The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Young Drachma]

Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst was ridiculous and shows how some folks really don't seem to be comfortable with "this guy" as President.

In any case, the whole health care obscures the fact that whatever we're doing now is costing us tons, the GOP isn't proposing any solutions that seem to fix the problem (when there are lots of market-based solutions that could) and the Dems don't seem intent on using that so-called majority they have to do anything other than shuffle their feet as normal.

Seems like business as usual in DC to me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The whole health care obscures the fact that whatever we're doing now is costing us tons, the GOP isn't proposing any solutions that seem to fix the problem (when there are lots of market-based solutions that could) and the Dems don't seem intent on using that so-called majority they have to do anything other than shuffle their feet as normal.

To be fair, the Republicans have three alternative bills up for consideration. Whether they fix the problem or not is personal opinion, but they have some other options presented. You can search the following names at the Library of Congress link to actually read the bills, which perhaps you've already done.

-Patients Choice Act of 2009
-Health Care Freedom Plan
-Empowering Patients First Act

Bill Text Search for the 111th Congress - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

The primary principle was Liberty.

Liberty being that our society able to decide for ourselves what is best (self determination mixed with democratic notions). And in order to promote that, formed a republican system. Which is being used right now. This is democracy (or republicanism, if you will) in action.

A health care mandate is forcing people to buy something they don't want and don't think is worth their money. You also are not necessarily getting anything. It can't lead to anything good in the long run.

The last sentance only makes sense if that person never visits a health professional in their lifetimes. Now, I'm perfectly willing to have said people who decide not to purchase health insurance to be turned away by hospitals after an accident and billed for any paramedics called to the scene. But I'm guessing the willingly uninsured would howl at the moon if that were called to pass.

I don't feel like subsidizing freeloaders anymore. If that means they are forced to get into the system to provide health care to everyone then tough. I feel its the same as an income or sales tax. You see a difference. We just don't agree on this issue.

[ace1914]

Question:

If people lead unhealthy lifestyles and then have related medical treatments that they cannot pay for, or the insurance companies will not pay for, don't those cost result in higher insurance premiums for those who do lead healthy lives?

Personally, I don't see how taxing unhealthy foods is a problem. Its just a deterrent towards living more healthy. Same as tobacco. You can smoke, it just gonna cost you.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Personally, I don't see how taxing unhealthy foods is a problem. Its just a deterrent towards living more healthy. Same as tobacco. You can smoke, it just gonna cost you.

What do current tobacco taxes go towards? We just raised it again in Wisconsin but I don't think any of it actually went toward anything health related.

I have no problems with those taxes either as long as the money goes toward what it should be going.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by lungs

What do current tobacco taxes go towards? We just raised it again in Wisconsin but I don't think any of it actually went toward anything health related.

I have no problems with those taxes either as long as the money goes toward what it should be going.

You won't see the difference initially, but say, 10-15 years down the line when its just a better financial choice to live heathy there will be an associated cost reduction in the healthcare system.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't think you'll ever see that happen.

what about skinny people who want to have ice cream - they have to pay a tax even though ice cream isn't going to cause them any health problems?

business travelers at the airport who can only eat fast food have to pay a tax because they have no other options?

patrons at stadiums having to pay the tax because they're a captive consumer?

i don't think you'll see that happen frankly.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Personally, I don't see how taxing unhealthy foods is a problem. Its just a deterrent towards living more healthy. Same as tobacco. You can smoke, it just gonna cost you.

Who gets the power to decide what is healthy and what is not? The government has absolutely no business taxing me on something (as a deterrent for consuming said item) because they think it's icky. Note I said as a deterrent. Liquor taxes are not really a deterrent to encourage not drinking. Cigarette taxes are (and I thusly find them quite ridiculous).

Sorry, no more red meat for you, it's bad for you! Have some nice tofu. Sorry, want a coke? That'll be 10 bucks. Have some juice instead, only 2 bucks.

Fuck that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Who gets the power to decide what is healthy and what is not? The government has absolutely no business taxing me on something (as a deterrent for consuming said item) because they think it's icky. Note I said as a deterrent. Liquor taxes are not really a deterrent to encourage not drinking. Cigarette taxes are (and I thusly find them quite ridiculous).

Sorry, no more red meat for you, it's bad for you! Have some nice tofu. Sorry, want a coke? That'll be 10 bucks. Have some juice instead, only 2 bucks.

Fuck that.

I agree. And then you'll have people that are for example iron deficient claiming discrimination because red meat is taxed higher than chicken?

no way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How many times do we have to go over this? The public option would pay for itself in that it would have to survive on the premiums it collects. Separate from that, those unable to afford insurance would have their premiums subsidized. Many of those would be on the public option, but there would also be a group of subsidized premiums that would have private insurance.

So it will "pay for itself" with the help of government subsidized-premiums for people who can't afford it?

Because there is ZERO way it can truly pay for itself if the government is paying for any signficant number of premiums. That just makes no sense. Unless the premiums for the "paying" class of public option customers are really high - but who exactly is going to be allowed to get the public option, and how much exactly is it going to cost? Especially the latter question - why is this such a secret?

[ace1914]

Why does everyone bring up tofu=healthy lifestyle? I'm pretty healthy (at least my doctor says so) and I don't eat tofu.

Anyway, for the cost of healthcare to decrease, Americans will have to live more healthy, period. Our current financial state shows that people weren't willing to take the personal responsibility necessary to keep our financial system afloat. Healthcare is next to go down the crapper, especially with the idea that your personal decisions, somehow, don't affect anyone else.

[ace1914]

Another question:

What is the hesitation about letting insurance companies sell across state lines?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You act as if the tax system doesn't already work that way. We want you to save money for retirement, so stick it in a 401k and we won't tax it as much. We want people to buy houses, so here's a deduction for your mortgage interest. We want people to have children, so here's a tax credit for each munchkin you spit out. We want those rugrats to go to college, so here's a credit for your education costs. The tax system already acts like a bit of social engineering.

That's like arguing there's no difference between a couple that likes watching porn in their bedroom and a couple that wants to make porn at the local park.

Sorry, but most people would see a big damn difference between a mechanism that encourages people to save money and something that punishes them for drinking a soda or smoking a cigarette.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I agree. And then you'll have people that are for example iron deficient claiming discrimination because red meat is taxed higher than chicken?

no way.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

That's like arguing there's no difference between a couple that likes watching porn in their bedroom and a couple that wants to make porn at the local park.

Sorry, but most people would see a big damn difference between a mechanism that encourages people to save money and something that punishes them for drinking a soda or smoking a cigarette.

Isn't it "encouragement" to live healthy?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So it will "pay for itself" with the help of government subsidized-premiums for people who can't afford it?

Because there is ZERO way it can truly pay for itself if the government is paying for any signficant number of premiums. That just makes no sense. Unless the premiums for the "paying" class of public option customers are really high - but who exactly is going to be allowed to get the public option, and how much exactly is it going to cost? Especially the latter question - why is this such a secret?

This isn't that hard. Let's try a different example.

Let's say a private company is formed for the uninsured. That private company largely gets clients that are paying premiums that are subsidized by the federal government. However, the government doesn't give them any extra money, so the company has to survive solely on the premiums, whether subsidized by the government or not.

Now let's say another private company is formed. That private company also largely gets clients that are paying premiums that are subsidized by the federal government AND they also get 10 billion a year in government support. That company doesn't have to survive only on it's premiums as it starts 10 billion in the black.

Now use those above examples, but replace private company with public option. Can you see how its possible that the public option would have to survive on premiums alone, even if those premiums are subsidized by the government?

As to cost, how exactly can you set the precise cost of an insurance plan that hasn't been created and won't go into effect for four years?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, judging by the actions of the Bush Justice Department, conservatives want to ban producing it in general. :-)

But, it's all "sin taxes" at the end of the day, whether it's on cigarettes or junk food. I of course think the easier thing to do would end the massive subsidies to Big Corn, but that's a bi-partisan thing so it'll never end.

I've been wanting to do a giant sin tax thread and have it half written. Maybe I should get back to work on that.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've been wanting to do a giant sin tax thread and have it half written. Maybe I should get back to work on that.

SI

Get back to sinning or writing?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Another question:

What is the hesitation about letting insurance companies sell across state lines?

The only thing I can think of is resetting the entire framework for regulation of insurance companies. Because right now the states are responsible for insurance company regulation.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Isn't it "encouragement" to live healthy?

No. Encouraging people to do healthier things would mean a benefit or a credit for engaging in healthy behavior, not punishing people for behavior that the government deems to be unhealthy.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No. Encouraging people to do healthier things would mean a benefit or a credit for engaging in healthy behavior, not punishing people for behavior that the government deems to be unhealthy.

The government?

Every competent healthcare provider would say the same thing. Americans are unhealthy. Live it up for 25 years, then complain about the issues they have when they get old. BAM!!! There goes 15% of our budget through Medicare, because you old asses didn't have the financial savvy to save or live healthy.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No. Encouraging people to do healthier things would mean a benefit or a credit for engaging in healthy behavior, not punishing people for behavior that the government deems to be unhealthy.

There is a benefit. Healthy foods would be cheaper.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No. Encouraging people to do healthier things would mean a benefit or a credit for engaging in healthy behavior, not punishing people for behavior that the government deems to be unhealthy.

I don't want to get into a healthy living debate, but aren't the benefit and punishment the same thing? If I'm denied a 500 dollar tax credit for my behavior aren't I losing the the same if I am taxed an extra 500?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This isn't that hard. Let's try a different example.

Let's say a private company is formed for the uninsured. That private company largely gets clients that are paying premiums that are subsidized by the federal government. However, the government doesn't give them any extra money, so the company has to survive solely on the premiums, whether subsidized by the government or not.

Now let's say another private company is formed. That private company also largely gets clients that are paying premiums that are subsidized by the federal government AND they also get 10 billion a year in government support. That company doesn't have to survive only on it's premiums as it starts 10 billion in the black.

Now use those above examples, but replace private company with public option. Can you see how its possible that the public option would have to survive on premiums alone, even if those premiums are subsidized by the government?

As to cost, how exactly can you set the precise cost of an insurance plan that hasn't been created and won't go into effect for four years?

Somehow I don't consider it "self sufficient" when the government can charge itself whatever it wants make sure the system works. If it charges premiums of $20,000 a year, and pays for that itself (with defecit spending), that makes it "self sufficient" under that reasoning.

I'm not asking for a precise number, but how can anyone know whether this will be a real "option", without having any idea of how much the premiums are going to cost?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

Somehow I don't consider it "self sufficient" when the government can charge itself whatever it wants make sure the system works. If it charges premiums of $20,000 a year, and pays for that itself (with defecit spending), that makes it "self sufficient" under that reasoning.

I'm not asking for a precise number, but how can anyone know whether this will be a real "option", without having any idea of how much it's going to cost?

I don't understand.

If they don't have a complete, concrete idea that the majority of reps can agree on, how would they do cost analysis?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Somehow I don't consider it "self sufficient" when the government can charge itself whatever it wants make sure the system works. If it charges premiums of $20,000 a year, and pays for that itself (with defecit spending), that makes it "self sufficient" under that reasoning.

I'm not asking for a precise number, but how can anyone know whether this will be a real "option", without having any idea of how much the premiums are going to cost?

I think that's a reasonable concern, although 20k is hyperbole. I'm not sure how premiums would be set and at this point I think at best there will be a public option with a trigger, so I'm not really concerned with it's premiums right now.

However, I at least hope you can see what is meant by self-sufficient.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I don't understand.

If they don't have a complete, concrete idea that the majority of reps can agree on, how would they do cost analysis?

The cost analysis is the most important thing. It's all theoretical ideas at this point, with not a lot of attention apparently being paid to how everything will fit together.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think that's a reasonable concern, although 20k is hyperbole. I'm not sure how premiums would be set and at this point I think at best there will be a public option with a trigger, so I'm not really concerned with it's premiums right now.

However, I at least hope you can see what is meant by self-sufficient.

NO TRIGGER!!!!

A goddamn trigger will just ensure that it never comes to pass and there won't be meaningful reform as a result of it because it'll just be repealed.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

The cost analysis is the most important thing. It's all theoretical ideas at this point, with not a lot of attention apparently being paid to how everything will fit together.

That's because we're still a long way from a final bill and further still from implementation. At this point the best you can do is put an overall budget on it and work from that big number.

[molson]

At least it does appear that Obama has officially switched from, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", to now last night, "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

NO TRIGGER!!!!

A goddamn trigger will just ensure that it never comes to pass and there won't be meaningful reform as a result of it because it'll just be repealed.

Yeah, but I'll bet that's going to be the compromise that gets most Dems on board.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

At least it does appear that Obama has officially switched from, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", to now last night, "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have".

not sure if you were being funny, but aren't those the same thing?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah, but I'll bet that's going to be the compromise that gets most Dems on board.

then i'll have to campaign against the democrats and have to start voting for candidates further to the left

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Get back to sinning or writing?

Joe Friday: Are trying to stall us? Or are you just senile?
Abe Simpson: A little from column A and a little from column B.

SI

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

not sure if you were being funny, but aren't those the same thing?

No, they are very different to most people.

The former implies that you (the insured) have a choice in the matter. This is only true if you are the plan financier, irregardless of whether you want to switch or perceive the public plan to be inferior to what you have.

The latter just states that the government is not telling you that you must switch but at least caveats the potential for your plan to switch to the public.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

then i'll have to campaign against the democrats and have to start voting for candidates further to the left

I'm sure they are quaking

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't want to get into a healthy living debate, but aren't the benefit and punishment the same thing? If I'm denied a 500 dollar tax credit for my behavior aren't I losing the the same if I am taxed an extra 500?

It depends on how its approached imho as to how people percieve it although what you say is largely true.

For instance an additional tax on cigarettes basically punishes people for smoking by taking more money from them, but people generally accept such things without too much arguement because they know smoking is 'bad' for them rather than kicking up a huge fuss.

If the goverment decided to add a small tax to certain foods with very unhealthy ingredients (I'm thinking of the burgers I saw in Walmart the other day with a whopping 90% of your daily fat intake in a single burger) and use the money raised from that to subside healthy food like fruit to a reasonable level then again I think people would adapt to it with only a minimum of grumbling because its fairly obvious that the choices they're steering you towards are sensible ones.

This is why despite many people being smokers the actual 'fuss' caused by banning smoking in restaurants etc. was actually very small compared to the amount of change its enforced n society - its because people in their heart of hearts know smoking is bad for them, its just they needed a 'push' to do anything about it.

PS - Yes its 'socialism' to some extent and America see's that as 'BAD' - but its no different in reality to paying a property tax on a house to be honest, the property taxes go into things which help people (police, infrastructure etc.) and people can't opt out from that either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Basically, the reason why it doesn't kick in until 2013 is that so the ten-year number is lower. Obviously, the price of the bill would be larger over ten years if it kicked in until 2011. Not exactly happy about it, but understandable.

BTW, CNN insta-poll.
Did Obama clearly state his health care goals?
72% Yes
26% No


What is your reaction to the speech?
56% Very positive
21% Somewhat positive
21% Negative


Candy Crowley also mentioned that "support for his plan" was "about" 53% before the speech and about 67% after.


Shockingly, people like the idea when they're actually told what the plan is instead of the bullshit. Not, let's hope Reid, Baucus, and Conrad don't fuck this up.

Ummmmmmm................

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan « - Blogs from CNN.com

Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the survey say the support Obama's health care reform proposals that the president outlined in his address, with 29 percent opposed. Those figures are almost identical to a poll conducted immediately after Bill Clinton's health care speech before Congress in September, 1993.

The audience for the speech appears to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole. Because of this, the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tune into the speech. The poll surveyed the opinions of people who watched Wednesday night's speech, and does not reflect the views of all Americans.

.................

The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.

So the disparity if you factor in an 8-10 point overrepresentation of Democrats and an 8-10 point underrepresentation of Republicans could be 16-20 points difference?

Probably made a poor choice of polls to represent that the general public overwhelmingly likes this legislation. I'm not even sure why CNN posted this poll given the large difference in representation of the polling group when compared to the general public.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Ummmmmmm................

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan « - Blogs from CNN.com



So the disparity if you factor in an 8-10 point overrepresentation of Democrats and an 8-10 point underrepresentation of Republicans could be 16-20 points difference?

Probably made a poor choice of polls to represent that the general public overwhelmingly likes this legislation. I'm not even sure why CNN posted this poll given the large difference in representation of the polling group when compared to the general public.

First off everyone has been careful to note that and say it's not representative. nobody here is treating it as anything more than a snap-poll.

Secondly, you can't assume that the 8-10pts that are over-represented in (D) would be (R) in the general population (although I do concede that it is likely close to that).

[ISiddiqui]

Oh Jesus... not another poll discussion...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh Jesus... not another poll discussion...

I'm not too interested in it overall other than just to point out that it was an extremely lousy poll and doesn't belong in the discussion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just by way of giving our liberals a heads up of the next talking point, here's a little something I got in my email today

[CamEdwards]

I'd be more interested in knowing the ratings for the speech, as opposed to the poll numbers before and after.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No. Encouraging people to do healthier things would mean a benefit or a credit for engaging in healthy behavior, not punishing people for behavior that the government deems to be unhealthy.

Spare the rod, spoil the child, yo.

And these aren't really behavior that the "government deems to be unhealthy" these are behaviors that "science deems to be unhealthy." I don't think there's much of a debate that drinking soda isn't healthy, smoking isn't healthy, drinking alcohol isn't healthy.

Personally, I have no real issue with a sin tax. It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. If I engage in behaviors that increase the risk of me becoming a burden to society then I should be expected to chip in a little bit into the common pool when I engage in these behaviors. I will make the cost/beneift analysis as to when the cost (tax) of engaging in said behavior out weighs the benefit (my enjoyment) of said behavior. I don't really drink pop and I don't smoke, but I do drink a lot of beer and if the state of federal government slapped a 2-4% "sin tax" on it, I'd either buy cheaper beer (unlikey), drink less (less unlikey, bust still quite unlikely), or suck it up (most likely).

Decisions have consequences, folks. Cowboy up.

As for the encouraging good versus punishing bad, administratively it's much easier to institute a sin tax/punish people for doing something unhealthy than it is to give people credits for engaging in healthy behavior/not engaging in harmful behavior. How would the latter work, for example? Constant blood tests to ensure they are not drinking pop or alcohol or smoking?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Spare the rod, spoil the child, yo.

And these aren't really behavior that the "government deems to be unhealthy" these are behaviors that "science deems to be unhealthy." I don't think there's much of a debate that drinking soda isn't healthy, smoking isn't healthy, drinking alcohol isn't healthy.

Personally, I have no real issue with a sin tax. It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. If I engage in behaviors that increase the risk of me becoming a burden to society then I should be expected to chip in a little bit into the common pool when I engage in these behaviors. I will make the cost/beneift analysis as to when the cost (tax) of engaging in said behavior out weighs the benefit (my enjoyment) of said behavior. I don't really drink pop and I don't smoke, but I do drink a lot of beer and if the state of federal government slapped a 2-4% "sin tax" on it, I'd either buy cheaper beer (unlikey), drink less (less unlikey, bust still quite unlikely), or suck it up (most likely).

Decisions have consequences, folks. Cowboy up.

As for the encouraging good versus punishing bad, administratively it's much easier to institute a sin tax/punish people for doing something unhealthy than it is to give people credits for engaging in healthy behavior/not engaging in harmful behavior. How would the latter work, for example? Constant blood tests to ensure they are not drinking pop or alcohol or smoking?

First off I don't even see Obama heading in this direction so no reason for me to get too involved in this line of thought, but good God I hope you don't beleive this line of bullshit.

Want to know what kind of decisions are a burden on everyone? How about choosing not to work? How about engaging in high risk drug usage and high risk sexual behavior? How about living in a city that is below sea level? These are decisions that I have never made but not only are these people not punished or told not to do these things but my fucking tax money is going to help them out.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by panerd

First off I don't even see Obama heading in this direction so no reason for me to get too involved in this line of thought, but good God I hope you don't beleive this line of bullshit.

Want to know what kind of decisions are a burden on everyone? How about choosing not to work? How about engaging in high risk drug usage and high risk sexual behavior? How about living in a city that is below sea level? These are decisions that I have never made but not only are these people not punished or told not to do these things but my fucking tax money is going to help them out.

Hrm... You're really confusing me. So, because we can't have people pay for all decisions they make that can burden societ, we should ask people to pay for some?

You really seem to be in favor of sin taxes given your anger over the fact that your tax money is going to help people who do things you don't think they should be doing.

Over course, we can't tax every decision a person makes that could potentially be a burden on societ, nor would I ever think we ever should. But, as you would appear to agree (given your outrage), we might as well do a little here and there where it's relatively easy, no? That way maybe fewer people will engage in these behaviors and your "fucking tax money" wont be going to help them out, but instead will be going to help you out. I hope that's a "line of bullshit" we can all believe in.

People aren't told not to engage in high risk drug usage and high risk sexual behavior? Really? Back when I was in school that message was pretty soundly beaten into us. That was a while ago, however, so things might have changed.

And, I'm sort of in favor of legalizing marijuana and taxing the shit out of it.

[JPhillips]

Steve: That post would be better with a more comprehensive list.

When I say most, I mean it's the compromise position most likely to get to the floor. I know that there are probably enough votes in the House for a public option and there might be enough in the Senate if they pushed it through reconciliation, but that's not going to happen. At the end of the day some sort of compromise is going to be made and I think a public option with trigger is going to be that compromise. Sure it won't ever trigger, but it's the one optoin that allows everybody to share in the victory.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Ummmmmmm................

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan « - Blogs from CNN.com



So the disparity if you factor in an 8-10 point overrepresentation of Democrats and an 8-10 point underrepresentation of Republicans could be 16-20 points difference?

Probably made a poor choice of polls to represent that the general public overwhelmingly likes this legislation. I'm not even sure why CNN posted this poll given the large difference in representation of the polling group when compared to the general public.

If you really get into the crosstabs you can make a case that this poll is good news for McCain's presidential campaign.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, good workup by 538 on a breakdown of support for pubic option.

The weird thing about the poll is a state like Alabama seems to have little support for any health care reform. They also have one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the country, almost 6 years less than the top state.

I mean if you are likely to live longer in Bahrain or Ecuador than your own state, you'd think you'd be looking for some kind of change in the situation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you really get into the crosstabs you can make a case that this poll is good news for McCain's presidential campaign.

Medical marijuana a bit strong today?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Hrm... You're really confusing me. So, because we can't have people pay for all decisions they make that can burden societ, we should ask people to pay for some?

You really seem to be in favor of sin taxes given your anger over the fact that your tax money is going to help people who do things you don't think they should be doing.

Over course, we can't tax every decision a person makes that could potentially be a burden on societ, nor would I ever think we ever should. But, as you would appear to agree (given your outrage), we might as well do a little here and there where it's relatively easy, no? That way maybe fewer people will engage in these behaviors and your "fucking tax money" wont be going to help them out, but instead will be going to help you out. I hope that's a "line of bullshit" we can all believe in.

People aren't told not to engage in high risk drug usage and high risk sexual behavior? Really? Back when I was in school that message was pretty soundly beaten into us. That was a while ago, however, so things might have changed.

And, I'm sort of in favor of legalizing marijuana and taxing the shit out of it.

You can try and be clever and use the supposed quotes of my original post all you want. You made a very illogical post about why it's okay to tax soda and beer and then an even more illogical reply to my response. Not worth even discussing with you. Either re-read my post and try to understand or don't. I don't really care but I am not going to reply to any of the nonsense above.