know. Wayyy to flaky for me.
See you all in the peanut gallery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Well I'll be damned. This proves once again the photographic memory of FreeRider. You know he can tell you what you wrote three months ago on any given subject.
What's with the socks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Chammy wasn't interested enough to google anything that may have had to do with you, and as far as Dr. Ivy - she's a strong smart woman -you know the kind you said you couldn't handle, and as a busy neurologist I am sure she has better things to do than comment on TPM every da. And don't flatter yourself - even you as scary as you are, you couldn't scare Ivy off - she'd chew you up and spit you out before you knew what hit you. I'll be sure to tell you you were asking about her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to chameleon
Clarance says you shouldn't speak of yourself in the 3rd person Chammy. It's not a good sign.
Clarance says he didn't know doc Ivy was a "busy neurologist", as opposed to a not so "busy neurologist"? Clarance is happy that she's busy. She was a little scary and did threaten to sue Clarance. In the future, before you introduce Clarance to someone, please do a background check. Clarance says he would appreciate it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ugg the Repug
July 29, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Ugg agree. Har har har.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Apparently there is a lot you don't know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to chameleon
Clarance says there's a lot Clarance doesn't know, and Clarance says there's a lot Chammy doesn't know.
Your turn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Actually, I'm done. I have no more to say to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
FreeRider, Grand Defender of Cult Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Excuse me, FreeRider. Meant to say Free "gag me Mr. President" Rider. My apologies to all Cult Obama o-bots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Sisterkevin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to expat46
BTW, that extremely rude poster yesterday discussing Dodd and Frank, the WSJ, etc., the one who was doing his best to insult you, well, I did my best to discredit him as I know of those things, mortgages/derivatives. He was worse than FreeRider (almost) on a bad day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Yeah, you can spot a recent graduate of Glenn Beck U. when you see one.
You did a bang up job with your reply, I learned something. I doubt the troll did though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to expat46
CV is like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Rude poster!! really?? - like CV has never been rude to anyone. Har har har har.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 29, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to chameleon
We all get a chance to be rude Chammy, all of us, but I guess you never read the referred to post. You would have understood. Oh well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Believe me I read it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 30, 2010 4:10 AM in reply to chameleon
C'mon, Chameleon. Stop taking the bait from Darcy. He gets a stiffy every time you engage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 29, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to FreeRider
oh how i wish you would just go away freerider.
you contribute nothing to the conversation. you're always just yelling at people and insulting people. and you keep blathering on about 'firebaggers' being just like teabaggers but i would offer that it is you who most resembles a teabagger around here.
you are full of misdirected anger and outrage that is completely disproportionate to whatever provocation you infer or imagine. no matter what the coversation might be, you show up and start screaming at and about people you don't like and calling them names. no insight to offer. no coherent set of principles. just fight. all the time: fight. but always fighting against someone or something (though usually against some broad category of perceived enemies) and never really fighting for anything (beyond defending obama against anyone you perceive as so much as the tiniest threat).
i really can't recall ever reading a post from you that could be described as amicable (and high-fives and fist-bumps with yer buddies don't count since that's usually just you guys slapping each other on the back for calling someone else a stupid 'firebagger').
the worst thing is that i kinda feel sorry for you. because i don't think your bad behavior is just you being a jerk or making dishonest arguments. but becaause i think that your anger is fueled by having conflated any and all criticism of the obama administration. much as a bigot conflates individual differences and specific grievances and applies them to a broad group of people to whom the bigot directs irrational anger and vitriol. the way you apply the term 'firebagger' is not all that different from the way my neighbor would spit out the word 'nigger'. not exactly equivalent to be sure. but close enough for me to feel sorry for you for carrying around all that unnecessary anger.
and still, i'd rather not have to be subjected to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
You have choices to make in life... you do not have to be subjected to it.
I personally think FreeRider is right most of the time and one of the most knowledgeable commenters here. You may not like his style because he cuts to the chase and calls people out on their bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to chameleon
Thank you, chameleon!
You know what's funny: The nastiest fucks here who spend their every waking moment trashing the president and democrats in the most vicious terms are always whining about how rude we are to them.
I've never seen such a bunch of weak-kneed whining pussies in my life. They can dish it out but they can't take it.
Have you ever noticed that they only complain about the "rudeness" of Obama supporters?
Have you ever seen them chastise the anti-Obama firebagger creeps like Darcy/Clarance, Oleeb, Again, wbgonne about their behavior? No!!! Because it's OK to be a nasty fuck if you're trashing the president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 29, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
Believe me I hear you loud and clear. Professional whiners and complainers who act like this is the first time they ever voted in a fricking election and have no clue how the process works. 18 months ago, there was no health care reform and no financial reform and thanks to the dems we at least have a start but to these folks, the bills are shit and not better than nothing,. The same assholes (like Bluebell and CV) who are threatening to vote green to spite the dems when they will end up spiting themselves as I am sure most people are smart enough to know that there is nothing to be gained by sabbotaging this election to make a stupid fricking point.
Oh and do you remember Bluebell complaining about OTC drugs not being covered under FSA and that it as an added tax and she ruminated for days about it. - well apparently the IRS has allowed those drugs to be covered. I haven't heard one word out of the b*t*h's mouth since.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 30, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to chameleon
Nah, you two are the 'nastiest fucks' posting here. Even President Obama refutes your "my president right or wrong" nonsense.
Grow up. You're tiresome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 30, 2010 4:08 AM in reply to Bwakfat
Ah, go cluck yourself, bitch!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 29, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
You wish? Wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up faster!
If I'm as bad and hopeless as you say, what kind of moron are you to write paragraph after paragraph to me?
But FYI, I am not the least bit angry. I have the president I wanted, voted for and still support. I think he's doing a stupendous job! Since you firebaggers are always bitching and moaning, you must be the angry ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 30, 2010 12:51 AM in reply to FreeRider
your anger is obvious to all who suffer and witness your abuse here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 30, 2010 4:04 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
You mistake the glee with which I administer a beatdown on you retarded firebaggers for anger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 31, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
you mistake the presence of pleasure for the absense of anger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 29, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
You are absolutely right. I have seen FreeRider in action on many threads and I have been the target of his substance free drivel which generally consists of ad hominem attacks and profanity. A lot of heat, but no light. It doesn't bother me, though. I think it is great that he constantly insists on showing everyone here what passes for intelligent liberal "thought". I suspect that there are many liberals (excluding, of course, Chameleon, and other regular FreeRider cheerleaders) who are embarassed by his comments. Far be it from me to tell him to stop posting though. It would, however, be refreshing to see a little substance and a comment that actually has some educational value.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
July 29, 2010 10:54 AM
Perspective: 17 percent of people had a favorable opinion of Dick Cheney.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 29, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Consider Dick Cheney, Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. Of the three, which would be the best Senator?
Or another way of asking that question - which of the three could best simulate being a sane human being in public? Yes, that is an extremely low standard, but I don't think the Republicans have many elected or nominated members left who could meet even that standard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brendan Garbee
July 29, 2010 11:08 AM
Encouraging direction for the polls to take on HCR, but I've seen polls recently with weaker support numbers. Democrats have to get ready for another HCR fight, if the Republicans have as good a November as everyone thinks they will.
We know that the GOP is going to try and kill "Obamacare" if they win the House of Representatives. We just don't know if they're going to try and do it in a dramatic way, or in a quiet, procedural way.
Either way, my sense is that Democrats need to be ready to go on a public offense. The best weapon the Democrats have, I think, is a question: What will the GOP replace "Obamacare" with? The old, failed system? An experimental free market system?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clearvoice
July 29, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to Brendan Garbee
Oh they are going to win and win big.
But the GOP isn't going to repeal the whole bill.
They will strip out money for abortions and illegals
They will add shopping across state lines for better pricing. I think it's called competition.
They will give a tax credit so you can really choose your health care plan.
Not the bull that Obama had Pelosie and Harry write.
The won't call in the insurance companies through the back door like Obama to help write the bill.Obama is out of his league. Acorn is still looking for some good community organizers.
He should apply.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
July 29, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to clearvoice
hey nutcase - there is no $$ for illegals or abortions. Stop gitting your sh*t for brains news from Fux.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 29, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to thomas1
No.. I think we should encourage them to strip out all that money for abortions and illegals. Come GOP... show me the money!!! What? There is no money? How does the government pay for abortions and illegals without money?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 29, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to clearvoice
Clearvoice - Can you please explain to me how shopping for a good plan from Blue Cross in N. Dakota is going to cost me less than my Blue Cross plan in AR?
Now, I might be able to get a cheaper plan from Wally's Discount Health Insurance based in Gravely Road, KY. But none of my Doc's have ever heard of this and they don't accept it. AR doesn't regulate it so I have to pay for all my doctor visits up front and submit to Wally for reimbursement. What do I do if Wally won't pay for my son's MRI and I'm out the $3000.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
July 29, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to clearvoice
That would be based on your assumption that people can always find cheaper insurance from some other state. What would cause it to be cheaper? I guess that's sort of like the Republican assumption that if you privatize Social Security, everyone will make money in the stock market instead of lose it.
The two aren't connected, and right now you can really chose your own plan. That didn't change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
July 29, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to clearvoice
"They will add shopping across state lines for better pricing."
I never thought about this, but there they are. The very reason people want to cross borders for the drugs is because Canada requires a negotiated price for the drugs.
And why, exactly isn't that done here?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 29, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to clearvoice
Shopping across state lines for a better price? Gee, that idea has worked so well in the credit card industry. So I guess, if the Republicans have their way, we can look forward to seeing health insurers move their businesses to South Dakota, along with the credit card companies. Great idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
July 29, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to clearvoice
Uh, you forgot the Death Panels. They're going to strip them out, too, right?
I can see it now. The GOP bill will have no death panels or abortion or health care for illegal aliens and then they'll claim credit for removing it! 'Cuz, that's how they roll, baby!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
July 29, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to Brendan Garbee
please see City Guy above. Stop refering to it as obamacare and start calling it the health care safety net or some such name. Don't let the wingnuts define the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
July 29, 2010 11:12 AM
It'll take a while, but gradually, those opposed to HCR will discover that they were bamboozled by the insurance industry and its handmaidens in the political sphere.
They'll begin to notice that no one has been been sentenced to death by a Federal panel. They'll notice that no one has been sentenced to 10 years at Levenworth, or 11 years at Twelveworth, for failing to obtain health insurance. They'll notice that they can still go to their own doctors, and aren't being required to queue up for medical care from Government doctors (presumably stationed in those concentration camps we've all heard so much about).
The pity is that when the next contentious issue rolls around, these same poor souls will get bamboozled again, by some of the same people. Slow learners.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
July 29, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Early Out
Nah - they won't realize they were bamboozled. They will get the benefits, like the benefits and never make the connection that HCR provided them. The will take to the streets the next time Fox and Beck tell them to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
July 29, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Powkat
after all these are the same people that don't want the gummermt involved in their Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
July 29, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to Early Out
I think that's the point of the article - that support for HCR has (and will) continued to grow since passage, just as Nancy et. al. predicted it would before passage.
Notably, it seems that the "magic number" of 27% opposed (the same number that still supported Bush at the end, and the same 27% that seem to support anything the repubs do, and oppose a cure for cancer if offered by a democrat) has already been reached. Should be interesting to see what further support develops between now and the midterms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick_data
July 29, 2010 11:13 AM
My wife, who is 62, was able to get health care coverage under the new HCR plan. For the last year she has had no heath care insurance, after the COBRA from my last job ran out. Without this bill, we might have moved to Italy, since my wife is Italian and can get free health care in Italy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 29, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to dick_data
Co-sign for Dick Data and Early Out. This one's a winner! Campaign on it, and make sure that voters know the GOP wants to REPEAL HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
July 29, 2010 11:37 AM
But...but...I thought Boehner said that EVERYONE hates this bill and wants it repealed. Who to believe?
(We'll just let the Republicans keep thinking that.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Samsohn
July 29, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to chimpale
"He plays the blame game because he is week. Where I grew up, we would have given him a beat down. We don't like cry babies."
First of all, edit your submissions because typos make you look stupid without anyone even needing to argue with you.
Secondly, the lies of Bush that took us to fight an unjustified war, cost us trillions of dollars, and countless lives. I think that lie is big enough to overshadow all other possible 'lies' made by this democratic president.
Lastly, I'm glad your response to disagreeing with the Pres. is to beat him up because he's a 'winer.' That might be cool where you grew up, but Obama grew up on the Southside of Chicago. I don't think he's going down, and he's certainly not going down without a fight. Not in November, not in 2012. There are to many Americans being hurt by the corporate ruled elite in this country. And Obama is doing something for those who need the help. Not the Ubber-rich dickheads that Bush helped with the tax cuts. They would ruin this country 100 times over just to make a little profit...I'm ranting...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 29, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Samsohn
I agree with your rant....but...
"First of all, edit your submissions because typos make you look stupid "
uhhhh...."because he is week" ...c'mon
And you stated ....O "grew up in South Chicago" What?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to Samsohn
Also, I think your picking a fight with someone you probably agree with on most issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
July 29, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to chimpale
All Americans, i.e. white, middle aged and older people who go to (a Christian) church twice a week and eat apple pie with a baseball bat, and who vote Republican because they put the needs of THEIR country before their own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clearvoice
July 29, 2010 11:52 AM
Blind as Bats.
Dick Durbin on the house floor said health care rates will rise between 35 & 50% under Obamacare. I believe he is a democrat.
Now the UK has said, their health care system is a failure...It has crushed their economy.
Spain has now said there will be changes.
France said it is hurting their economy.
According to the CBO, 51% of the current health care companies don't conform to the new terms of Obamacare.
So this begs question, can you keep your heath insurance?
OF COURSE NOT!
Remember the buzz about "Death Panels" a bit extreme but not far from what Obama's new head man heading up health care. He believes in rationing big time. He said we have to be smart about it. So does he decide who lives and dies?
What happen to "We will not fund abortions with federal money"
I guess Maryland & Philadelphia are exempt.
What happen to no federal funds for illegals in the health care bill.. I guess the senior illegals don't count because they will now cover them.
So how many of you would like have Joe (you lie)Wilson for president. Because it sounds like he was right on target with his words.
Obama has now told more lies in 18 months than Bush did in 8 years.
He plays the blame game because he is week. Where I grew up, we would have given him a beat down. We don't like cry babies.
What a winer.
But that's how liberals run. Blame everyone else but yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 29, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to clearvoice
"What a winer. "
Obama, you mean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Blueline99
July 29, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to clearvoice
Talk about a liar...
The UK says their NHS is a failure... so obviously they are disbanding it and everyone in the country is in favor of that?
No, because what you said is wrong. NHS is incredibly popular and it has its faults, but given the choice between NHS or private insurance, the public overwhelmingly favors NHS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
July 29, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to clearvoice
"Dick Durbin on the house floor said health care rates will rise between 35 & 50% under Obamacare."
Sources, please? And over what term?
You do realize that it might take only two years *without* 'Obamacare' for health care rates to rise between 35 and 50%, right? Hell, for some people, 50% might be a blessing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
July 29, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to clearvoice
Blind as bats? Bats actually have excellent eyesight, thank you. And anyone who is week, only being seven days old, would likely be a bit of a crybaby.
More lies in 18 months than Bush in 8 years? Can you count as well as you spell?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 29, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to BlindBat
"Can you count as well as you spell?"
It's "weak"...not "week"
Go buy a toofbrush and re-eroll in the second grade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
July 29, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to toddincabo
Toddin, maybe you missed what I was quoting from clearvoice:
"He plays the blame game because he is week."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 29, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to BlindBat
Sorry, I replied to that post as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
July 29, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to toddincabo
Aha... sorry. I now see that. Thought you thought I needed a toothbrush!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 29, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to BlindBat
No...thought for a minute there you were of the toothless "klan"....= teabaggers
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 29, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to toddincabo
Missed a n
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
July 29, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to clearvoice
Amazingly fact-free, un-sourced, and gibberish to boot. Clear voice? I'd go with a new handle: garbled_garbage. Quite a feat you've performed here. Your assertions are either distortions, falsehoods, or lies. Your conclusions are specious, based on no credible foundation. If you are an example of the intellectual heft still opposed to health care, good luck to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 29, 2010 11:53 AM
The more this bill graduates from being an abstract thing people know about only from urban legends on the Internet and Fox News, and into being something people actually interact with, the more popular it will get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clearvoice
July 29, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to mcc
I guess Elizabeth Warren is an urban legend.
First of all, she should confirmed and the GOP should not deny her. she is winner.
But this urban legend as you call it is on the side of the GOP with heath care. The health bill will sink us in her view.
The bill is not and never will be popular. It will change as the Senate & House this November will.
As an independent who voted for this scam artist has had his eyes opened. This country needs a split house & senate to balance the country and keep inexperienced president in check.
Just look at the Clinton years. In his second term when the GOP wiped out the democrats, they balanced the budget.
Wow republicans actually balanced the budget and created a surplus. Their screw up was letting the sub-prime bill get by and having Clinton sign it. Then they went crazy under Bush.
You think the democrats would have learned a lesson.
Oh yeah! I don't think c-span is a Fox owned station. "YET"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
July 29, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to clearvoice
"Then they went crazy under Bush."
Huh? So on January 1, 2001, suddenly new Republican leadership took over that was completely insane?
Why didn't Bush veto their out of control spending, like Clinton would have? Isn't that why we have multiple branches of government?
Also, please site some concrete examples of Obama's 'inexperience' leading to problems. Keeping in mind that there is absolutely NOTHING that can prepare a person to be President of the United States, aside from actually doing the job.
I would agree in principle that a single party legislature and executive can lead to problems. Given the current political situation, though, I think that would do more harm than good. If Republicans weren't still completely insane, and actually tried to help govern instead of throwing a tantrum, I'd not have a problem with Republicans controlling either the House or the Senate.
If they continue acting the way they are now, though, GOP control of either side of the legislature would be a disaster. Republicans as a national party have to prove to me that they're grown up enough to govern again before I'd even consider giving them a chance.
I have never in my life voted a straight ticket, but I may well do so for the first time this year. The Republicans as they stand right now shouldn't be allowed to govern a Homeowner's Association, let alone the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
July 29, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to clearvoice
Do you make this stuff up yourself or does someone make it up for you? I mean, does it come straight from Beck and Limbaugh or are you free-lancing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
July 29, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to clearvoice
"In his second term when the GOP wiped out the democrats, they balanced the budget. Wow republicans actually balanced the budget and created a surplus."
Nice try. If you care to check history, and not dwell in the mud of your own version of it, there was a tax increase passed in Clinton's first year with absolutely no Republican support. Try http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Under the famous doctrine of Harry Truman, "the buck stops here" at the president's desk. Ronald Reagan, conservative Saint, also held to that doctrine. Rightly or wrongly, a president gets blamed for everything that happens during their administration. Hence, Clinton should get the credit for balancing the budget and creating surpluses -- not the goombahs in the legislature that fought him every step of the way. In other words, he signed the bills. Your ADD hero Bush rammed through a war bill based on lies and deceit, but it will never be that Congress' war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 29, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to clearvoice
Just out of curiosity, what is it that you don't like about the HCR bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Blueline99
July 29, 2010 11:59 AM
When it comes to polls, I have realized that about 25% of the people will strongly oppose or approve the most polarizing of all topics.
In the darkest days of the Bush Presidency, 28% of the population still approved of him... so I view these numbers as very encouraging.
btw... if you haven't been to the healthcare website, please go and tell others to go to.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/about/states/ca.html
The link above shows the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan for California (each state varies)... looking at the bullet points of the coverage, nobody could possibly oppose this for those who need it most
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
July 29, 2010 12:04 PM
So, basically we're down to the same core rightwing folks who believe anything a Republican/Fox News tells them. These are the same people who were still supporting the Shrub when he left office.
Shocker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 29, 2010 12:13 PM
Since there have been no reports of Granny round ups, people's fears are starting to disappear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeJ
July 29, 2010 12:34 PM
I tired of this pathetic polls. What about the law that they want repealed? The people doing this polls are as dumb as the people they are asking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill From PA
July 29, 2010 12:39 PM
Let's remember that a significant chunk of those who poll in opposition to HCR do so because they think it doesn't go far enough, not because they oppose HCR on principle. This 'hidden' block will not be voting with the teabaggers any time soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 29, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to Bill From PA
Isn't opposing this bill because it doesn't go far sort of like a football fan opposing first downs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill From PA
July 29, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to hrebendorf
Exactly, I think :) My point is that if I wanted a much stronger HCR bill, and I did, at this moment I might answer a poll question about my support for THIS bill, as it's written, in the negative. I'll have to accept what's been passed, but I'm pissed at THIS bill. There's no way, however, that I'll be voting with the wingnuts who didn't want anything and want to repeal what we have.
To get back to your football analogy, I wanted a touchdown and I said so, but I won't throw out the QB just because all he's producing is firstdowns, and I don't want the other team to take to the field at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 29, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to Bill From PA
I'm with ya. As long as my team is moving the ball down the field, I'm reasonably happy with the progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SeattleJoe
July 29, 2010 12:42 PM
50% to 35%? Why don't they tell us what they *really* think?
Sort of a big margin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nick
July 29, 2010 4:18 PM
the number one subject on the lame duck session is THE PUBLIC OPTION
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 29, 2010 5:46 PM
Most people still don't know what's in it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
addicted
July 29, 2010 6:36 PM
Progressives (especially the FDL Progressives) seriously underestimated the importance of getting the foot in the door.
Once the basic premise has been laid, there are many ways to change/improve the laws (including adding a public option in the future).
Think about it. The next time a Democratic President comes into power with the kind of public mandate Obama did, their baseline goal will be to establish the public option. It will happen. If the Dems had gone for all or nothing, we would have been back to square one (like in 1994), just worse, because it would have meant another 10-20 years before a serious healthcare reform initiative would have been taken.
All the hard work has been done. From now on, it will simply be baby steps towards improvement.
That is, if the progressives in the country stop throwing their tantrums and actually make it to the voting booths to elect the lesser devils (i.e. the Dems, as opposed to the crazies).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovembt
July 30, 2010 3:51 AM
Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the
right mbt shoes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar!
Welcome to { http://www.ilovembtshoes.com/ } sure you will find
what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation,
product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the
years, has been well received by overseas friends for their
support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.
welcome to :====== http://www.ilovembtshoes.com/ ====
★*★.
*★* .* ★
★ *
★ *
*. *
* *
* *
╰☆╮·．.．·˙`˙·．..．·˙`˙·．.．·˙·╰☆╮
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?