Poll Dancing


Gallup:

Americans Issue Split Decision on Healthcare Ruling

Americans are sharply divided over Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on the 2010 healthcare law, with 46% agreeing and 46% disagreeing with the high court’s ruling that the law is constitutional. Democrats widely hail the ruling, most Republicans pan it, and independents are closely divided.

[…]

When asked what they want Congress to do now that the high court has upheld the 2010 law, 31% say they would repeal the law entirely and 21% would keep the law in place but repeal parts of it. A quarter of Americans swing in the other direction, saying they would like Congress to pass legislation to expand the government’s role in healthcare beyond what the current law does. Thirteen percent want to keep the law in place and do nothing further.

Views on this question are highly partisan, with 65% of Democrats coming down on the side of maintaining, if not expanding, the law, and 85% of Republicans coming down on the side of repealing it, either in whole or in part. Independents are more evenly divided, with 40% in favor of keeping or expanding the law and 49% in favor of repealing all or part of it.

[…]

Four in five Americans tell Gallup they will take candidates’ views on healthcare reform into account to at least some degree when voting for major political offices this fall. This includes 21% who say they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views on healthcare reform and 59% who say healthcare will be just one of many important factors they will consider when voting. A relatively small 12% say healthcare reform will not be a major factor in their vote.

[…]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans see politics as having a heavy hand in the ruling, possibly reflecting a knee-jerk belief among Americans that politics is always a factor. Alternatively, it could specifically reflect the fact that eight of the nine justices voted in politically predictable ways. Or it could reflect a belief on the part of some Americans that Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to side with the four liberal justices may have been influenced by the substantial political implications of the case.

In any event, 64% of Americans say politics played too great a role in the court’s decision, while 29% disagree. The vast majority of those who disagree with the decision, 84%, believe politics played too great a role, but so do nearly half of those who agree with the decision, 47%.

Accordingly, 80% of Republicans believe politics played too big a role, compared with 67% of independents and 47% of Democrats.


But wait! There’s more!

Daily Beast:

New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling

Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.


I’m not gonna speculate on why Chief Justice Roberts ruled the way he did. Maybe he’s a diabolical genius, or maybe he’s a wimp. Maybe he flipped a coin. I don’t know. When it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter. At least not until the next time we try to figure out how he’s going to rule. The decision stands alone. YMMV

As for the political implications of the ruling, I’m gonna let things play out a bit before I render an opinion. I was right about the court’s ruling as far as the commerce clause, but I never expected them to backdoor it as a tax. I don’t think anyone has figured out all the implications yet.

I did want to talk a little about the ObamaTax polls though. Assuming that Congress doesn’t repeal it first, I predict its popularity will drop dramatically once they start implementing it. There is a reason that it doesn’t take effect until after the election.

I’ll confess I have no clue exactly how ObamaTax will work, other than people will be required to buy health insurance coverage whether they want it or not. Some people will probably find it cheaper to pay the penalty and do without health insurance. Some people will get coverage through Medicaid. I am eligible for medical benefits through the VA and I hope that doesn’t change.

Do you know how it will affect you? Do you know how you will pay, how much you will pay, who you will pay and what coverage you’ll be paying for? Do you even know who your doctor will be? Will you have any options?

I predict that when people start learning the answers to those questions, most of them will not be happy.


Advertisements
This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, ObamaTax and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Poll Dancing

  1. Lulu says:

    “I’m just another lawprof, but I think the Commerce Clause decision matters a lot. Yes, Congress can work around its limit by tapping the taxing power, but it’s not politically easy to tax.”
    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/for-ordinary-conservatives-as-opposed.html

    This is basically how I think the decision will radically change how Congress is forced to approach legislation. It yanked back the weasel words that BOTH parties use to pass laws. The advantage currently will be to the Republicans because they have the anti-tax stuff down pat. Then the White House immediately stepped into it and said its not a tax it is a penalty. The highest court in the land, of which there is no further appeal, agreed to by all of the fabulously wise and learned liberal justices said it is a TAX. So is the WH and all of their cheerleaders saying that the now greatest court ever is full of shit? You can’t accept this ruling as a great success and ignore what and why they ruled as they did and not be viewed as a hypocrite.

  2. elliesmom says:

    How is it going to affect me? Well, my doctor and I have a great relationship. We’re both “women of a certain age”. She’s been my doctor for almost 20 years. We went through menopause together. (It’s a bonding thing.) She has counseled me to begin looking for a younger doctor and to switch soon. Her reasoning? With the drastic cuts in payments to doctors from Medicare that are coming under ObamaCare, she thinks a lot more doctors will be declining to take new Medicare patients. She doesn’t think most doctors will drop patients they have an established relationship with so she wants me to have time to establish that relationship. She expects to retire shortly after I become eligible for Medicare, and she doesn’t want to leave me without a primary care physician.

    • OldCoastie says:

      My situation almost to a T, elliesmom. I have a great doctor who has been my doc since we were both practically girls… she doesn’t talk of retirement but I’m getting close and I worry she will want out soon too.

      I’m keeping my fingers crossed she wants to work another 10 years.

      I just can’t bring myself to switch.

      • elliesmom says:

        My doctor and I have made a deal. She’s found me a sweet young thing in her late 30’s she trusts, and I have to admit she’s growing on me. Now that my doctor and I no longer have a “professional relationship”, she’s joined my knitting group, and we get to be “girlfriends”.

  3. cj says:

    I don’t know how it’s going to affect me, but a lot of BOTs who applaud it, think somehow, Obamacare makes it easier to game the system by paying the penalty tax & only applying for insurance when they get sick.

    This, they think, will “break the insurance companies’ backs” As if. This is the nonsense going around the Bot sites for the past few days.

    • WMCB says:

      It might break them. And this is another area that pisses me off: the duplicity of the progs. Because when arguing in public for the bill, they sneer and poo poo the idea that anyone is going to lose their current insurance coverage. No, that’s a “right wing scare tactic.” But on their own damn blogs they get gleeful over the possibility that private coverage may get gutted and destroyed. Liars to the core.

      As much as I love the idea of some sort of single payer, I no longer want it NOW. From what I’ve seen of the utter corruption and power-grabbing on the fed level, we need to do some major house cleaning and limiting of bureaucracies before that’s an option for me anymore. I simply would not be okay with handing more power to our govt in its current bloated and corrupt incarnation.

      Give me an efficient govt that I can somewhat trust again, prove to me over time that its not going to go feral at the first whiff of power, and I might be willing to discuss again a sensible single payer. But right now? Nope. I am unwilling to hand them that much power. I have NO confidence they wouldn’t fuck it up royally, and use it for their own ends. Programs don’t happen in the vacuum of theory. They happen in the real world, with the shitty pols we have. I agree with the theory of single payer. I do not trust the turds who would be implementing it farther than I can spit. So no.

      • myiq2xu says:

        I actually saw a prog arguing that ObamaTax is so bad they will have to fix it so we will eventually get Single Payer that way.

        Logic like that is why Obama is president.

        • Exactly. And, the progs are capable of incredible mental agility in order to reconcile their political beliefs with whatever Obama does. They can’t allow Obama to be wrong, so they find a way to make him right. In order to cope with the dissonance, they become cognitive contortionists, twisting their beliefs into some really ridiculous positions.

      • cj says:

        I know exactly what you’re saying. Hypocrites. Ironic how Bots high & low struggle to find a way to be exempted from his transformational policies.

        • WMCB says:

          The fact that they were quick to hand out waivers to all the politically connected tells you all you need to know.

          Rule of thumb for future reference: Any piece of legislation that exempts favored groups is a BIG SHIT SANDWICH, no matter how good and attractive it looks on the surface. If the people writing it (who know more about what’s really in there than the public does) don’t want themselves or their cronies living under it, then it sucks.

          It’s a good idea to oppose all such legislation. If those pushing it don’t want a bite for themselves, err on the side of likely shit sandwich.

    • elliesmom says:

      It won’t break the backs of the insurance companies. It will make the rates the rest of us pay go through the roof. I expect that insurance companies will be given the right to set “open enrollment” windows. So if you get sick in September, it might be January before you can become insured. It won’t solve the problem, but it will increase the risk of gaming the system.

      • cj says:

        “I expect that insurance companies will be given the right to set “open enrollment” windows”

        They’d have to set it up that way, they’re not stupid. Like the thought that anyone would try to game the system hadn’t occurred to them.

        • myiq2xu says:

          One thing you can count on – whatever else happens, the insurance companies will make money.

        • catarina says:

          This morning a friend suggested it may be time to join my family in Switzerland.

          I explained that they also have an individual mandate, but insurance companies are heavily regulated and not allowed to make a profit on basic policies.

          Not even remotely close to the sweet deal the US “insurance industry” was just handed.

      • Lulu says:

        Hell no it won’t break the insurance companies. They wanted this mess to bring in every possible premium payer that IRS could find for them. It increases their market and places no limits on the premiums. While large numbers of people were locked into jobs for insurance coverage for any number of reasons, now that factor will increase and will include more and more people who will see decreasing standards of living just to come up with the means to pay the tribute to Obama backers. And the idiots that think they can apply when sick, well good luck to that as there is usually a waiting period and I do not recall anything in ObamaTAXcare waiving waiting periods for insurance. Even federal insurance coverage has waiting periods before qualifying.

        • catarina says:

          The Secretary shall… not give a shit about the little people.

          NHS, here we come.

          The wealthy will seek, and be able to afford private care, just like in the UK and Canada. Everyone else gets the blue pill and/or the waiting list. Which, in many cases is just a death sentence.

          Quality of care will decline rapidly, guaranteed.

  4. yttik says:

    I’m concerned about putting higher income people on medicaid because of medicaid recapture. The poor have been dealing with this for a while. If you’re on medicaid and sell your home or pass away, the state can take your assets to pay themselves back for your medicaid. If you win the lottery or inherit a bunch of money, the states can go after it to pay themselves back.

    My state is all excited, we’re going to put 500,000 more people on medicaid and I’m thinking, do those people realize that they’ll now be subject to medicaid recapture?

    • elliesmom says:

      “The devil is always in the details.” “There is no free lunch”. “Fooled me once”. Cliches get to be cliches for a reason.

    • WMCB says:

      The biggest problem with Medicaid is going to be finding providers. Medicaid is either a loss or a break-even in many cases for primary care docs,, and a bare profit if you do certain procedures or are a specialist. Medicaid pays peanuts. Quite frankly, most docs who even accept Medicaid do so out of the goodness of their hearts – because most of them actually do believe that they need to do their part in making at least a small percentage of their practice care for the poor. You are not getting rich seeing Medicaid patients. Most do it because they are pretty decent people. If you flood them with new Medicaid patients, they will not be able to take them all. It’s next to impossible in many areas to find docs for the ones who already exist, much less more.

  5. angienc says:

    One small point — CJ Roberts did not side with the four liberal justices — they sided with him in a very conservative opinion. ObamacareTAX was held unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause 7-2.
    The MSM can’t give that simple fact right & sadly, as I’m seeing, people do not read/understand the decision. They certainly do not understand the nature of the Court.

    Here’s one article that actually gives a little history of the way SCOTUS decisions work:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

    • Lulu says:

      I’m glad you are explaining this because it is very important to understanding this whole thing. The liberals sided with him and rejected the Commerce clause argument 7-2 which has enormous ramifications for the future. This has not sunk in yet.

      • SHV says:

        “One small point — CJ Roberts did not side with the four liberal justices — they sided with him in a very conservative opinion. ObamacareTAX was held unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause 7-2.”
        *********
        May be the biggest and most enduring point of the ruling.

  6. WMCB says:

    One of my biggest beefs with the govt-run programs of both Medicare and Medicaid is that they go out of their way to actively crack down on…… compassion and charity. Think I’m kidding? I’m not. Let’s say that a doc has a long time patient with 4 kids, who all got sick so Mom brings them all in. There is a $10 copay per child, plus mom, so that’s $50. Mom doesn’t have $50. Compassionate doc says “don’t worry about it, I’m going to waive your copays today.” He/she has just committed Medicaid fraud, according to our govt.. For which he can be criminally prosecuted at worst, and be kicked out of the Medicaid program and any pending payments seized at best.

    Same thing with Medicare. It’s fucking insane. And its crap like that that makes people leery of govt healthcare. Not because it’s not a good idea (it is), but because our govt keeps doing stuff with it that smacks of a desire for absolute control rather than just providing services.

  7. WMCB says:

    I was pondering today if there was some way to split the difference on healthcare that both left and right could compromise on. There is concern about “freeloaders”, and also concern about govt involvement in everyday healthcare. There is concern about young people who voluntarily choose not to be insured, which should be their right, except what if they get cancer or have a bad wreck or need major surgery?

    I’m beginning to wonder if the govt portion ought to be guaranteed- issue and subsidized for catastrophic coverage only. A safety net for the truly crushing monster bills from severe injury, hospitalizations, etc. CATASTROPHIC coverage for all, which is in truth pretty cheap. Catastrophic is not expensive at all.

    Then for the daily, run of the mill stuff like office visits, preventative, etc, go with mostly free market reforms, HSA vouchers and tax credits for subsidies, existing employer plans, etc. Let people control their own money, choose employer plans, and bargain shop for the routine stuff.

    I haven’t fleshed this out – just musing on it. It’s kind of socialist for the big expensive stuff, lots of freedom and a McCain or Ryan type plan for the routine stuff.

    • T says:

      Catastrophic really isn’t that cheap. Go look at the rates in your state and think of them in terms of someone who ISN’T the wife of a doctor.

      • angienc says:

        They are cheap compared to other policies though. Seriously, your rebuttal makes little sense — Catastrophic policies are only “cheap” to a doctor’s wife (which, btw, I find patronizing) so therefore, what? Cadillac plans for all?
        It is easy to poo-poo ideas & offer nothing constructive as an alternative.

        • WMCB says:

          Yes, constructive would be nice. ;D I was just brainstorming here. The fact is that the voters are justifiably wary of handing total control over to the govt after this Ocare fiasco. Ain’t gonna happen. When and if ObamaTAXcare gets repealed, the healthcare problems will still exist.

          Are people interested in creative ways of solving the problem that the public will accept, or just in bitching and moaning? Me, I’m a practical realist.

      • WMCB says:

        T, considering that up until 41 years of age I was not “the wife of a doctor”, lived in crap apartments, was on foodstamps at times, went without heat, had the electric turned off, and can distinctly remember sitting at the counter eating peanut butter with a spoon out of a giant industrial sized can from the food bank because that was all there was……

        I think you ought to back right off of your implied “you as a pampered doctor’s wife don’t know whereof you speak” bullshit. I never felt guilty or apologized for being poor, and I won’t cower or apologize for NOT being poor now. So fuck your subtle dig, okay? Doesn’t work on me.

        Cheap is relative. Catastrophic by definition is much cheaper than a comprehensive plan that covers everything under the sun. Note that I suggested this be the GOVT guaranteed portion, complete with subsidies for those unable to afford it, likely free for many. It would be cheaper and less budget – busting than the monstrosity of ObamaTAXcare, whichnwas kind of my whole point.

        Did you have any pertinent point to make other than an attempted sneaky smear at me as a clueless rich bitch eating bon bons? I’ll wait.

        • angienc says:

          HONK! That’s really what I wanted to say when I told T I found his remark patronizing (above) but I knew you’d be able to speak for yourself. You did not disappoint. 🙂

      • WMCB says:

        Click on T’s avatar. Very interesting result. “No such user.” Awww, did someone try the newly registered anonymous hit and run Obot troll gambit?

        If I’m wrong, please enlighten me. Could be WordPress acting up. Then again, could be the expectation was that “You’re rich, so shut up” would be met with the usual shuffling apology for being so.

        It’s a new world, progcakes. I don’t cringe in guilt over my income, the whiteness of my skin, my lack of a snooty degree, my rural southern roots, or any of the other tried and true STFU cues from progs. They don’t even make me blink anymore.m

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Could be Zal sockpuppeting, since it’s been moderated on one e-mail address. Passive aggressive digs like T’s are just its style. That would be hugely satisfying to me. LOL.

        • WMCB says:

          Progs are freaking out all over that the social guilt cues upon which they heavily rely are malfunctioning. People are not responding to them. Most of prog bullying power comes from making people feel guilty, and afraid of social scorn. Once they lose that, it’s a whole new ball game.

        • WMCB says:

          Okay, I was wrong then. My bad. Still didn’t appreciate the dig, though. T, if you’re reading, I apologize for the troll suspicion. If you’d like to discuss the ins and outs of possible healthcare solutions, I’m game.

    • votermom says:

      As someone from the 3rd world, I am really surprised that there are not more free (whether via charity or tax-payer subsidy) or very low-cost public clinics for basics like shots and basic illness diagnosis.
      Back home you could usually find out pretty cheaply whether you had a serious disease or not; it was affording treatment that was the problem.

      • WMCB says:

        That kind of plays into one of my beefs with our corrupt govt. They actually make it HARD, via insane regulations, to effectively do charity. See for instance all the recent rulings that charities cannot go feed the homeless unless they comply with industrial restaurant health codes.

        That’s a major red flag for many people in discussing social programs. Because our govt appears incapable of offering help without also demanding absolute control. People are rightly suspicious that the proffered “help” is merely a means to an end, that their real interest is control. There was a time in this country when that wasn’t true of liberals. Now? It’s getting harder and harder to make the case that it isn’t.

  8. myiq2xu says:

    Wasn’t Claire McCaskill the one who said she was supporting Obama because her kids told her to?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/not-a-bad-strategy/

    • WMCB says:

      yep.

    • Lulu says:

      And her kids must be morons too. My kids supported Hilary. One even got into a shoving match at the one of the local Texas caucuses. He won the shoving match and Hillary won that local caucus. The Bots tried to keep Hillary voters from entering the caucus. The Bots left after some chest bumps where the chests were even with their heads.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Two of my kids were Bots, but I didn’t hold it against them. They were still young and stupid.

        (Now it’s “Okay Dad, you can quit saying ‘I told you so’ now.”)

  9. SHV says:

    “’m beginning to wonder if the govt portion ought to be guaranteed- issue and subsidized for catastrophic coverage only. A safety net for the truly crushing monster bills from severe injury, hospitalizations, etc. CATASTROPHIC coverage for all, which is in truth pretty cheap. Catastrophic is not expensive at all. ”
    **********
    What is defines a crushing monster bill? With the accelerating demise of employment based coverage, rising cost, high unemployment, stagnant wadges what is the number that will put an average family into deep shit? I suspect that it isn’t more than a few thousand dollar.

    I still carry a catastrophic policy that runs about $3,8000 per year and has a $100,000 deductible. That is, IMO, “insurance” just like the added earthquake insurance on my house; very unlikely to happen but protects my remaining assets.

    • myiq2xu says:

      My BIL was working under a truck when the jack slipped. He was struck on the head and his chest was pinned.

      He went to the ER in a car, had X-rays and was “observed.” The only treatment he received was some Vicodin. No surgery, not even any stitches. Then he was transferred to a trauma center where they did the same thing the ER had done. He stayed overnight at the TC.

      The total bill was nearly $100,000

      • SHV says:

        Yea but the catastrophic policy requires that you also have standard medical insurance. So for the catastrophic policy to pay anything it’s after I exceed $100k that medicare and secondary insurance won’t cover.

  10. HELENK says:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/white-house-to-blacks-we-reduced-crack-cocaine-penalties/

    valerie jarrett to black reporters
    we have reduced penalties for crack cocaine possesion
    that a good thing?????????

  11. Lola-at-Large says:

    FYI, Zal came back and commented, and I freed it. It was only fair and I wanted to respond. For those who like drama, here it is: https://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/comments-of-the-day-on-taxes-american-history-and-power-sharing/#comment-71100

  12. Lola-at-Large says:

    Okay, who remembers that just a week or two ago the progs were all up in arms about how Ginsberg should just retire already?

    Top stories on Memeorandum right now are all about what a jujitsu justice she is, and how she outsmarted Roberts. Here’s an example.

    • myiq2xu says:

      If flip-flopping was an Olympic sport, Progs would get the gold.

    • angienc says:

      Ginsburg is smart (they all are — although truthfully I haven’t read enough of Kagan & Sotomeyer’s opinion to *really* know that about them, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt), but IMO she’s wrong on the Commerce Clause. She didn’t “outsmart” anybody — she concurred in Roberts’ majority opinion, but but she wrote to uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause — only Sotomeyer joined her concurrence. That makes 7-2 Justices holding the mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
      But I *do* like how the progs are trying to take the “Roberts played the liberals” meme from the last 2 days away from him & bestow it on Ginsburg. They can never come up with *anything* original on their own.

  13. myiq2xu says:

    Shamelessly stolen from Althouse:

    Can’t sleep.

    A little over ten years ago, I had an epiphany at work. I was struggling until I suddenly realized that I was not, as I had imagined, a professional, but an employee.

    And my eyes opened, and I understood.
    The employee game is an easy one to play, unless you don’t know you’re playing it.

    So with the ACA ruling came a similarly uncomfortable epiphany.

    I was the rube.
    I was the patsy.
    Shit!

    Like the die-hard Cubs fan, always waiting for the conservatives to win, I hoped.

    But then Roberts ruled, and my eyes opened, and I understood.

    All that kabuki about conservative undercurrents in Washington was complete and utter bullshit. It was all of a piece, just different players jockeying for position.

    And I was the idiot, believing there was some chance of reversion to ancient times.

    Instead of a professional, I am an employee.
    Instead of a citizen, I am a serf.
    And the serf game is an easy one; its rules are old and easily learned. Bow and scrape, basically. Get yours.

    My apologies for having misled anyone otherwise.

  14. myiq2xu says:

  15. Lola-at-Large says:

    White House drops salary report late on a Friday: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2012

    Can’t wait to see Breitbart do the gender breakdown. A quick perusal demonstrates nothing has changed with that regard. Why does Obama hate women?

    • yttik says:

      “Why does Obama hate women?”

      I think it’s because most of us are better looking than him 🙂 Every night he does that thing, “mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” And then he gets really ticked off about it and rather then send out a huntsman to cut out our hearts, he just writes really bad policy.

Comments are closed.