• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Most Americans support Obamacare provisions

This Reuters poll is from 2012 but it's been the trend for some time:

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions | Reuters

When Americans know it simply as "the health care overhaul" they are 56% opposed to 44% in favor. It's educational to break this down in two ways:

(1) Do Americans oppose what's actually in the law? Well, when Americans are asked if they support its major provisions, such as requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions and kids until age 26, and requiring employers with over 50 employees to offer health coverage, a solid majority favors them (82%, 61% and 72%, respectively). The one exception to this is the individual mandate, which 61% oppose. But interestingly, when Gallup asked the same question without using the word "mandate" back in 2009, 56% favored it.

(2) Why do Americans oppose the law? Consider the fact that before 2010, a solid majority of Americans favored a "public option" (65% in 2009) and had favored this going back many years., Interestingly, of the Republicans and Independents who disagree with the current reform, around 70% reject it "overall" while around 30% feel it "does not go far enough", and 51% of Democratic opponents also feel it "does not go far enough". Add to this the fact that 56% of Americans wanted Congress to pass "major healthcare reform" in year 2009 while only 33% opposed it, and we start to see a picture emerging: a significant amount of the "opposition" to Obamacare is due to the hope in 2009 that major reform would be passed, including a public option. Lots of people were disappointed that this didn't happen and oppose the law on that basis.

So it's very interesting that opposition to Obamacare, according to polling data, seems to come from two primary sources: (1) people oppose it because they are misinformed, (2) people oppose it because they wanted major reform and this reform did not go far enough, and most of them probably wanted a public option.

Discuss.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Public option seems reasonable enough as long as it retains voluntary insurance programs. I'll be more than happy to reach my hand across the table.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
This Reuters poll is from 2012 but it's been the trend for some time:

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions | Reuters

When Americans know it simply as "the health care overhaul" they are 56% opposed to 44% in favor. It's educational to break this down in two ways:

(1) Do Americans oppose what's actually in the law? Well, when Americans are asked if they support its major provisions, such as requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions and kids until age 26, and requiring employers with over 50 employees to offer health coverage, a solid majority favors them (82%, 61% and 72%, respectively). The one exception to this is the individual mandate, which 61% oppose. But interestingly, when Gallup asked the same question without using the word "mandate" back in 2009, 56% favored it.

(2) Why do Americans oppose the law? Consider the fact that before 2010, a solid majority of Americans favored a "public option" (65% in 2009) and had favored this going back many years., Interestingly, of the Republicans and Independents who disagree with the current reform, around 70% reject it "overall" while around 30% feel it "does not go far enough", and 51% of Democratic opponents also feel it "does not go far enough". Add to this the fact that 56% of Americans wanted Congress to pass "major healthcare reform" in year 2009 while only 33% opposed it, and we start to see a picture emerging: a significant amount of the "opposition" to Obamacare is due to the hope in 2009 that major reform would be passed, including a public option. Lots of people were disappointed that this didn't happen and oppose the law on that basis.

So it's very interesting that opposition to Obamacare, according to polling data, seems to come from two primary sources: (1) people oppose it because they are misinformed, (2) people oppose it because they wanted major reform and this reform did not go far enough, and most of them probably wanted a public option.

Discuss.

You forgot about the people who oppose Obamacare but are in favor of the Affordable Care Act. I think a lot of people oppose it for political reasons rather than practical reasons. And there is at least some percentage who oppose it because of bigotry or prejudice.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I recently read an article not too long ago saying that "a rose by any other name" really does not smell as sweet.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-wrong-would-rose-any-other-name-smell-sweet
hakespeare-or more precisely, Juliet--was wrong in declaring, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Names have power. They are not like shirts you can change without changing you.

There is the many-times replicated letter-name effect, originally discovered more than two decades ago by J.M. Nuttin ("Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect." European Journal of Social Psychology, 1985).

It really does not surprise me that people oppose or support it just by the what it's being called alone.

 
You forgot about the people who oppose Obamacare but are in favor of the Affordable Care Act. I think a lot of people oppose it for political reasons rather than practical reasons. And there is at least some percentage who oppose it because of bigotry or prejudice.

I recently read an article not too long ago saying that "a rose by any other name" really does not smell as sweet.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-wrong-would-rose-any-other-name-smell-sweet

It really does not surprise me that people oppose or support it just by the what it's being called alone.

Yes, good points. But I think the most significant question is, when the name is irrelevant and you just ask Americans about the content, do they support the content? Polls show that the answer is 'yes'. To me that counts for something.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
You forgot about the people who oppose Obamacare but are in favor of the Affordable Care Act. I think a lot of people oppose it for political reasons rather than practical reasons. And there is at least some percentage who oppose it because of bigotry or prejudice.

And I think many of them do this because they're simply parroting what they've heard or read in the right wing blogosphere.

Another Obamacare horror story debunked - latimes.com
Deborah Cavallaro is a hard-working real estate agent in the Westchester suburb of Los Angeles who has been featured prominently on a round of news shows lately, talking about how badly Obamacare is going to cost her when her existing plan gets canceled and she has to find a replacement.

She says she's angry at President Obama for having promised that people who like their health plans could keep them, when hers is getting cancelled for not meeting Obamacare's standards.
But she never checked the exchange run by her state to even see what a plan would cost. In the article she goes on about how she wanted to keep her plan but it's a JUNK Plan. It's a catastrophic care plan costing her $293 dollars a month, $5,000 Deductible, $8,500 out of pocket expense, she only gets TWO doctor visits a year and a co-pay of $40 each visit up to her two visits. She goes on to say that a replacement plan by her insurance broker was going to cost her $478 per month. Crazy right? Well with just a little research on the exchange here's what the reporter help her find....

At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.
The reporter in the article revealed that if she simply wanted a cheaper plan then she could go with the Bronze plan...

She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead.
Now she did have some concerns about the subsidy and her fluctuating yearly income...but I submit that with her junk plan she could make less money one year but still have to pay the high fixed price for a plan that she wouldn't be able to afford to use if she really needed because of the high deductible..... But IMO this is what the right wing mis-information machine has done to unsuspecting people. They have these people believing their spin to the point where many of these people won't even take ten minutes of their time, like I did today, to see what's available.

:sad:
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
I don't feel like it goes far enough at all, but at least it's a step in that direction. Just makes future transitions that much easier.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
1) people oppose it because they are misinformed,

Discuss.
This right here. The conservative media does an excellent job at demonizing everything 24/7. Frank Luntz comes to mind when I think of this kind of trickery and psychological attacks.
After years of extensive research, that is the conclusion. People say America is divided? Blame the media of hate and fear.
 
Top