Obama Suddenly, Obamacare is more unpopular than ever

So . . . statistics with sources are not "partisan". It is math.

And they have opinions based on that as well as other things, including their politics. Your poll was of doctor's opinions. It is NOT "more than an opinion" if it did not also include documented statistics.

American Hospital Association, June 2010. http://whitepapers.mchc.com/october-2010/providing-care-in-a-recession/

No, you cherrypicked a time period to suggest that operating room visits were up only because of ACA. I presented you a graph showing that that emergency care visits have been steadily increasing for 25 years. This suggests that the increased emergency room visits had nothing to do with Obamacare at all, but with declining numbers of emergency rooms.

Injury-related visits to the emergency room are not the issue that increased insurance availability is supposed to reduce. It is non-emergency visits to the ER by indigents.

I never disparaged their opinions, only noted that its was a poll soliciting their opinions, not an analysis of their statistics. Other reports using actual data suggest that such visits are down.

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/0...isits-down-for-first-time-since-health-reform

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...elped-cut-emergency-room-visits-by-10-percent

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/34m-saved-in-effort-to-cut-needless-emergency-room-visits/

Sure, but that is normal where any projections are concerned. The bigger point is that there many areas where ACA projections were exceeded as well where they fell short.

 

An expert opinion is still an opinion and they sometime fly in the face of evidence. Which is why I pointed out that opinions differ and evidence exists that suggests otherwise.

The point was that ER usage has been increasing for decades for reasons unrelated to ACA and those reasons have not gone away.

Cancelled or simply changed to a better plan. It was a comment that assumed that people wanted good insurance policies that met ACA standards and covered what most people want covered. It did not consider that many people had been paying for cheap policies with high deductibles and limited coverage and preferred to keep low-quality insurance. Not many did. For every person that was required to obtain a policy that conformed to the law, there were 17 persons newly insured that had no insurance availability at all before.

Again, insurance premiums have been rising at an unsustainable rate for two decades for reasons unrelated to ACA. Those reasons have not gone away. You can't just take all the things we hate about insurance and blame it all on ACA when the problems have been happening for years and years.

 

Depends on who you are. 17 million people have affordable insurance, many of whom were uninsurable at any price. Many others have much better insurance now, with better coverage, kids are covered longer, pre-existing conditions covered. These things have increased the value of heath care provided.

Political for sure, but a lot more than nothing. Trying to cater to Republicans was why Big Insurance got so much of the pie.

 

That's a made up quote. Stop trying to rewrite history, we can all remember it. Obama gave concession after concession to gain republicans votes and ended up not getting them. First to go was a single-payer healthcare system favored by democrats, in which the government, not private insurance companies, covers healthcare costs for all Americans, like Medicare.

Then there was the "public option" which would have preserved the current employer-based system of private health insurance coverage while providing a government-run healthcare insurance alternative as well as a safety net for the uninsured. Importantly, it would have also injected much-needed competition into an environment where private insurance plans are increasingly consolidated. Still, this compromise of abandoning a single-payer system for a public option was not enough for Republicans.

Finally they settled on the compromise of adopting RomneyCare, the old Republican plan signed into law by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.This plan builds on the existing system of insurers and insurance plans and was explicitly designed to mimic previous Republican plans in order to assure passage in Congress. Notably, it includes the "individual mandate," which 19 Republicans first proposed in 1993 as a legislative alternative to President Clinton's healthcare reform bill. Today, Republicans attack the individual mandate as unconstitutional, while the insurance companies rake in huge profits.

Despite all these compromises and concessions, House Republicans still forced a government shutdown. Having coerced the Democrats into adopting a Republican health insurance reform plan, they then accused the administration of refusing to compromise.

And just you wait and see. The Republican Congress will not overturn Obamacare despite their rhetoric. Too many features of it are too popular with the public. The party of NO does not want to become the party of "take-away our insurance". They may make lot of noise about it and may change pieces and parts, but the main components of it are here to stay.

 

Cite the quote. What did he actually say? Something like George W. Bush famously said after the 2004 election? That he had a mandate that gave him “political capital” and that “now I intend to spend it” on a bold second-term agenda. It was “my style” the Republican president said, adding that he had “the will of the people” behind him after defeating John Kerry for president.

Nonsense. You were not paying attention if you imagine that. You can't rewrite history. I already listed the concessions.

IS Romney Republican? Was it his plan? Is it remarkably like the ACA? True, true, and true.