I don't know how they do math in the navy, but 39% thinking that is a good idea is well below the majority, even the 46% that don't want repeal is still below the majority. And yet where is the lie, a vast majority--it seems like both numbers fit in that category, but then a super majority is only 60%:0

Spin baby spin:)

Navy:

Why do you have to cut and paste an article that everyone has read?

I don't know what article YOU read to come up with that twisted analysis.

You keep spinning there Big Bear. The point is Mr. Boehner said no later than this morning that the vast majority of the peole want the HCR Bill repealed. That is the poiont, not what the number is that approve of the Bill.

Again: Mr. Boehner said this AM on MSNBC that the people have spoken and the majority of them want the HCR Bill repealed. That is not true and your spin does not make it true either.

Because some do not read the article, that is why.

And you were expecting the truth from this guy? Or the GOP?

Navy,

Looks like you've become a 'burr' in somes saddles!

Keep putting the FACTS out there front & center!

Boehnor and the GOP are masters at spinning things. while most people call it an outright lie he calls it their perception. what I find amazing is the people who just follow him and his crew along like good little zombies. Boehnor and his deception are nothing short of dangerous. and has anybody noticed.......they haven't put forth their own GOP health plan.

Navy & not so fast Feisty Red Head...

I think you need to also consider the source. It is a NBC/WSJ poll. They are two news organizations that clearly support a left leaning agenda. They are not however a definitive source for accurate polling.

Statistically speaking for ANY poll, a sample group must be at least 10,000+ to start to become accurate. Polling only 1,000 people is woefully inadequatete to be used as anything that can be used scientific data. Using this poll to stand on as the gospel truth is about as dumb as using a Fox poll as the gospel truth. Each are slanted to promote their agenda. I'm sure y'all recognize that. Right?

When it comes to HC, I would like to have the Congressional plan with their premiums. If a poll was conducted on this, I think everyone would like t be incorporated into that program.

Safecracker...agreed. But just like with the current HC law that was just signed in, we still have the same main problem. There aren't enough doctors and nurses to go around now. What makes anyone think there will be enough in 3 years? My wife can't get into nursing school because her GPA is ONLY a 3.8. It is so competitive (because their aren't enoughteachers) to get into one of those schools that it is almost impossible. The health care claw doesn't fix any of that. It doesn't magically add new doctors and nurses. It will do quite the opposite. It will drive them into specialties and away from general practitioners. Then the problem is worse making it even more a service only for the rich.

How does adding 50 million people to an already stressed system help anyone? Sure it would be nice if everyone were rich, or if everyone had a car, or everyone qualified to buy a house, etc, etc. However, none of those things are realistic or even plausible for that matter.

Jess,

How about the FOX News poll: only 27% Repeal All, 32% Repeal only parts, 16% Let Stand as is and 15% Expand to do more?

Is that fair and balanced enough for you?

If only 39% of people think it is a GOOD IDEA (and this is the highest amount to ever think so) then every U.S. citizen should should seriously question how this law ever came into existence and determine who the key players were and hold them accountable. Clearly it was not government working for the people, it was abuse of power and allowing it to stand will only result in more of the same. NOT repealling it would be like letting a bank robber walk out of court scott free.

Jess,

You think that the Wall street Journal is "left leaning"? It must hurt when you untwist your self at night. The mis-statements/lies of the Republican are not backed up by ANY polling other than them talking to their buddies in the Insurance industry.

No this is only one poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-half-favor-repealing-health-care-law/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/18/rel1e.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-07-1Arepeal07_ST_N.htm

"Forty-six percent of those surveyed Tuesday and Wednesday say they want their representative to vote for repeal; 40% want the law to stand."

Dennis... I didn't realized that having a dissenting opinion was soooo wrong. Didn't mean to offend your sense of "Only-Dennis-Thoughts-Are-Right" notions. Perhaps if the HC debate were two sided then it may have had a chance at being written right the first time. So... Before you start to cry like a little child about how Fox is so evil and I'm sooo bad for wanting to hear both sides of the story (mind you I'm reading MSNBC..duh) to make an informed decision....maybe you need to get off the high horse and do the same. At least my decision is informed because I look at both sides....whereas yours is clearly slanted to one side. Take a look in the mirror lil buddy. LOL...you one-siders crack me up....both sides have merit. For those of you that blindly follow one side like my lil buddy Dennis, you are infact the apitamy of all that is wrong with politics.

Nice try Dennis...try again.

Kevin.... Please...come to me with facts and civil debate, not some worthless personal attack. Again, you only serve to prove my point. "you are infact the apitamy of all that is wrong with politics."

I and many, many others do not want the Health Care Reform bill repealed. Why? Where I live the cost of medical services, supplies and insurance has skyrocketed because of uninsured and underinsured. People complain about hospital charges of $8.00 dollars for a single asprin. Medical services, supplies, and drugs are all adjusted to compensate for underinsured and uninsured. If your state and local economy have been insulated from these costs then consider yourself extremely lucky. However, most state and local governments as well as small to medium sized businesses can no longer absorb such costs. Each has loudly complained and pleaded desperately for reform. State and local governments can no long dish out money for supplies and services that have consistently gone up despite a loss of revenue. In fairness one must also consider the GAO report of the real savings as a consequence of the bill on our national debt. Agreed, the bill is not perfect and like so many in history could stand a little improvement. However, people I know agree something needed to be done about the cost of healthcare and the availability to quality care. I believe the GOP has a bill of their own lending credit to the demand and need for reform. The vote today is just political posturing a waste of tax payers dollars when there are far more important issues needing attention. The record already reflected GOP opposition to the bill there was or is no need to revisit and waste resources to garner an audience.

John A,

I don't have to disprove Navy, it seems the numbers do the talking.

39% like the HCL--that means even in a NBC poll that 61% don't like the current law the way it is. Some don't care, some hate the whole thing, some want more.

46% don't want it repealed--that means that 54% want something done to it, whether it is changes or repealed.

Now I don't know how they do math in your part of the world, but that means that a majority does not like what we have, on either instance.

Now the problem with the speaker is the word "vast"--

of very great area or extent; immense: the vast reaches of outer space.

of very great size or proportions; huge; enormous: vast piles of rubble left in the wake of the war.

very great in number, quantity, amount, etc.: vast sums of money.

very great in degree, intensity, etc.: an artisan of vast s

Now I don't know what you all consider "vast", but I do think that they consider 60% a super majority. So on one hand you have a "super" majority that does not like the HCL. Maybe the term "vast" should have been changed, but still a majority of people don't like what we have.

And beside what did Navy analyze--he pretty much just, in a civil tone, called the speaker a liar, otherwise everything else in his comments was just cut and paste out of the article. Where is the analysis?

The Congresional Budget Office reports that repealing the Health Care would only increase the deficit. We NEED Health Care reform, maybe not in it's current state, but to do nothing is irresponsible. Just what do the Republicans want?

Great post Mary. I agree that reform was long overdue. I just wish that the repubs hadn't been shut out on the issue in the first place. Even Obama admits it needs changes. I jsut hink it needs to be tweeked....not revoked all together. That's where most independents like me stand or at least the ones I know.

Seaturtle... They want their ideas included in it as well. In terms of the cost from the CBO, there are afew things to keep in mind. 1) the CBO only came out with that estimate AFTER Obama met with the director of the CBO. 2) How is it we collect taxes (on some of the proposed taxes) for 10 years and only start giving benefits for the last 6 of 10 and call that a savings. Okay...let's say I concede that point and say it does. 3) What is the CBO scoring for years 11-20? Some predict it will add to the deficit.

I'm no expert and no one else here is, so we rely on those that are. Unfortunately we are relying on an organization (the CBO) that had only served to prove that time after time they WOEFULLY under-estimate how much congressional legislation costs.

Kevin,

Republican are not backed up by ANY polling other than them talking to their buddies in the Insurance industry.

Which party passed that mandated health care law? Who profits from everyone having to purchase health insurance? Who is reaping the profits right now? Don't accuse the GOP of being in bed with the insurance companies--accuse the entire government. Because we are still going to be paying while our leaders are sitting comfortable in their nursing homes with the best of care.

The Democrats are just kneeing to the insurance companies just as much as the GOP.

I like how people like to make hay out of how "only 39% of people think HCR is a good idea". If you read all the numbers, only 39% of the people think HCR is a bad idea, and the number of supporters is rising while the number of opponents is falling. This, to me, means that as people see the effects of HCR, they are realizing that it's a good idea, and not the death spiral that the Republicans made it out as at first.

Also, if 39% think it's good, and 39% think it's bad, then there's 22% who don't care/don't know/feel it's neither good nor bad. So that leaves you with well over 50% of the people who either don't want to repeal or don't care if it's repealed. So, what makes this a wise use of the Senate's time again?

To John and Navy:

Great posts as usual--thanks! We see a few things in the first few posts that we always see from conservatives:

1) Denial -- The biggest lie of 2010 was "government takeover" of health care. -- http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Then Boehner went on to be vague about the Birther conspiracy theory, then about the CBO numbers being an "opinion." He never stops. People want leaders to be role models. Boehner and McConnell have yet to set a good example.

2) Posts with lack of substance -- Where is the data, evidence, facts to make your case? All we ever see are parroted sound bites, usually along with ad hominem attacks.

Look at the post by Jess above -- That's how you do it. Jess is correct that some polling organizations are more reliable than others. Usually an average of reliable polls over time is best.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html

According to such sources, support for health care reform has varied between 40% to 83%, probably depending on what the media is reporting. Further to Navy's post, this means there is no clear majority in favor of repeal.

3) We never see an alternative solution from conservatives. Only negativity, anti-government rhetoric, and just plain running our country down. I say it's time for the Party of Hell No! to get real or get out of the way.

Do you know how to tell when a republican is lying? His mouth is moving.

A system that realizes there's no clause in the Constitution permitting the government from doing ANYTHING with the health care system, for starters. The law decides what happens, not a party agenda or personal view, period.

ARRA is a 2300+ page proposal born in back-room, closed-door, private deals to "buy" support. Many politicians who support it haven't bothered to read it. Even Nancy Pelosi stated it has to be passed so we can find out what's in it. That's not how law is passed. It's written, read in detail, and then approved or refused. Furthermore, the fact that no law exists allowing the government to have anything to do with health care means that it's illegal by default until a law is passed allowing it.

Um, look at the numbers... in a poll X wanting something does not mean 100-x DON'T want something.

We have 22% that seem undecided-ruining EITHER majority.

I'm a little confused on how we can have 39% favoring one thing it (or not), and 46% against repeal (or for).

It stands to reason the higher number would be closer to 'truth'? Or is it just that 6-7 percent difference means that those people want to see how it plays out or don't want to see how it plays out? IE they might be undecided on the bill, but don't trust the gov. with the keys eitherway.

My post was pointed at one surprisingly higher above... Revlucifer stated it better.

Actually if you look over the life of the polls, the opposition was ahead by as much as 31 points in August and is now between 1 to 16 points in January. Even Rassmussen Reports had a drop of 9 points difference for ooposition between January 2 and January 15. It seems that Health Care is finally getting a foothold on the public and their opinion is changing in its favor.

Of the people polled, how many have health care and how many don't have health care?

Answer those questions and you will have the truth about the poll numbers.

It appears to me that the "will of the American people" is to leave reform alone for now. There is no reason to change existing law if far less than half of the country hates it. Perhaps if the GOP can come up with a better plan first, and THEN kills the existing reform legislation, support for the existing law will drop. But as of right now, they have no basis at all to try to kill the reform package that's already in place. The GOP isn't fighting reform because that's what the people want, they're fighting reform because that's what THEY want. It's politics first, as usual for republicans. The people can go fly a kite, as far as the GOP is concerned.

The Republicans don't want to "tweak" it they want to get rid of it all together. They also have no plan to speak of for a HCB. Seems a little irresponsible.

Rasmussen is a GOP polling outfit (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FOX), and consistently leans right. Here's Nate Silver's evaluation of the accuracy of their polls relative to other polling firms:

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average.

The GOP knew that their only hope of blocking health care reform was to put the majority of the benefits off until 2013 (conveniently after the next Presidential election) and hope they could gin up the spin machine enough to repeal it or take over the Oval Office before then. They've been working their buns off ever since to scare people about what THEY say the bill will do before anyone sees that they lied through their teeth during the debates.

And for those who say that the GOP had "no input" into the bill? Not only was the program passed their idea in the first place (originally proposed by Bob Dole), but they also got the public option eliminated, forced a delay of 4 years in implementation, and instituted additional abortion prohibitions. NONE of which would have happened if the Democrats had "shut them out", as they claim.

70% want a public option. That's the most important fact that the politicians are dodging. People don't like the bill because it doesn't go far enough.

Jess-1177200

Navy & not so fast Feisty Red Head...

I think you need to also consider the source. It is a NBC/WSJ poll.

They are two news organizations that clearly support a left leaning agenda.

Are you nuts? The Wall Street Journal a left leaning newspaper? It is owned by Murdoch/News Corp... the same owner of Fox News.

Almost no one has read the entire 2,500 page bill, including most of our Senators and Members of the

House of Representatives. It is a shame that the major problems with our current, otherwise excellent

health care system were not addressed by our elected officials before they ever started to dismantle the best Health care system in the world by passing Obama Care. They needed to address TORT REFORM before they did another thing. The litigation attorneys have driven up the cost of health care for everyone. The outrageous jury awards have cost all of us, through our Doctors and Hospitals now needing to try to protect themselves from multi million dollar jury awards, often for doing nothing wrong. Defensive Medicine requiring unnecessary tests and procedures cost everyone involved. I am from the Boston area and we have

been proud of the being one of several American cities that have always attracted people from around the

World with esoteric health problems to come for the best care anywhere. The cutting edge research and

brilliant medical advances are going to be lost forever. I personally know several gifted, caring Physicians

who are planning to take an early retirement soon. They are being driven out of medicine by this horrible

new socialized medicine plan. I pray it will be dismantled before it is too late. You will never know what

you have had until you have lost it forever.

many of the fees and practicing "defensive" medicine costs everyone. Of course Washington owes their

souls to the lawyers, and in fact most of our elected officials are lawyers.

Another point is that our Federal Employees will not be covered by the new Obama Care. They, and

their families, will keep there current Platinum Health Insurance, as will some Unions.

From FactCheck.org:

Q: Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?

A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.

We've received many questions about claims that House and Senate members would be exempt from the health care legislation taking shape in Congress. But neither the House nor the Senate bill exempts Congress from its provisions.

Even the speculation that Congress's FEHBP plans would be better than those offered through the exchanges is outdated. The bill passed by the Senate actually requires members of Congress and their staffs to get coverage through the exchanges.

Those are the SAME EXCHANGES that you, as a private citizen, will be able to join, StockMarketJunkie. So you CAN have the same insurance as your Congressman. Unfortunately, not until 2013, thanks to the GOP.

BigBear62

Clearly your mathematical ability is limited, and your logic and reading skills seem to be impaired as well. The article states that 39% of respondents are for health care reform and 39% are against it (not 61%). There are 22% somewhere in the middle, they would probably like to see changes, but not outright repeal. Neither side has an outright majority.

John Boehner's assertion that the vast majority of American's don't want health care reform is as far off the mark as your description of a super-majority. Let me also be plain spoken about Mr Boehner's credibility. It is not unusual for Mr Boehner to twist the truth into a lie. He has proven to be a liar on many other occasions.

If only 39% of poll respondents support repeal, then 61% do not. You do the math.

Jess "Safecracker...agreed. But just like with the current HC law that was just signed in, we still have the same main problem. There aren't enough doctors and nurses to go around now."

Nice name :-) Since I read that you consider yourself well informed by sniffing out multiple sources, then you are in fact aware that we currently stiffle the amount of doctors that are allowed to graduate, right? The AMA has a lock on this, mostly to ensure that their paychecks remain highly inflated. If there were an influx of doctors it would drive down wages - which, would help our insurance premiums. That doctor shortage is nearly 100% manufactured.

The other aspect of doctors choosing specialty work is directly connected to the way Insurance pays for things. Ever wonder why insurance will pay for a really expensive gastric bypass, but wont pay for a personal trainer and diet coach? Im betting the latter is not only cheaper, but more effective long term. Yet, this isnt how our system is set up...it's a SICK CARE system, not a HEALTH CARE.

"What makes anyone think there will be enough in 3 years? My wife can't get into nursing school because her GPA is ONLY a 3.8. It is so competitive (because their aren't enoughteachers) to get into one of those schools that it is almost impossible. The health care claw doesn't fix any of that. It doesn't magically add new doctors and nurses. It will do quite the opposite. It will drive them into specialties and away from general practitioners. Then the problem is worse making it even more a service only for the rich."

Interesting, you talk about a problem thats been happening LONG before health care reform even got started (for real this time). So, what was going that massive transit from family medicine to specialty BEFORE Health Care became the scapegoat? I sorta already detailed it above, but im sure you've got an alternate idea.

I mean, really really think about that...there's a shortage of doctors and nurses, there's a shortage of teachers to develop more doctors and nurses...how on earth do we solve this problem? As far as im aware, and you indicated yourself, there doesnt appear to be a shortage of people WANTING to be doctors and nurses (yes, even the lowly family medicine kind). Surely, in a capitalist world in which we live, if there are people who WANT to be doctors and nurses, but not enough institutions to create them...shouldnt some profiteer be chomping at the bit to build more schools, hire more teachers, to churn out more medical professionals (at a profit, of course, all our schools are this way).

I dont get it....its as if an invisible force is preventing this logical reality from happening...but who? how? - end sarcasm.

"How does adding 50 million people to an already stressed system help anyone? Sure it would be nice if everyone were rich, or if everyone had a car, or everyone qualified to buy a house, etc, etc. However, none of those things are realistic or even plausible for that matter."

Stressed? Well if its stressed now, its going to be relieved in the next 5-10 years as more and more americans drop insurance because they cant afford it. They'll simply walk in to the ER as needed, be treated, and not pay that bill. As more and more fall off the rolls, those left will have to pay more and more...not just to cover the ER visits from the uninsured, but because doctors and insurance companies are not going to be happy with their reduced profits.

As for your comment about "if both sides participated in the crafting of the first bill".

That would have been nice if the republicans had ANY interest at the time of participating, unfortunately they did not. They stated emphatically, over and over again, they did not think ANY reform was necessary. Otherwise, a logical mind thinks that both sides could simply say "here's what we DO agree on, and lets put this in place".

Hell, even at this point, that still could be done. Republicans could say "we arent repealing it all, just the parts we dont like". Instead, their doing their best impression of nancy pelosi "let's repeal now, then we'll show you what we want to do".

here's a thought, show us what YOUR health care reform is...and let the american people decide if they want to scrap this one, for that one. Something tells me they have no plan for any reform...just repeal. most americans do not support this position at all...just a minority do, less than 30%

The split on this bill is about even, so yes, they fudged the numbers to their side. And if you look at those against it, something like 10-15% of that 39% (4-5% of the total) want it repealed not because they don't like it, but because they think it doesn't go far enough.

RealAmericansFirst... You honestly believe that the average person from a ghetto will get the SAME quality of healthcare as members of congress? I hope you're kidding.

I don't even expect to get that quality of care, and I'll actually be paying for it. lol

No, it's just that all the GOP hears is people saying they want it repealed. Because the GOP doesn't listen to dems, and vice versa.

This polling data is extremely poorly done. It lumps together people who oppose the bill because it went too far and people who think that it did not go far enough. This is pretty bogus thinking. People who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough, if given the choice of accepting the bill with future opportunities to strengthen it, or repeal, will go with acceptance of what they consider a less-than-desirable bill.

If you break it down into a) against the bill because it went too far, b) against the bill because it did not go far enough but see it as progress, and c) approve of the bill, you will get a much different result because the "b" group is being counted with the "a" group when, in fact, it is much more closely aligned with the "c" group. Factored this way, a very large majority of people want to keep the current bill, but strengthen it in areas where it is weak.

Navy, you and Bev and Fiesty keep spewing your worthless garbage and patting each other on the back but the TRUTH is 26 states are going to join in the lawsuit againt this moronic Odumbocare. Keep spitting out your poll figures, manipulate them as you will but OVER HALF OF THE US IS AGAINST ODUMBOCARE.

Now you want to try to spin those FACTS?

Big Bear - what you state would be true if the remaining 61% voted to repeal. But they didn't - only 39% voted it was a good idea. That means no majority. Which also means that 22% either voted "no decision" or they weren't sure. See - math DOES make sense when you understand it.

Americandude - you know, calling names really doesn't help your point. And the FACT is that over half of the US either supports the bill as is or would like to see it strengthened (like with a public option). That's the fair and balanced fact. Ignore it at your peril.

I'm so sick of this lie that the Republicans were "shut out" of the health care reform debate. I sat and watched all those attempts to bring them to the table. Obama had a televised summit, and instead of being constructive and using the opportunity to bring actual ideas to the table, all they did was try to exploit the occasion to mouth off their tired talking points. Anyone who is truly familiar with this bill (now law) knows that it's virtually identical to the Bob Dole health care bill the Republicans proposed in 1993.  How's that for compromise, Obama and Pelosi came up with a bill that was pretty much drafted by the opposition party, the Republicans! Where's the single payer system, or at a minimum, the real compromise, a public option? There's barely any trace in the bill of Democratic Party ideas. It's crystal clear what's been going on, though: the Republicans want Obama to fail at all costs. We see this time and again. Obama gets on board with THEIR ideas, to try to compromise with them and gain their support, then they become turncoats and oppose those same ideas -- THEIR ideas -- just because Obama has decided to support them, just because they want him to fail. And all their zombie sheep follow along, as usual.

The people who want it repealed are the people who actually will be paying for it. The 35% who say no to repealing it do not pay any taxes already and will reap the benefits of any new free program given out by the government

it is job -killing. as a small business owner i am hiring no one due to the additional cost that will be put upon me by the new regulations

keeping children on a policy to 26- are you kidding me?????? when are we going to have our children grow up- most 26 year olds i know have families of their own

also- as a business owner and purchaser of group helath insureance - i can tell you that the pre-existing issuue is a farce from the left. very very few people cannot get insurance--mostly the ones that have CHOSEN not to have the coverage till they need it-- could you imagine not having car insurance and then trying to buy it when you have an accident???

also- the additional coverage levels- that are in the bill- wanted or not-consumers will have to pay for them

I, for one, have seen the mess the government has made of everything they touch....social security, medicare, medicade, education etc.... I do not want them in my healthcare

can you imagine when the unions get a hold of this one- it will be as big of a mess as the federal state and local government budgets

repeal and replace

Why do people claim that our health care system is the best in the world? By all standards, we've got a very poor health care system. The reason so many people come to the US for healthcare is because in their countries, rich people don't get to just move to the front of the line like they do here in the US, where they can afford the tens of thousands of dollars that the care costs. they come to the US because here, you can *pay* to get treated better, while in their country, it's first come-first served (with a little adjustment for "need", not "money") If the best health care system in the world is the one where if you have more money then you get better treatment, then ours is #1, but if you gague it on quality of treatment overall, then we're very poor indeed.

So roughly an equal number of people polled love it as hate it.

Isn't that pretty much what the polls showed when it was passed?

Looks to me as if nothing has changed.

Marv, W,

It is all about spin, and it seems that the GOP is out spinning the Democrats at this time. (see recent elections)

Maybe you all should read everything that I wrote. But in the end, 39% want it, 39% want it gone, that other 22%, that is where the spin doctors come in. Which ever side convinces the middle that they are right usually win elections.

So Spin baby Spin:)

Yeah, BigBear and you are the biggest spinner on the board right now. Your number game has been exposed and debunked by a half dozen people already.

You my friend are the one doing the spinning and you just feel flat on your face.

And LOL:, Next time I will make my post longer for ya.

Healthcare costs money...its that simple. If you want to insure people with pre-existing condition...cha- ching. If you want to add kids who are over 18 and not in school to their parents plan..cha ching. You had services and additional coverages it will cost additional money. Thats the real world kids. No free lunch. The cost of that Cha-Ching on my company's plan for 2011 was 50% increase in premium. We budget 36% of salaries to fringe. For every dollar I pay in salary it costs me about 20 cents for health insurance. Thanks to the changing in the law I now will be asked to pay 30 cents on the dollar. I cant...plain and simple. I have no choice but to eliminate 10% of my current workers. I know executives at a large northwest chip manufacture and the vice-president of a large chemical fab. They are having the exact same issues. My brother is an actuary for an insurer. He says they have run the numbers dozens of times with every possible scenerio...of course they dont expect the mandate to survive for either legal or potical reasons so they have removed that from the equation. My brother tells me to expect another 50% next year as insurers try to pay for the required new benefits. "Job Killing" is a good and fair description of this act.

Hey Jess-1177200 you goofball! The Wall Street Journal is NOT a left-leaning publication.

It's amazing to me, when they voted for it, no one reads it. Shameful . But Obama had an agenda to live up to.....Watched Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago and they had experts read all of it and they couldn't even understand it. So what are the american people to think?? Left or right and in the middle doesn't make the effort to make sure this is a GOOD THING for the people. We ALL know something has to be done about Health Care...but come on...it didn't get this way over night or in one year...so it should of taken more thought into it... This is the way I understand it, we all have health care some have to pay for it some will not have to pay for it, but I have a CHOICE...so guess what I am going to choose NOT to PAY for it so like many others who are paying will NO LONG be PAYING...YEPPIE.....I fork out over 400.00 a paycheck for health care for may family....and I don't get much for it.....

Let's calculate this poll. !,000 people polled. 39% +39% = 78%. and remember. THEY chose who to call, because they called cell phones. When will people learn? Any they say. WE are divided. LMAOROTF

The facts are that large numbers of people polled, opposed the health care plan that the Republicans and right wing pundits described. (who wants to kill Grandma?) The problem is what the right was describing, wasn't what the plan was. Over time, even some of the supporters of Republicans, have seen that the Health Care plan isn't quite as offensive as it was described. In fact many people who originally jumped on the opposition bandwagon are now seeing things in the plan they really like.

I think Democrats did a pretty terrible job in selling the plan. They kept describing it mainly in broad ideological terms. The Republicans however did a great job in trying to destroy it. Most of their focus was on very small detailed specifics that were spun to make them sound bad. This is the fundamental difference between how each party spins. Democrats try to make everyone feel happy with generalities and Republicans focus on getting people mad about little contentious details they exploit and twist.

Frankly, I think this move to repeal will ultimately backfire on Republicans. In the short term, it makes their radical base happy, even though everybody knows they don't have the ability to repeal it. Independents and others who are beginning to see some benefits to the Health Care plan are a number that will continue to grow as the details of the plan begin to become reality.

Republicans are wasting time with a political stunt that can't succeed instead of working on jobs issues or improvements to the Health Care plan that both sides can agree on. Many in the public are beginning to change their minds and are now saying "not so fast" on repealing. But Republicans are ignoring the voice of reason from their own supporters. Republican strategists have to know that a year and a half from now, public support for the Health Care plan will only be stronger. They will have to explain why they were trying to destroy it. 50 million newly covered citizens will be considering who they want to cast their votes for, the people that helped them or those who would have taken away their Health Care. Republicans will be hard pressed to spin their way out of their position.

You are reading with blinders on pal. The majority of the people want the health care law to go away. If you are unable to see why, then stick your head back into the sand. Unanimous health care will COST everyone more money. Those that don't have it, are unable because they can't afford it, so the "new HCB" will punish them by not getting health insurance. Those, like us, that have health insurance will pay more for those that do not. Now if you are unable to see that the Government will be the only one to make money on this bill, then believe what you want. You will find out, one way or the other. And here is another FACT. Everyone can take a look at their latest paycheck, if you ARE working, because the Big Government began, in 01/01/11, taking another, approx, 2.5% in taxes out of your pocket in federal taxes. If you still want to fight for your cause,, which is really to give the government more of your money, then by all means do so. Your ranting about how Republican rob you, you haven't seen anything yet. Wait another few years to see the taxes you will be paying from the stimulus packages and the money they "Printed" which the American people MUST back. You and the balance of Americans can only hope and pray that countries like Germany, and most other countries MUST purchase OIL with ONLY The American Dollar. Once they say, WE NO LONGER accept the dollar, then you can look for a revolution in this country, because when that happens, the dollar will be useless without any value. I am quite sure you do not know the ramifications of what that would cause, But you keep posting YOUR views, and in time, you will find out, you have been miss led by your party.

Actually this means the GOP media giants have had it's way with the American public. Misinformed people are on the rise.

Its all the spin in the poll itself...another poll earlier this week found that only 1 in 10 were in favor of the current legislation. So is it the concept of the bill or the facts contained in the law (now that we've been able to read it)? Its all in how you ask it. One thing is clear - this was rushed through and it is flawed. As such more than half of the States in the Union are suing the Fed as they find it unconstitutional. Hmmm more than half the States - that sounds like a majoirty... You may cling to the spin in this poll or that but the fact of the actions are what matter.

http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Check the above 3 websites for facts on the health care bill. It is not a government takeover of health care, and it is not a job killing bill, either. Also, most people do not want the bill totally repealed. There is too much that they like in it.

Way too many people on here are missing a huge point here with this articlew and others the republicans might come down on..and that is ...if this is repealed..what are they replacing it with? So far I have read nothing thats shows they, the republicans, have any ideas on what to do after the repeal..If they have any ideas at all lets have them out where people can read them..not more back room deals that many of them use. Its time both parties stopped playing politics and did what they were elected to do...and stop being more concerned with getting re-elected and taking money from lobbyist.

I think the only reason the number of people that support this piece of crap abortion is going up is because the number of Americans without a job is going up. They probably think there's something in that 2000+ page Obamanation that will pay their medical bills. Suckers!

"Jess-1177200

Navy & not so fast Feisty Red Head...

I think you need to also consider the source. It is a NBC/WSJ poll. They are two news organizations that clearly support a left leaning agenda. They are not however a definitive source for accurate polling."

I can agree that all WSJ polls could be thrown out.

After all, remember that the WSJ is owned by the same company that owns the "Fair and Balanced" network, and we know how accurate their polls are.

Maybe NBC should team up with someone with a little more credibility.

Put it to a National vote and we'll see who's lying and who isn't. The President would never allow that because he knows full well what would happen.

"Jess-1177200

Safecracker...agreed. But just like with the current HC law that was just signed in, we still have the same main problem. There aren't enough doctors and nurses to go around now. What makes anyone think there will be enough in 3 years? My wife can't get into nursing school because her GPA is ONLY a 3.8. It is so competitive (because their aren't enoughteachers) to get into one of those schools that it is almost impossible. The health care claw doesn't fix any of that. It doesn't magically add new doctors and nurses. It will do quite the opposite. It will drive them into specialties and away from general practitioners. Then the problem is worse making it even more a service only for the rich.

How does adding 50 million people to an already stressed system help anyone? Sure it would be nice if everyone were rich, or if everyone had a car, or everyone qualified to buy a house, etc, etc. However, none of those things are realistic or even plausible for that matter."

I couldn't agree with you more Jess.

Once the GOPTP has finished trying to impress their base, and since they don't have anything to replace the bill, anyway, they can get down to the business of improving the health care reform law.

Yes, there aren't enough doctors and nurses, so how about we start now to improve that situation?

We could offer college scholarships for aspiring doctors and nurses and technical school scholarships for phlebotomists, lab technicians, administration, x-ray techs.

Sounds to me like the health care reform act is about to create several hundreds of thousands of jobs, not including the new ones that will be created in the health insurance industry.

We are REQUIRED to buy autoinsurance in Calif. Is THAT unconstitutional? I think that health care is a must for now and the future, and I appreciate Mr. Obama's efforts to make this a reality in this nation.

Here is an alternate poll from January 14 showing a majority of people wanting the health care laws expanded. This poll is interesting and covers other topics. The Health care poll is on page 18

Which one of the following comes closest to your opinion about what Congress should do with the 2010 health care law:
Let it stand: 14
Change it so it does more: 35
Change it so it does less: 13
Repeal it completely: 30

http://tinyurl.com/6g9gang

Man...Rupert Murdoch is going to be PISSED when he finds out he's running a left-leaning newspaper!

Navy and Red head are using liberal math it seems.

The ONLY jobs this monstrosity creates is the government jobs in the new 140 government agencies this bill created.

That's all we need is more big brother. The battle cry of the liberals. The rest of us know better.

There are much better ways to 'reform' health care that doesn't involved MASSIVE government.

When will you liberals learn the government ISN'T your friend. They are out of control and bordering on tyrannical.

The ONLY people who think government is the answer needs to learn to ask better questions.

Yeah...because Republicans are so well known for their math skills...like Karl Rove's math that said that Repubs were going to win in 2008. Or that whole "trickle down theory". Or "The new health care plan is going to cause huge deficits". Yeah...you guys on the right are real math geniuses.

Are their that many stupid people in this country?

Patrick - What about all those new healthcare positions Jess says we need? What about the new claims processing positions for the 50.7 million currently-uninsured people who will now have claims to process?

I thought the GOP believed in the law of supply and demand. Silly me.

I have asked before, but Republicans constantly ignore these questions. Let's see if any Repubs here are brave enough to answer . . .

1) Why are you against a health care bill that is almost identical to the one the REPUBLICAN party tried to pass in 1993? This is YOUR health care reform, why are you against it now?

2) Currently the government pays the medical expenses for the uninsured with YOUR money. Your tax dollars go to those who do not have insurance, and fall below a certain income threshold. Why do you want to keep giving them your hard-earned money instead of making them personally responsible for their own insurance? You are against giving your hard-earned money to welfare recipients, so why are you in favor of doing the same thing with health care? Are you not the party of personal responsibility?

3) The health care bill was changed dramatically when negotiating with the Republican party. As stated before, it was changed to almost duplicate the 1993 Republican bill. Why did you add your parts to the bill, just to turn around and call for repeal? If you want to change it, why didn't you change it during negotiations? You had the opportunity before it was passed, so where were all of your concerns then?

I am honestly trying to understand the Republican point of view, but it is difficult when they refuse to answer these questions.

Um, Jess I'm guessing you don't realize that Dow Jones & Co plus News Corp is one of the major owners of the WSJ...(same guy who owns FNC)

There was a proposed provision for more drs education (not sure about nurses) in the original idea of the bill. Since more drs are turning to specialties rather than General Practice, there were provisions to encourage and help pay for the education of medical students willing to become general practitioners....but the right killed that good idea too, filled the HC bill with there own ideas from the 90's that they now say are horrible evil Nazi socialist ideas...its like watching Sybil. These are great ideas! No wait.. the other side wants them now?...they're horrible ideas!!

pjam09

"If only 39% of people think it is a GOOD IDEA (and this is the highest amount to ever think so) then every U.S. citizen should should seriously question how this law ever came into existence and determine who the key players were and hold them accountable. Clearly it was not government working for the people, it was abuse of power and allowing it to stand will only result in more of the same. NOT repealling it would be like letting a bank robber walk out of court scott free."

HCR was passed, in the Senate, and then passed thru the same reconciliation process that passed the Bush tax cuts, so what's the problem?

John a- you state....

HCR is NO "budget buster" - but it does help chop billions from the deficit

Chops "billions" from the budget? How so? You have 2000+ pages of legislation just for the HCR act, let alone the Affordable healthcare act. This will translate into thousands of pages of new regulations that the American taxpayer will have to pay for in the increased numbers of bureacrats and related overhead at both the state and federal levels just to implement and maintain.

The 500 billion (or was it million?) cut in medicare is supposed to be made up by eliminating fraud andwaste in medicare. I hope you are not holding your breath on this one.

The numbers I have seen posted by navy relate to estimates made in January 2009, Hardly relevent since the regs have not all been written yet.

Yep, no doubt that many jobs will be added in the private sector. All those jobs added just to do the paperwork the government will require to be done (remember the "No child left behind" act). Then we have the mecdical personnel and overhead required to support the healthcare recipients. All those jobs (mainly skilled, I might add) added to the healthcare costs that the insurers will have to pay out for, and that we (the end user) will have to pay increased premiums for.

Other than SS up to the late 60's showing a respectable balance sheet and even today still taking in more revenue than outflow, What government plan ever showed us a savings? Your local store may have a 50% off sale to entice you to spend money, but does one really save $$$ by spending $$$?

Seems like we need to do an Obama cost/benefit ratio to these plans to see if they pass muster.

Whoahhh Americandude! Please acknowledge that those 26 states have Republican attorneys general, so this legal effort is not bi-partisan. And, please tell me how claiming that the HCA is unconstitutional to require that I get health insurance, but it is okay to deny me the right to have it? Fallible argument, IMO.

I remember a GOP politician who was interviewed the night Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 stating that the United States was positively headed for the next Great Depression because this liberal Democrat had been elected. Well, he was right, but it took the election of a conservative Republican to make his vision true.

The Bush tax cuts were passed using reconciliation, but the health care bill ended up being passed through the "normal" legislative process. The GOP is considering using reconciliation to pass repeal, however.

For an amusing look at the hypocritical moral outrage put forth by Orrin Hatch in the Washington Post when it was thought that health care reform might pass by reconciliation:

To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition,President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the "reconciliation" process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can't afford. This is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.

This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.

But it wouldn't do any of those things, I suppose, if they use reconciliation for repeal. Chuckle.

Honestly, I really didn't read the main points until recently.

After doing so, I cannot see how any working person could be against it.

It limits insurance company premium increases. It keeps our tax dollars from paying for those that could but choose not to obtain insurance.

It will hopefully put a stop to the unregulated premium increases we experience.

Looks like it is a dead heat! Leave it alone is what I'd tell the House of Reps. Fix the things that are wrong with it - there are some. Oh, and Jess-1177200, a sample size of 1000 is not bad at all. For a smaller margin of error, go for a bit larger sample size, but 10,000, are you kidding???

Well, Mr. Boehner has also said America has the best healthcare system in the world. Excuse me? Any American who has a passport and uses it knows this isn't the case. Oh, wait, the majority of Americans don't have a passport.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired - You missed the part where it said only 2000 people where polled and it has an error of +- 3.1% It is evident by the elections and how many canidates ran against Obamacare that a vast majority of Americans are opposed to it.

It certainly is funny how a poll like this can be considered a polling of the American people, it is a poll of the people who are willing to be called, email, asked to participate. That does not make it accurate.

John C -

I completely agree. I just don't get why people are against it.

I am tired of my premiums going up for no reason, year after year. This will stop that.

I am tired of using my hard-earned money to pay for people that just don't want to pay for their own insurance. This will cause them to be personally responsible.

I am tired of hearing about insurance companies denying coverage because they are more focused on their profits. This will take care of that too.

The only downside I have heard is speculation and opinion that it MIGHT cost us more and destroy jobs, despite reports saying that it will not. I guess opinion is more valid than research.

Polling 1,000 people out of the millions that call the US home is ludicrous. If they REALLY wanted to conduct a poll, they could have put out the questions on the 'net, in newspapers, magazines and by phone. So what if someone got in there more than once? A poll exists to find out how people feel about any given topic.

We need to cut off the money supply to the ambulance chasers. Tort Reform. Limit the amount of lawsuits and the money awarded. Most people have diseases because of their blood and GenoType combined with the wrong foods. If we all ate the way we were supposed to, the restaurants would have to adapt or die. The medical profession wouldn't need more of anything. Most of them would be underemployed.

All we would have left are accidents. No more disease. Wow. I like that!

The real poll was taken last November when republicans all across this country ran opposing obamacare and won the largest republican victory in nearly 3/4 of a century. Even some dems, like in West Virginia, had success running against obamcare. Thats the real poll and if they persist 2012 will make 2010 look like a great dem year.

To those concerned about how adding 50 million people into a health system "already struggling to keep up". Did it ever occur to you that just maybe this would result in an expansion of the health care industry? Seems to me this would add jobs, not "kill" them. In a capitalist system, demand is what drives growth. The industry doesn't really care who's paying for that demand, they'll respond to the opportunity regardless.

Would you prefer we just write those people off because they either can't afford to protect themselves or because the industry has rejected them as not being a high profit consumer due to some "pre-existing condition"? Isn't writing off these people in fact a form of a death panel? If that's your position you're not very American, in my opinion, as you put your own personal interests above what's good for everyone. Yes, for those of us more fortunate, we may pay a price to help those less fortunate. Seems to me that's been an American ideal we have been willing to accept since our founding and have continued to embrace as an ideal that makes us a strong, unified country.

I might also suggest that as the health care industry expands to meet higher demand, it is quite likely that cost per unit of care delivered, can decrease. Demand also drives innovation. If you own a business and you spend money to expand and improve your business, you call it an investment and you do it because in the long run it will increase your opportunity. It doesn't pay off immediately, but that's the nature of investment.

Growth and expansion in health care is most likely to occur right here in this country. It is less likely to be an expansion by exporting jobs. Not immune of course, but as a service to be delivered locally, it by its nature requires most growth to be local too. Job growth in this country right now would be a good thing and even if a handful of small businesses are too politically stubborn to take advantage of the opportunities being presented to them, and choose instead to cut jobs, the overall result will still be growth. I believe most of the opposition to the health care plan is based on the people who crafted it. The partisan nature of the split supports that. If you can't get past that, it's your choice. But if you set that aside for a bit and analyze the opportunities, maybe you'll find it's not as bad as you first thought. If I set aside my beliefs, I can see that letting 40-50,000 people die annually, many who may be limited contributors to our society, may make some sense financially. Some of us could potentially benefit financially because of it. It doesn't makes sense to me morally, but I can see that it could potentially look good on the balance sheet.

Probably alot of the thirty nine percent who oppose the healthcare bill are the ones who will have to pay for their own healthcare AND the healthcare of many of the thirty nine percent that favor the bill! Nice try NBC.

1000 people polled is considered accurate at +/- 3% by most statisticians. More people polled will bring that % down, e.g., 10,000 will get a +/- 1%. But in this particular poll, a 3% statistical error seems appropriate.

Yesterday I watched a forum on C-SPAN that was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. All the speakers, predictively, criticised the health care legislation as too costly. However, not a single speaker mentioned anything about the need for health care for individuals and families. They spoke of health care as if it was the comparable to buying a TV or stereo, nice items - but not vital to life. The fact is that Republicans have zero thoughts on how to fix the cost of health care, just how to protect the overpaid executives of the major health insurers. From a service to people point of view, I saw their arguments as only supporting a single payer health care plan, a far more ambitious proposal than the existing health care law.

To the gentleman way, way, way up the vine who claimed that denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions is just a leftist lie...

My sister can't get health care ANYWHERE because of a genetic anemic condition that emerged in her early 20's. Because of some (very expensive) blood transfusions and medications, she is no longer at signifigant risk, but no one will sell her insurance because of her condition. Thanks to the HCR she will be able to stay on my parents' health care plan for a couple of years, and then hopefully the new law will make it illegal for companies to deny her coverage.

I don't know much about what effect this will have on the economy as a whole, but all I know is this "Obamacare" is keeping my sister safe, health-wise and financially. And no, GOP, she is not jobless, accepting government stipends, or an illegal immigrant.

passive observer...first you said she cant get health care anywhere then you said she could "stay on my parents" health care plan...so obviously has gotten health insurance somewhere. Also as an employer who provides a plan to employees I know that the plan I provide, and every other plan I have ever seen or been offered, has a six month pre-existing conditions limitation but after six months pre-existing conditions are covered for new employees. I am certain that if your sister is employed by an employer who offers coverage then she may have a waiting period but would then be covered as any other employee.

The saw about people being rejected for pre-existing conditions is not a total lie...people trying to buy individual plans, as compared with employer provided group plans, will have more difficulty. I can tell you though that covering adults on a parents' family plan and covering people with pre-existing conditions is expensive. Just think about. The government just told insurers that they will have to take on the risk of a cancer patient who will likely burn through 2 or 3 millions dollars worth of care, wont be alive long enough to pay 1/1000 of that money back in premium, and they to insure that patient for the same rate they would charge if the guy was healthy. Insurers are raising rates like crazy. I got a 50% increase in premium for 2011 and will have to eliminate 10% of my work force. While I may feel sorry the guy with cancer...and I do...but I have a duty to my employees and their families who are gonna lose a job and health insurance benefits. This thing is a disaster.

Soggy,

I may have misspoke in my original post. When I said she is "staying" on her parents plan, I suppose I meant that she is "getting back on," having been removed from it once she graduated college. Since then, she was without health coverage. However, because the provision of HCR which states that you may stay on your parents' plan until the age of 26 (unless one's job offers a health insurance plan, which hers does not. She is currently working as a barista because the job prospects for her degree went from excellent when she started college to extremely low by the time she received her diploma), she has since been able to return on our parents' plan. I am hoping that once she turns 26 and is no longer able to be covered by our parents she will be able to find affordable health insurance that will not discriminate against her previous condition.