66% of GOPers think Obama is a Socialist, 57% a Muslim, 24% the Anti-Christ

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Obama does not want to let people die in the street, or go bankrupt paying their health-care bills. So clearly, he is a Socialist anti-Christ.

:)

[DC]

so atleast 66% of the GOPers have no clue.

[psychictv]

Interesting numbers. It seems like pretty much 100% of Republicans are openly accusing Obama of being a Socialist. Does that mean a third of them lied in this poll or, more likely, that a third of them don't really believe it and they're just up to their old red-baiting? And 66% are dumb enough to get all riled up and actually believe in it.

[Meadmaker]

I'm skeptical. I think the right wing of the GOP is crazy, but not that crazy.

Polls can be so badly worded sometimes that people don't take the questions seriously.

[Upchurch]

hm.... any link to the original Harris poll?

I don't know how creditable this sounds.

[tyr_13]

I'm skeptical. I think the right wing of the GOP is crazy, but not that crazy.

Polls can be so badly worded sometimes that people don't take the questions seriously.

hm.... any link to the original Harris poll?

I don't know how creditable this sounds.

Thirded.

[Alferd_Packer]

Obama does not want to let people die in the street, or go bankrupt paying their health-care bills. So clearly, he is a Socialist anti-Christ.


From Kenya

[AvalonXQ]

Obama does not want to let people die in the street, or go bankrupt paying their health-care bills.

... and his solution is a government takeover of healthcare. So, yes, he's a socialist. 66% of GOPers are right on that.
But he's not a Muslim (I personally believe he's probably an atheist or a cultural Christian) and he's certainly not whatever mythical "Anti-Christ" figure these loons have manufactured this past century.

[Cleon]

... and his solution is a government takeover of healthcare.

Incorrect.


So, yes, he's a socialist.

Also incorrect.

[Thunder]

Obama is a Socialist, because he shared his cookies in kindergarten.

[AvalonXQ]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.

[Cleon]

... and his solution is a government takeover of healthcare. So, yes, he's a socialist.

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.

You need to get your story straight. It's still wrong, though.

[Regnad Kcin]

True results or not, the Republican right-wing never ceases to be entertaining.

[Lurker]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.

As I understand the recently passed healthcare bill, the healthcare that I buy through my employer will continue exactly the same after passage of the bill as before. Can you explain to me where the govt took over my healthcare for my case and those like me?

Thanks!

[ponderingturtle]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.

Not anymore than all those republicans going forward to defend medicare are socialists. If only they elderly could be responcible adults we wouldn't have to give them socialized healthcare.

[AvalonXQ]

As I understand the recently passed healthcare bill, the healthcare that I buy through my employer will continue exactly the same after passage of the bill as before.

That's great news! I hope you're right, and that my understanding is incorrect.
I guess we'll see.

[Cleon]

That's great news! I hope you're right, and that my understanding is incorrect.
I guess we'll see.

Essentially this is an admission that you really don't know anything about the health care reform legislation that was debated or passed.

[AvalonXQ]

Essentially this is an admission that you really don't know anything about the health care reform legislation that was debated or passed.

Incorrect. Get your story straight.
Lurker's made a claim that things won't change for him and his employer (and, by implication, me and mine); I hope he's right. I also know enough about the legislation to strongly believe he'll be wrong, and that this legislation will result in effective government takeover of the health insurance industry. But we don't have to argue about it -- we'll see. And while I may believe Lurker is wrong, I hope he's right.

[Denver]

hm.... any link to the original Harris poll?

I don't know how creditable this sounds.

From the article:

The full results of the poll, which will be released in greater detail tomorrow...

[Cleon]

Incorrect. Get your story straight.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.


Lurker's made a claim that things won't change for him and his employer (and, by implication, me and mine); I hope he's right. I also know enough about the legislation to strongly believe he'll be wrong, and that this legislation will result in effective government takeover of the health insurance industry. But we don't have to argue about it -- we'll see. And while I may believe Lurker is wrong, I hope he's right.

You can believe that the sky is filled with polka-dotted flying pigs, but that don't make it so.

Fact: Employer-provided health insurance is not going to change as a result of the HCR legislation. If you believe otherwise, you are incorrect and uninformed.

Fact: Nothing in the HCR remotely resembles a "government takeover of health care." If you believeotherwise, you are incorrect and uninformed.

[AvalonXQ]

Fact: Employer-provided health insurance is not going to change as a result of the HCR legislation. If you believe otherwise, you are incorrect and uninformed.

Fact: Nothing in the HCR remotely resembles a "government takeover of health care." If you believeotherwise, you are incorrect and uninformed.
You can believe that the sky is filled with polka-dotted flying pigs, but that don't make it so.

[Ohforf]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.
If ultra-capitalist health insurance kicks you out if you get an expensive disease (a well known fact), a "socialist" system might be better.

[AvalonXQ]

If ultra-capitalist health insurance kicks you out if you get an expensive disease (a well known fact), a "socialist" system might be better.

This is a salient point.

[Brainster]

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.



You can believe that the sky is filled with polka-dotted flying pigs, but that don't make it so.

Fact: Employer-provided health insurance is not going to change as a result of the HCR legislation. If you believe otherwise, you are incorrect and uninformed.

Ah, so all that stuff about how pre-existing conditions would now be covered was a lot of malarkey? Thanks for clearing that up for me!

[ponderingturtle]

If ultra-capitalist health insurance kicks you out if you get an expensive disease (a well known fact), a "socialist" system might be better.

Or if say you get denied an organ transplant because you need supplemental insurance in addition to your medicaid, but as you are already sick you can't get the insurance and so get left to die by this death(ok organ transplant) panel, it might be better than now also.

We have all the death panels we need right now.

[Lurker]

Incorrect. Get your story straight.
Lurker's made a claim that things won't change for him and his employer (and, by implication, me and mine); I hope he's right. I also know enough about the legislation to strongly believe he'll be wrong, and that this legislation will result in effective government takeover of the health insurance industry. But we don't have to argue about it -- we'll see. And while I may believe Lurker is wrong, I hope he's right.

Avalon, so can you please post the portion of the legislation that leads you to believe that our employer provided healthcare will change?

Surely you are not basing this on a hunch, right?

[DDWW]

I would agree that President Obama has further polarized America, rather than being the healer and bringing us together.

His future work will determine if this will be his legacy.


DDWW

[Thunder]

I would agree that President Obama has further polarized America, rather than being the healer and bringing us together.


No. the GOP propaganda machine is what has polarized the USA.

lies about death panels, govt. money for illegal immigrants, etc..have contributed to the dynamic of division and mistrust.

Obama went out of his way, WAAAY out of his way, time and time and time again, to get the GOP on board with this effort.

and how did they respond? "lets start over".

[Cleon]

You can believe that the sky is filled with polka-dotted flying pigs, but that don't make it so.

You're the one talking beliefs; I'm talking about facts.

[pgwenthold]

Avalon, so can you please post the portion of the legislation that leads you to believe that our employer provided healthcare will change?

Surely you are not basing this on a hunch, right?

Actually, I'd ask for the other direction. What exactly is the government "taking over"?

The closest I can see to something like that brought up so far is that insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage to people because they are sick. Damn that government intervention!!!!

[Vic Vega]

You're the one talking beliefs; I'm talking about facts.


Unfortunately, I think you're wasting your time. He won't understand you if he doesn't want to.

[Lurker]

Actually, I'd ask for the other direction. What exactly is the government "taking over"?

The closest I can see to something like that brought up so far is that insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage to people because they are sick. Damn that government intervention!!!!

Hmm, why do I doubt that AvalonXQ will quote me the part of the bill that discusses its impact on my employer provided healthcare?

AXQ, still waiting on that quote. Thanks, in advance!

[AvalonXQ]

Obama went out of his way, WAAAY out of his way, time and time and time again, to get the GOP on board with this effort.
Starting before or after the GOP had a fillibuster?
If before, please provide evidence.

[Thunder]

Starting before or after the GOP had a fillibuster?
If before, please provide evidence.

did you not see his speech to a joint session of Congress, almost begging the GOP to help write the plan? this was months before Kennedy's death.

[Thunder]

by the way, Barack Obama may not be a Socialist, but he does indeed share the views of many European Social-Democrats. They, like myself, believe in a strong welfare state..within the realm of a free-market economy with strong consumer protections, environmental safeguards, etc.

[psychictv]

I also know enough about the legislation to strongly believe he'll be wrong, and that this legislation will result in effective government takeover of the health insurance industry. But we don't have to argue about it -- we'll see. And while I may believe Lurker is wrong, I hope he's right.

And I sure as hell hope you're right and that this new legislation somehow miraculously results in the government takeover that we so desperately need in order to get some decent health care in this country. I think that is extremely unlikely though.

[DDWW]

No. the GOP propaganda machine is what has polarized the USA.

lies about death panels, govt. money for illegal immigrants, etc..have contributed to the dynamic of division and mistrust.

Obama went out of his way, WAAAY out of his way, time and time and time again, to get the GOP on board with this effort.

and how did they respond? "lets start over".

I give the American people a lot more credit than you do. Both sides had over a year to sell their side. A majority of the American people said no. This was ignored. I don't know how much more you can polarize further the ideological gap in this country.

DDWW

[AvalonXQ]

did you not see his speech to a joint session of Congress, almost begging the GOP to help write the plan? this was months before Kennedy's death.

Yes, I saw the speech. It was as dismissive of even the possibility of Republican ideas as Obama could have reasonably been.
The Dems consistently put together this bill behind closed doors without inviting Republicans into the room. To assert that the Dems were soliciting genuine bipartisan input is a serious rewrite of history.

[Frank327]

by the way, Barack Obama may not be a Socialist, but he does indeed share the views of many European Social-Democrats. They, like myself, believe in a strong welfare state..within the realm of a free-market economy with strong consumer protections, environmental safeguards, etc.That would be a good idea if it were actually possible in the US. Welfare states in europe have good success, and usually score very high on HDI index, and also do well in international business.

There's only one thing that you need for a welfare state though, that you can't get done in the US: a progressive tax system with pretty high tax rates. Once you've got the people behind that, you can make sure you both have a social safety net, good healthcare, good schools etc., and be more business friendly than the US is right now. If there's anything that scandinavian governments have shown by now is that you can have both a welfare state and be pro business.

Sadly though, there's nothing americans are more afraid of than taxes.

[AvalonXQ]

Sadly though, there's nothing americans are more afraid of than taxes.

Terrorists.

[Ladewig]

I can't find the poll at the Harris website.

Does anyone have a good citation for this poll?

[Lurker]

Avalon, so can you please post the portion of the legislation that leads you to believe that our employer provided healthcare will change?

Surely you are not basing this on a hunch, right?

AvalonXQ, I see you are back. Still patiently waiting for your quote from legislation that shows govt takeover of company provided insurance.

It would be illogical for you to just assume this conclusion without evidence so I assume you have it.

Thanks!

[Ziggurat]

I'm skeptical. I think the right wing of the GOP is crazy, but not that crazy.

I think this story (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/harris_poll_obama_not_a_polari.html) may be about the same poll. If so, this is the important bit: "These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,576 adults surveyed online between Jan. 18 and 25, 2010, by Harris Interactive."

What's the reliability of online surveys? Basically zero. It's not a random sample, it's a self-selected sample. So there's no way to tell if the poll attracted a disproportionate number of wingnuts, or even if the poll got gamed by people who wanted to make it look like there are lots of wingnuts out there.

Edit: the bottom of that page links to the actual poll questions and results. No antichrist question on there. In fact, no question even resembling that. It's possible that this isn't the same survey, or it's possible that this survey is being wildly misrepresented. In the former case, though, I'd still bet it's an online survey, so the results would still be meaningless.

Edit 2: I think this (http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=36819&GoTopage=1&Category=1777&BzID=1963&t=30) is the poll in question. At least, the respondent number (2320) almost matches the claimed number (2230), the difference possibly being a simple typo. And it's also the most recent Harris poll about Obama. That page doesn't list all the questions asked, but it does confirm that it was an online poll, with this little (but important) disclaimer: "Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated."

[ponderingturtle]

Terrorists.

No taxes wins. It is not like people would accept higher taxes to fight the war on terror.

[AvalonXQ]

No taxes wins. It is not like people would accept higher taxes to fight the war on terror.

I think they would have on September 20th, 2001.

[ponderingturtle]

I think they would have on September 20th, 2001.

The world will never know.

[DrBaltar]

No. the GOP propaganda machine is what has polarized the USA.
Your statement doesn't hold water. In case you haven't noticed, opposition to national health care is bipartisan, not support for national health care.

[DrBaltar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Obama does not want to let people die in the street, or go bankrupt paying their health-care bills. So clearly, he is a Socialist anti-Christ.

:)




Show me a poll that says republicans want people to die in the street and go bankrupt paying their health-care bills.

That ridiculous statement aside, he definitely wants to move America towards socialism. It's so blindingly obvious at this point that his supporters no longer deny it.

The American public overwhelmingly voted for Socialism when they elected President Obama.

w7JNbauwGPY

[Region Rat]

AvalonXQ, I see you are back. Still patiently waiting for your quote from legislation that shows govt takeover of company provided insurance.

It would be illogical for you to just assume this conclusion without evidence so I assume you have it.

Thanks!

Lurker, while you're patiently waiting for a response from AvalonXQ, I'd like to interject this:

I haven't seen anything regarding a government takeover of employer plans (as I'm sure you haven't), but even that being the case, the new plan will certainly affect my employer plan indirectly.

My company is self insured, and uses Anthem only as the administrator of the plan. All payouts come from the company budget. My company tried to get ahead of the rising health costs years ago and developed and instituted an employee managed health care system. We have a 'high deductable' plan, with the company picking up the first portion of the deductable, the employee picking up the remaining portion of the deductable, and then full coverage from that point on for the rest of the year. No co-pays, no co-insurance after the deductable.

In my case, for a family of 4, the deductable is $2700, with the company picking up the first $1100. So, I am on the hook for $1600 if I have medical expenses totalling at least $2700 for the year. The incentive for the employee management is that if I manage my costs and do not exceed the first $1100 of the deductable, that amount is rolled over and added to the next years $1100, which lessens my exposure for the year. If my costs for 2009 were only $1000, I would have a rollover of $100, so the company would be putting up $1200 for 2010 and I would have an exposure of $1500. One big thing puts you over, but I did have a year where I had a rollover.

This is considered a cadillac plan in the health care bill, so starting in 2014, my company (non union) will be required to pay an 8% tax on the company payroll, which will total approx $5MM. The total spending for medical expenses (not dental or mental) was $11MM last year. We've already been put on notice that the comapny cannot afford to keep our plan as is and pay the tax, so there will be drastic changes, which will most likely cause me to pay some up front costs regardless of my expenses, or have to pay a portion of the costs (80/20 or 90/10).

I'm not putting this out there with any expectation of sympathy for poor old me at the expense of people who don't have insurance or have poor plans. I'm just saying that there will be some changes to existing plans as a result of the new bill. Not required, but it will become a business decision by individual companies on how they handle it.

By the way, union plants don't have to pay a payroll tax for cadillac plans until 2018 I believe. That kind of sucks.

Now back to your waiting game :)

[daredelvis]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.


Incorrect. Get your story straight.
Lurker's made a claim that things won't change for him and his employer (and, by implication, me and mine); I hope he's right. I also know enough about the legislation to strongly believe he'll be wrong, and that this legislation will result in effective government takeover of the health insurance industry. But we don't have to argue about it -- we'll see. And while I may believe Lurker is wrong, I hope he's right.

Since you are making the claim that government is going to take over your health insurance, I think it is up to you to provide specific examples of substantive changes to employer provided health insurance (Taxing does not equal taking over).

My guess is that you are talking of your talk-radio controlled orifice.

Daredelvis

[Thunder]

That ridiculous statement aside, he definitely wants to move America towards socialism. It's so blindingly obvious at this point that his supporters no longer deny it.

I didn't realize that "Soul-Glow" Al Sharpton, represented ALL Obama supporters.

Nice strawman, by the way.

And no, Obama does not plan on seizing all private property, having government own and control ALL major manufacturers, natural resources, etc.

Do you even know what Socialism is???????

[Thunder]

Your statement doesn't hold water. In case you haven't noticed, opposition to national health care is bipartisan, not support for national health care.

I believe this will change over time. Once people see all the great benefits today's new law will give them, many folks will see the light.

[Upchurch]

That ridiculous statement aside, he definitely wants to move America towards socialism. It's so blindingly obvious at this point that his supporters no longer deny it.


The American public overwhelmingly voted for Socialism when they elected President Obama.

w7JNbauwGPY

Cicero already tried to pick that out-of-context cherry (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170663). I'd advise against embarrassing yourself the way he did.

[Meadmaker]

Fact: Employer-provided health insurance is not going to change as a result of the HCR legislation. If you believe otherwise, you are incorrect and uninformed.


Yes. It will, although I believe the changes will be minor.

My employer provided plan has a lifetime cap of 1,000,000 dollars. Looks like that's gone.

My employer provided plan kicks kids off of it at age 25, but only if they are full time students. Otherwise, it's 19. Looks like that provision is modified.

My plan is based on an HSA. I currently withhold more than 3,000 dollars per year from my paycheck to pay it. I read today that there's a new $3,000 cap.

The deductible for an HSA plan changes as well. Our employer provided plan meets the deductible requirements, but only if you stay in network. The out of network deductible is larger than allowed. There was insufficient detail in the article I read to know how this was affected.

Dental coverage is optional under our plan. Dental coverage is part of the mandatory insurance coverage in the new plan.

So, I think there will be changes. Not huge, sweeping, changes, but changes.

[DrBaltar]

And no, Obama does not plan on seizing all private property, having government own and control ALL major manufacturers, natural resources, etc.

Do you even know what Socialism is???????Do you know what strawman is? Did I say Obama wants full blown socialism? I said he wants to move us towards Socialism.

I believe this will change over time. Once people see all the great benefits today's new law will give them, many folks will see the light.Perception of national health care will not improve over time. Right now people just see the benefits you're talking about. That's what Obama wants you to focus on right now so we all go, 'Gee Obama, you're real swell!' through 2012 so he can get re-elected. After 2014 people will get the bill.

Cicero already tried to pick that out-of-context cherry (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170663). I'd advise against embarrassing yourself the way he did.Ah, ok. Sorry I missed the part where Sharpton said he was kidding.

[Thunder]

well, if i read correctly, won't we now no longer have to pay co-pays for annual check ups?

[Thunder]

Do you know what strawman is? Did I say Obama wants full blown socialism? I said he wants to move us towards Socialism.

another lie.

Obama does not want to bring us towards Socialism. look up Socialism..and then tell me which economic/political/social tenets of the philosophy Obama is seeking to bring us towards.

[Meadmaker]

In my case, for a family of 4, the deductable is $2700, with the company picking up the first $1100. So, I am on the hook for $1600 if I have medical expenses totalling at least $2700 for the year. The incentive for the employee management is that if I manage my costs and do not exceed the first $1100 of the deductable, that amount is rolled over and added to the next years $1100, which lessens my exposure for the year. If my costs for 2009 were only $1000, I would have a rollover of $100, so the company would be putting up $1200 for 2010 and I would have an exposure of $1500. One big thing puts you over, but I did have a year where I had a rollover.

This is considered a cadillac plan in the health care bill,

I don't think you are correct. At least, I hope not. My plan is similar (but not quite as good) and I don't think it's a cadillac. If it is, they really need to revise their definition of cadillac.

[Upchurch]

Ah, ok. Sorry I missed the part where Sharpton said he was kidding.
No, you missed the context. Entirely.

If you want to argue the point, I recommend you take it to the other thread.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes. It will, although I believe the changes will be minor.

My employer provided plan has a lifetime cap of 1,000,000 dollars. Looks like that's gone.

My employer provided plan kicks kids off of it at age 25, but only if they are full time students. Otherwise, it's 19. Looks like that provision is modified.

My plan is based on an HSA. I currently withhold more than 3,000 dollars per year from my paycheck to pay it. I read today that there's a new $3,000 cap.

The deductible for an HSA plan changes as well. Our employer provided plan meets the deductible requirements, but only if you stay in network. The out of network deductible is larger than allowed. There was insufficient detail in the article I read to know how this was affected.

Dental coverage is optional under our plan. Dental coverage is part of the mandatory insurance coverage in the new plan.

So, I think there will be changes. Not huge, sweeping, changes, but changes.

My employer tells me that the health insurance costs he pays for have already been increasing at around 10% a year. I wonder how much higher they'll have to go for the insurance company to afford these changes -- and at what point the company won't be able to afford to cover us the way they do now.

[Cleon]

My employer tells me that the health insurance costs he pays for have already been increasing at around 10% a year. I wonder how much higher they'll have to go for the insurance company to afford these changes -- and at what point the company won't be able to afford to cover us the way they do now.

Wait, you still have a private health insurance company? I thought Obama was taking over the health care industry?

[AvalonXQ]

Wait, you still have a private health insurance company? I thought Obama was taking over the health care industry?

Yeah, but we dug a moat around the office. It'll take him a while to get in. ;)

[psychictv]

Ah, ok. Sorry I missed the part where Sharpton said he was kidding.

He wasn't kidding. And it's not his fault that you can't follow simple logic.

[Cleon]

Yeah, but we dug a moat around the office. It'll take him a while to get in. ;)

yeah... :rolleyes:

[DrBaltar]

another lie.

Obama does not want to bring us towards Socialism. look up Socialism..and then tell me which economic/political/social tenets of the philosophy Obama is seeking to bring us towards.


Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Part 1 and 2b, Chavez says it best... "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right."
Part 3, can you say Redistribution of Wealth?

[DrBaltar]

He wasn't kidding. And it's not his fault that you can't follow simple logic.
You must find yourself in awkward situations a lot for failing to recognize sarcasm.

[Upchurch]

You must find yourself in awkward situations a lot for failing to recognize sarcasm.
He's referring to your inability to parse the interview with Sharpton.

[DrBaltar]

He's referring to your inability to parse the interview with Sharpton.

Thanks Upchurch, but I saw what he wrote.

[Region Rat]

I don't think you are correct. At least, I hope not. My plan is similar (but not quite as good) and I don't think it's a cadillac. If it is, they really need to revise their definition of cadillac.


According to my HR department, we have a cadillac plan. Or so they claim.

It looks like we have until 2014 to find out for sure.

[Upchurch]

Didn't want you to get all confused. You know, with the words, the way you do.

[WildCat]

hm.... any link to the original Harris poll?

I don't know how creditable this sounds.
If it hasn't already been said, here's the Harris Poll web site: http://www.harrispollonline.com/

I suspect their polls include only people who have joined that site.

[psychictv]

You must find yourself in awkward situations a lot for failing to recognize sarcasm.

I do! Thanks for noticing. And because of that you might have to explain to me what that has to do with the logic of Sharpton's statement. :confused:

[ponderingturtle]

Show me a poll that says republicans want people to die in the street and go bankrupt paying their health-care bills.

They don't want it, but they don't care enough to do anything about it. And they will do everything to prevent others from doing anything about it.

[tyr_13]

I give the American people a lot more credit than you do. Both sides had over a year to sell their side. A majority of the American people said no. This was ignored. I don't know how much more you can polarize further the ideological gap in this country.

DDWW


The highlighted part is at best a disingenuous over simplification and at worst a lie. When polled about 'Obamacare' they rejected it, but when polled about the actual content they overwhelmingly supported it. This does seem to support the idea that the GOP talking points really were the source of the conflict because the people really did want what was passed it would seem.


EDIT: Back on topic, useless poll is useless.

[Unabogie]

The highlighted part is at best a disingenuous over simplification and at worst a lie. When polled about 'Obamacare' they rejected it, but when polled about the actual content they overwhelmingly supported it. This does seem to support the idea that the GOP talking points really were the source of the conflict because the people really did want what was passed it would seem.


EDIT: Back on topic, useless poll is useless.

No to mention, when asked WHY they opposed it, a good percentage opposed it because it didn't go far enough. If you add up "support it" and "want more" it is almost always a majority.

So the meme that it was too liberal is just a lie.

[Unabogie]

Oh, and Gallup has a new poll (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/gallup-americans-now-view-health-plan-favorably/)

As you may know, yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that restructures the nation’s healthcare system. All in all, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Congress passed this bill?
Good thing 49%
Bad thing 40%
Don’t know 11%

[Upchurch]

If it hasn't already been said, here's the Harris Poll web site: http://www.harrispollonline.com/

I suspect their polls include only people who have joined that site.

Yeah, that's what my Google Fu turned up as well. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt that maybe there was another group with a similar name or something.

If this is the group that conducted the poll, I would rate it (generously) as maybe slightly more scientific than a poll on one of our threads. Including the Planet X option.

Don't believe everything you read going through the tubes, kids.

[daredelvis]

Your Sharpton quote is not quite as accurate at the quote below.

republicans want people to die in the street and go bankrupt paying their health-care bills.


That was pretty easy. I didn't even have to search your posts as you provided an excellent example in the same post where quote Sharpton out of context.

Daredelvis

[Spindrift]

I can't find the poll at the Harris website.

Does anyone have a good citation for this poll?

I'd be interested in the wording of the poll. My wife is a registered Republican and received a "poll" in the mail, which was just a thinly disguised fundraiser.

Here are some of the questions, classic push polling:

Do you believe the huge, costly Democrat-passed stimulus bill has been effective in creating jobs or stimulating America's economy?

Do you think the record trillion dollar federal deficit the Democrats are creating with their out-of-control spending is going to have disastrous consequences for our nation?

Do you support the Obama Administration's efforts to grant amnesty and American citizenship to illegal immigrants presently living within our borders?

Do you believe the Obama Administration is right in dramatically scaling back our nation's millitary?

I'm sure this was pretty effective in riling up the base and getting donations out of them. As far as gathering any kind of reliable polling data, I kind of doubt it.

[BeAChooser]

lies about death panels, govt. money for illegal immigrants, etc..have contributed to the dynamic of division and mistrust.


LOL! As I pointed out to skeptical, perhaps liberals/progressives/socialists/communists/democrats shouldn't have let Obama get away with stating back in his May 2009 Health Care press conference that his programs reduced a predicted 10 year additional debt from $9.3 trillion to $7.1 trillion, when the facts clearly showed that the $9.3 trillion figure he cited came from a CBO estimate of added debt that included the effect of his programs and from a CBO report which clearly stated that had Obama done nothing (i.e., left things "under current law") the additional debt would have only been $4.4 trillion dollars, not $9.3 trillion. THAT is why there is mistrust and division. The LIES and LIES and LIES that came from the Obama administration and top democrats.

Maybe death panels wouldn't have been mentioned by some conservatives if democrats hadn't put language into their bills that opened up the possibility of rationing and just that sort of decision making. Maybe it wouldn't have been a concern if stories like this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-the-NHS.html , weren't fairly commonplace in UHC countries. As they say, in the United Kingdom, the death panel goes by the acronym "NICE."

The truth is that cries of "death panels" came from a small minority of conservatives (not that they were necessarily wrong, in my opinion). The majority of republicans stayed away from such language … perhaps feeling it was counter productive. It was the democrat's own fault for engaging that minority, for putting them in center stage, rather than ignoring them and engaging the majority alone. It was the mainstream media that put the focus on "death panels". They are the ones who wouldn't leave it alone. Because they thought they could use that to discredit the other side completely. That way, they didn't have to talk about the more serious messages of the conservatives and the alternatives they were proposing to Obamacare.

Obama went out of his way, WAAAY out of his way, time and time and time again, to get the GOP on board with this effort.

LOL! Democrats shut the conservative majority (who weren't ranting about death panels and communism) out of White House and Congressional deliberations over what the health care bills would look like very early last year. Long before "death panels" and illegal immigrants were raised as a concern.

Democrats have noone to blame but themselves for the political disaster they are now staring in the face in coming elections. They chose to spend almost a year and a half making something that most Americans ranked well down in their list of concerns and priorities, their number one issue. They chose to stake all their political capital on a health care bill that most Americans said they didn't want, rather than effectively dealing with the economy, Iran, and the problems that actually do rank high in the priority of Americans. They will rue Black Sunday.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.Absolute baloney.

Universal access is not synonymous with government in charge. You have been duped by Republic* talking points.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would agree that President Obama has further polarized America, rather than being the healer and bringing us together.

His future work will determine if this will be his legacy.


DDWW
So it's Obama's fault the Republics* decided to try to make health care reform, "his Waterloo", and stuck to this sleazy political tactic in spite of every effort to include them in the negotiations on the health care bill?

What is wrong with you right wingers? How can you fall for such obvious marketing of campaign slogans like the false one claiming the Republics* have been shut out of everything?

[Skeptic Ginger]

by the way, Barack Obama may not be a Socialist, but he does indeed share the views of many European Social-Democrats. They, like myself, believe in a strong welfare state..within the realm of a free-market economy with strong consumer protections, environmental safeguards, etc.You make the mistake of using vocabulary which can be distorted by the right wing. Welfare state will never mean to the right wing what it means to you. Why not use something less exploitable? As it is the Republics* use every communication trick they can to mislead the public.

Use their words, a compassionate state. That is unless you don't mind feeding the ignorance beast.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I give the American people a lot more credit than you do. Both sides had over a year to sell their side. A majority of the American people said no. ...
DDWWIn unscientific polls which did not distinguish any details, those who wanted more heath care and those who wanted less were lumped together. The Republics* have latched on to the total and toss it around like a fake mantra.

Let's at least be honest here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I saw the speech. It was as dismissive of even the possibility of Republican ideas as Obama could have reasonably been.
The Dems consistently put together this bill behind closed doors without inviting Republicans into the room. To assert that the Dems were soliciting genuine bipartisan input is a serious rewrite of history.This is another completely false accusation. The only Party which actually practiced such tactics was the Republic* Party when they literally drafted large budget bills in meetings where only Republics* were allowed in the room, then forced votes on the drafted bills the very next day when no one had any time to read what was in them.

The Republics* actually practiced this tactic, also passing large bills via "Reconciliation" maneuvers. There were even times the Republics* refused to allow Democratic Party members to hold Congressional investigations by locking them out of meeting rooms, and turning the power off to the room when the Democratic meetings were organized.

You are dismissing without evidence Obama's claim there are many Republic* Party amendments in the final bill. Do you have some evidence this was a lie?

Because here is the evidence Obama spoke the truth and it is the Republics* who lie lie lie and then lie some more.

Slate, in July 2009 (http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/)197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. Yet many of the GOP amendments on this incomplete list do seem pretty substantive. For example, one amendment offered by Oklahoma's Tom Coburn requires members of Congress and their staff to enroll in the government-run health insurance program. Another, sponsored by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, would "establish an auto advisory council to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury regarding how best to represent the taxpayers of the United States as the majority owner of General Motors." An amendment written by North Carolina's Richard Burr requires that "a private plan would be exempt from any federal or state requirement related to quality improvement and reporting if the community health insurance option is not subject to the specific requirement."
The list goes on. An amendment from Mike Enzi of Wyoming promises "to protect pro-patient plans and prevent rationing." Another of his would "prohibit the government run plan from limiting access to end of life care." An amendment from New Hampshire's Judd Gregg "requires all savings associated with follow-on biologics to go towards deficit reduction."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your statement doesn't hold water. In case you haven't noticed, opposition to national health care is bipartisan, not support for national health care.The majority of Democratic Party members are for the plan and the majority of independents and Republics* are against it according to this March 21, 2010 Rasmussen poll report (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform).The partisan divide remains constant as well. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 87% of Republicans are opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% are in favor, and 59% are opposed.

Considering the campaign of misinformation, I'm with Obama when he suggests people wait and see what the actual bill includes. Then we'll see what the polls show.

[DrBaltar]

They don't want it, but they don't care enough to do anything about it. And they will do everything to prevent others from doing anything about it.Not true. Conservatives support a number of charities.

[Meadmaker]

So it's Obama's fault the Republics* decided to try to make health care reform, "his Waterloo", and stuck to this sleazy political tactic in spite of every effort to include them in the negotiations on the health care bill?

What is wrong with you right wingers? How can you fall for such obvious marketing of campaign slogans like the false one claiming the Republics* have been shut out of everything?

I have to concur.

I was watching the House action on C-SPAN Sunday night and when John Boehner started babbling about this I thought he was on drugs. It was such a ridiculous claim. However, ridiculous or not, a lot of people bought it.

I just wish I could get inside his head and see if he is lying or delusional.

[Meadmaker]

According to my HR department, we have a cadillac plan. Or so they claim.

It looks like we have until 2014 to find out for sure.

Not likely. I looked it up. Under the newly passed bill, a cadillac plan has a premium greater than 8,500. (I think that's per family.) The reconcilliation bill would increase that number to over 10,000.

My HSA plan, which is what I assume you have, has a very low premium, and a very high deductible.

Our company actually offers three different plans. One of them, the "high option" plan, might be in the cadillac range.

[ponderingturtle]

Absolute baloney.

Universal access is not synonymous with government in charge. You have been duped by Republic* talking points.

No they know that the goverment through regulation already controls all business with things like accounting laws, enviromental regulation(damn you Nixon you socialist), OSHA and such. They just like pretending that it isn't and so that changing regulations is some take over because it sells so well.

[Lurker]

The truth is that cries of "death panels" came from a small minority of conservatives (not that they were necessarily wrong, in my opinion). The majority of republicans stayed away from such language … perhaps feeling it was counter productive. It was the democrat's own fault for engaging that minority, for putting them in center stage, rather than ignoring them and engaging the majority alone. It was the mainstream media that put the focus on "death panels".

Hmm, Sarah Palin seems to be a major figure in the conservative camp. Not sure why, but she seems to be considered this generation's Ronald Reagan by many. If I recall, she was promoting "death panels".

[ponderingturtle]

Not true. Conservatives support a number of charities.

Which of course accomplishes nothing. So you really don't care about the effect, but because they feel somewhat bad, but not enough to do anything that will impact peoples lives that is supposed to count?

Clearly a very protestant view and not catholic. Faith in the charity system is more important that doing anything that is actually going to help most of those who are dying every year from the failures of our current health care system. Its faith over good works.

[pgwenthold]

Not likely. I looked it up. Under the newly passed bill, a cadillac plan has a premium greater than 8,500. (I think that's per family.) The reconcilliation bill would increase that number to over 10,000.

My HSA plan, which is what I assume you have, has a very low premium, and a very high deductible.

Our company actually offers three different plans. One of them, the "high option" plan, might be in the cadillac range.

Tangentially related to your post, so I'll reply here:

I was listening to Andrew Rubin on Dr Radio yesterday. He is the financial officer at NYU Med School hospital, and knows an awful lot about healthcare costs and insurance. He has actually READ the bill, and in fact, knows what's in it (including enough to say "The bill doesn't address the details of that, but has provisions to look into them.") He was taking calls from listeners, which were mainly "How is the new law going to affect me?" with their situation.

It was very impressive. For pretty much every question, the answer was very positive, with people being much better off than they were before. There was not a single person for whom he said, "It's going to be worse for you." Things like, NO, small business will not be REQUIRED to have health insurance for their employees, but will, in fact, get a tax credit if they choose to do so. The two questions that got the most disappointing answers (for the callers, that is) were

1) a woman who is in the top 10% of national earners found out her husband, who does not work and does not file income tax, will not be eligible to get government subsidies to participate in the exchanges (just to be clear: she earns in the greater than 90th percentile, and wanted her husband to get government assistance).
2) a woman who's family income was $178K and was paying $15/year for an ACTUAL "cadillac" plan - the highest level coverage possible from BC-BS (everything covered, no deductable) for the family of 4 would not get any monetary benefit, and would only benefit from the guaranteed security and insurance protections. Then she asked why, if that's all that was done, why did it have to be so complicated (maybe because it wasn't written for YOU?)

There was the standard "what has the government ever taken over that worked?" crap, but Rubin handled it great. I would have just said, "You mean besides medicare and the VA?" but he pointed out that, actually, the government is NOT taking over medicine. It is only changing the way we pay for it. In particular, the bill puts huge responsibility on _health care providers_ to make it more efficient and cheaper. Basically, as Rubin says, "If we don't do it better, they won't pay us!" Of course, he also points out that in his hospital, 30% of the cost is covered by medicare, so it's not like government isn't already involved (some places it can be as high as 70%).

It was very informative.

[WildCat]

Not likely. I looked it up. Under the newly passed bill, a cadillac plan has a premium greater than 8,500. (I think that's per family.) The reconcilliation bill would increase that number to over 10,000.

My HSA plan, which is what I assume you have, has a very low premium, and a very high deductible.

Our company actually offers three different plans. One of them, the "high option" plan, might be in the cadillac range.
Heh, I bet all plans are Cadillac plans by 2016 or so. Maybe sooner, have you seen all the mandatory coverage provisions of the bill? Must cover "free" preventive care, mental illnesses, and a host of other requirements. By such a policy in New York state right now, for example, and you'll pay well over $800 per month (likely over $1,000).

Mandate Cadillac plans, and then tax them!

Now, I agree that benefits should be taxed but not this way (a tax on insurance plans). Employees should have to pay income tax on benefits*, after all those buying it themselves don't get to deduct the premiums from their income.

eta: *and employers should have to pay the matching FICA taxes on them also.

[DrBaltar]

Clearly a very protestant view and not catholic. Faith in the charity system is more important that doing anything that is actually going to help most of those who are dying every year from the failures of our current health care system. Its faith over good works.

You got me, I'm not catholic lol. And I have no faith in the efficiency of government.

[ponderingturtle]

You got me, I'm not catholic lol. And I have no faith in the efficiency of government.

So you admit that your position is one of blind faith then? You say they support charities, well they do not support them enough to get the charities to actually prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths of Americans every year.

[AvalonXQ]

So you admit that your position is one of blind faith then? You say they support charities, well they do not support them enough to get the charities to actually prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths of Americans every year.

Interesting claim. You have numbers as to how many Americans would die if not for our private charities?

[WildCat]

Tangentially related to your post, so I'll reply here:

I was listening to Andrew Rubin on Dr Radio yesterday. He is the financial officer at NYU Med School hospital, and knows an awful lot about healthcare costs and insurance. He has actually READ the bill, and in fact, knows what's in it (including enough to say "The bill doesn't address the details of that, but has provisions to look into them.") He was taking calls from listeners, which were mainly "How is the new law going to affect me?" with their situation.

It was very impressive. For pretty much every question, the answer was very positive, with people being much better off than they were before. There was not a single person for whom he said, "It's going to be worse for you."
That's because people aren't asking the right questions. I note your 2 examples are of rich people who already have health insurance. This bill is supposed to extend health insurance to people who don't have it, remember? Tell me how the single person just getting by on $35k a year, who doesn't have employer-provided health insurance, will be better off under this bill.

I'm not saying he'll be worse off, but he still won't be able to afford health insurance. The poor will benefit, the rich tread water, and once again the middle class gets screwed.

[pgwenthold]

That's because people aren't asking the right questions. I note your 2 examples are of rich people who already have health insurance. This bill is supposed to extend health insurance to people who don't have it, remember? Tell me how the single person just getting by on $35k a year, who doesn't have employer-provided health insurance, will be better off under this bill.

Oh no, he answered those questions, too (remember, my two examples were those people who got the WORST answers (from their perspective)). Everyone else, including the middle class callers, had even better results.

That person, assuming he/she is employed, will be eligible to obtain insurance through the exchanges. And at that salary, I think he/she will be eligible for government subsidy, even, which will make it more affordable. The bill absolute helps them.

[DrBaltar]

So you admit that your position is one of blind faith then?

Uh wait...
You got me, I'm not catholic lol.no... doesn't seem to be there.
And I have no faith in the efficiency of government.No faith in government... no not there either.

Wow, you're pretty creative aren't you?

[DDWW]

So it's Obama's fault the Republics* decided to try to make health care reform, "his Waterloo", and stuck to this sleazy political tactic in spite of every effort to include them in the negotiations on the health care bill?

What is wrong with you right wingers? How can you fall for such obvious marketing of campaign slogans like the false one claiming the Republics* have been shut out of everything?

Never said any of that.

Don't jump to conclusions or try to add things that are not there.


Apologize.

DDWW

[ponderingturtle]

Interesting claim. You have numbers as to how many Americans would die if not for our private charities?

You are the one claiming that they are helping. And remember this is specific to charities providing health care as well.

It seems like being so proud of yourself for giving someone a hotdish to eat after their house burned down and they lost everything. Yes you did something but it doesn't give them somewhere to live of clothes to wear.

[ponderingturtle]

Uh wait...
no... doesn't seem to be there.
No faith in government... no not there either.

That was the diacotomy I was setting up. The idea that faith, yours in the ineffectiveness of goverment in everything, protestants that being right is more important than doing good.

You care about ideological purity more than helping people.

[DrBaltar]

That was the diacotomy I was setting up. The idea that faith, yours in the ineffectiveness of goverment in everything, protestants that being right is more important than doing good.

You care about ideological purity more than helping people.

Survival of the fittest works in nature. It increases the viability of the population. The fact is, we cannot afford health care and all the other welfare programs we've got going. So the debate over whether we should have it or not is moot. If our country has a positive cash flow and no deficit then that is another story entirely. That is a nation without an expiration date.

[Upchurch]

Survival of the fittest works in nature. It increases the viability of the population.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

While natural selection works on the individual level, it is also applicable on the small group and larger society levels above and beyond the basic child-parent dynamic. There is a scientific field called evolutionary psychology dedicated to the study of this.

There is a point when a successful society is more beneficial, from an evolutionary POV, to the propagation of genes than traits that are beneficial solely to the individual. Societies whose members develop altruism, for example, are ultimately more successful than those that don't even though altruism is not particularly useful to the individual member and despite the fact that it can even be detrimental to a specific individual.

So, the social Darwinism you are advocating, aside from being merely immoral, isn't even supported by the scientific literature.


The fact is, we cannot afford health care and all the other welfare programs we've got going.
Another fact is that we're already paying for the health care of those who can't afford it in the form of higher hospital bills. Hospitals don't eat the costs of those who can't pay their bills. They pass it along to those of us who do pay our bills. A system that is grossly inefficient for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that people without access to basic health care wait until they are desperately ill before seeking help. It is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" kind of thing.

[pgwenthold]

Another fact is that we're already paying for the health care of those who can't afford it in the form of higher hospital bills.

And that is just from a society standpoint. From an individual standpoint, I am also paying for the healthcare of others in my insurance plan. I pay a lot more in premiums than I recover in medical bills being paid. At least that is the way it is now. Hopefully it stays that way, but fortunately, if it doesn't, I will be covered. That's why we call it insurance.

The fundamental truth of insurance is that the well pay the medical bills of the sick.

[DrBaltar]

There is a point when a successful society is more beneficial, from an evolutionary POV, to the propagation of genes than traits that are beneficial solely to the individual. Societies whose members develop altruism, for example, are ultimately more successful than those that don't even though altruism is not particularly useful to the individual member and despite the fact that it can even be detrimental to a specific individual.
Altruism works when it motivates societies to help others in need without causing excessive harm to the society. National health care by itself certainly doesn't cause excessive harm to a society, but when we already have a debt of over $12 trillion and this president and congress adds trillion dollar welfare program after trillion dollar welfare program THATs the point when altruism becomes detrimental to society.

[Denver]

hm.... any link to the original Harris poll?

I don't know how creditable this sounds.

Here are the poll details:

Link (http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777)

[Darat]

I am astonished at the result of the poll - those figures are terrifying.

[Upchurch]

Altruism works when it motivates societies to help others in need without causing excessive harm to the society. National health care by itself certainly doesn't cause excessive harm to a society, but when we already have a debt of over $12 trillion and this president and congress adds trillion dollar welfare program after trillion dollar welfare program THATs the point when altruism becomes detrimental to society.

Evidence?

[Darat]

What is the population of the USA? Something like 400 million isn't it?

And 14% of people think he could be the anti-christ that means literally millions of people believe this :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp and a few other smilies!!

[Upchurch]

Here are the poll details:

Link (http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777)

I still don't know how valid this poll is. Given that they are referencing (read: "advertising") a book whose thesis is remarkably supported by the results of the poll, I think we have a likely push poll here. I wish they had published the questions asked in their methodology section.

[Darat]

I still don't know how valid this poll is. Given that they are referencing (read: "advertising") a book whose thesis is remarkably supported by the results of the poll, I think we have a likely push poll here. I wish they had published the questions asked in their methodology section.


It does say:

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

[Cleon]

What is the population of the USA? Something like 400 million isn't it?

And 14% of people think he could be the anti-christ that means literally millions of people believe this :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp and a few other smilies!!

Darat, you're talking about a country that has churches the size of football stadiums.

[Upchurch]

It does say:
That only speaks to their sampling, not the wording of the questions.

[Darat]

That only speaks to their sampling, not the wording of the questions.


Sorry but I can't think of any wording of a question that includes "Obama being the antichrist" that can result in a "yes" unless it is "Do you think it is totally insane to think Obama could be the antichrist?" and if only 14% answered "yes" to that... well that is even more terrifying!

[DrBaltar]

THATs the point when altruism becomes detrimental to society.

Evidence?

Are you kidding? You seriously believe it's not possible to be too altruistic? A business can start giving away stuff for free and not go bankrupt? No wait, there are no limits to altruism. A restaurant doesn't just give their food away. They pay their customers $1000 to eat there. Heck, make it a $million. Give me a break.

[Upchurch]

Are you kidding? You seriously believe it's not possible to be too altruistic? A business can start giving away stuff for free and not go bankrupt? No wait, there are no limits to altruism. A restaurant doesn't just give their food away. They pay their customers $1000 to eat there. Heck, make it a $million. Give me a break.
Really?!?

My God... You have got to get this information to Google immediately!! They're just giving away office software, voip, and web development tracking tools! THEY'LL NEVER SURVIVE...

Like I said: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Welcome to the 21st century.


What I asked for was evidence for you claim that this is the tipping point.

[DrBaltar]

Really?!?

My God... You have got to get this information to Google immediately!! They're just giving away office software, voip, and web development tracking tools! THEY'LL NEVER SURVIVE...And selling advertising space. That's not altruism, that's simple business. Try again.

[AvalonXQ]

You are the one claiming that they are helping.

I haven't made that claim. You made the claim that they're not.
I assume you have no evidence to back it up?

[quixotecoyote]

And selling advertising space. That's not altruism, that's simple business.

And yet, still works completely as a counter to your claim that businesses go bankrupt when they give things away.

This business gives things away and succeeds because it attracts people for advertisers.

The fact that it was a lousy example of 'altruism' in the first place doesn't excuse it for failing on factual grounds.

[DrBaltar]

And yet, still works completely as a counter to your claim that businesses go bankrupt when they give things away.

This business gives things away and succeeds because it attracts people for advertisers.That wasn't my exact claim. I said there is a point where you can be too altruistic. Businesses, or countries, can give things or services away, but there's a point where if they give away too much they cannot sustain themselves. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Advertisers don't give Google money because they are touched by Google's completely unselfish gift of products. That is Google's capitalist business model. They develop products and pay developers for those products with advertising dollars. Yes, it's the 21st century, but you still have to pay your bills.

[Upchurch]

What quixotecoyote said, more or less.

Back to the point:
What I asked for was evidence for you claim that this is the tipping point.

[DrBaltar]

What quixotecoyote said, more or less.

Back to the point: What I asked for was evidence for you claim that this is the tipping point.
If you're using Google as a counter example to my claim then you don't understand my claim and wouldn't understand the evidence for it either.

[Upchurch]

If you're using Google as a counter example to my claim then you don't understand my claim and wouldn't understand the evidence for it either.

:rolleyes:

There are two options: you can support your claim or you can retract it. Can you support your claim or not?

[DrBaltar]

There are two options: you can support your claim or you can retract it. Can you support your claim or not?
Here are your two options. Act like you have some understanding of what I'm claiming and we can talk, or try another topic.

[Juniversal]

What is the population of the USA? Something like 400 million isn't it?

And 14% of people think he could be the anti-christ that means literally millions of people believe this :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp and a few other smilies!!Actually about 306 million last i'd heard.

[Upchurch]

Here are your two options. Act like you have some understanding of what I'm claiming and we can talk, or try another topic.

Here is what I think you are claiming:
when we already have a debt of over $12 trillion and this president and congress adds trillion dollar welfare program after trillion dollar welfare program THATs the point when altruism becomes detrimental to society.
I'm asking for evidence that THATs the tipping point

What, specifically, do you think you are claiming?

[Darat]

Actually about 306 million last i'd heard.

Yeah I think it's the EU that is around 400 million, doesn't alter the terrifying fact that millions of USA folk apparently do belvedere that Obama may be the Antichrist!

[Ziggurat]

Yeah I think it's the EU that is around 400 million, doesn't alter the terrifying fact that millions of USA folk apparently do belvedere that Obama may be the Antichrist!

Um.... it's been pointed out repeatedly that the poll in question is not a reliable indicator of the opinions of the general population. Hell, to be honest, I wouldn't even consider polls to be a reliable indicator of the actual opinions of the respondents. Seriously, has it occurred to no one that people are often willing to say things more extreme, inflammatory, or insulting than they really believe? So you really can't fairly conclude that millions of people think he's the antichrist.

[tyr_13]

Yes, it depends on what one's definition of 'anti-christ' is. :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Yes, it depends on what one's definition of 'anti-christ' is. :rolleyes:

Nice strawman, tyr.

Imagine you get in an argument with somebody, and they call your mother a prostitute. Does that mean that they actually think that your mother performs sex acts for money? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that they have some other definition of prostitute? Nope, doesn't mean that either. It certainly indicates something, but not a literal belief about your mother's occupation.

Why should we take this poll result, with a completely unknown and self-selected sample, any more seriously? It suggests a good number of people are pissed enough to say something really nasty about Obama, but there's no reason to read anything more into it. But even the number, whatever it indicates, is ONLY the number of survey participants, not the general population. The Harris website itself indicates quite clearly that they have no real control over sampling biases.

[Darat]

...snip...

Why should we take this poll result, with a completely unknown and self-selected sample, any more seriously? It suggests a good number of people are pissed enough to say something really nasty about Obama, but there's no reason to read anything more into it. But even the number, whatever it indicates, is ONLY the number of survey participants, not the general population. The Harris website itself indicates quite clearly that they have no real control over sampling biases.


From the survey site it states that:

...snip....

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States March 1 and 8, 2010 among 2,320 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.


...snip...

[tyr_13]

Nice strawman, tyr.

Imagine you get in an argument with somebody, and they call your mother a prostitute. Does that mean that they actually think that your mother performs sex acts for money? No, it doesn't.

Now imagine that you're calmly filling out a poll....


Does it mean that they have some other definition of prostitute? Nope, doesn't mean that either. It certainly indicates something, but not a literal belief about your mother's occupation.

Not an argument, a poll ...


Why should we take this poll result, with a completely unknown and self-selected sample, any more seriously? It suggests a good number of people are pissed enough to say something really nasty about Obama, but there's no reason to read anything more into it. But even the number, whatever it indicates, is ONLY the number of survey participants, not the general population. The Harris website itself indicates quite clearly that they have no real control over sampling biases.


Now I agree that academically this poll doesn't mean anything. But come on, there are way too many people who really believe that insane stuff. There are enough, likely millions, who believe he is literally the Antichrist. You can't just stick your head in the sand and maintain that there aren't a large group of people with insane beliefs about Obama simply because some people have rational disagreements with the president.

[Ziggurat]

From the survey site it states that:Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

You highlighted the wrong part, Darat.

[willhaven]

I'm skeptical. I think the right wing of the GOP is crazy, but not that crazy.

Polls can be so badly worded sometimes that people don't take the questions seriously.For grins, here are the poll results.

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=37050&GoTopage=1&Category=1777&BzID=1963&t=30

This is the part that made me laugh the most. :D

Differences by education

These replies are also strongly correlated with education. The less education people have had the more likely they are to believe all of these statements. Consider these differences between those with no college education and those with post-graduate education:

* He is a socialist (45% and 20%)
* He wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (45% and 19%)
* He is a Muslim (43% and 9%)
* He was not born in the United States so is not eligible to be president (32% and 7%)
* He is a racist (28% and 9%)
* He is anti-American (27% and 9%)
* He is doing many of the things Hitler did (24% and 10%).

[Ziggurat]

Now I agree that academically this poll doesn't mean anything. But come on,
... I want it to mean something.

there are way too many people who really believe that insane stuff.

Sure. One is too many.

There are enough, likely millions, who believe he is literally the Antichrist.

Sorry, but you've got no source for that other than this poll, and it simply isn't reliable.

You can't just stick your head in the sand and maintain that there aren't a large group of people with insane beliefs about Obama simply because some people have rational disagreements with the president.

I didn't claim that there wasn't a "large group" with insane beliefs. But your claim isn't simply that it's a "large group" holds "insane beliefs about Obama", but that millions hold a rather specific insane belief. And you've got very slim evidence to support that claim.

[Darat]

You highlighted the wrong part, Darat.

No I really didn't.

[tyr_13]

... I want it to mean something.



Sure. One is too many.



Sorry, but you've got no source for that other than this poll, and it simply isn't reliable.



I didn't claim that there wasn't a "large group" with insane beliefs. But your claim isn't simply that it's a "large group" holds "insane beliefs about Obama", but that millions hold a rather specific insane belief. And you've got very slim evidence to support that claim.

Do your wrist hurt when you do that much hand waving?

Yeah this poll means 'nothing'. :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

No I really didn't.

Yes, Darat, you really did.

[Ziggurat]

Yeah this poll means 'nothing'. :rolleyes:

Online polls of self-selected groups pretty much always mean nothing. This is hardly a novel concept. But I guess if they flatter your preconceptions, that endows them with meaning.

[tyr_13]

Online polls of self-selected groups pretty much always mean nothing. This is hardly a novel concept. But I guess if they flatter your preconceptions, that endows them with meaning.

At least wear a wrist guard or something.

[Ziggurat]

At least wear a wrist guard or something.

If you would care to present an argument for why a self-selected group of respondents should be considered as indicative of anything other than itself, feel free to offer us your insights. Otherwise, all you've got is that you WANT this poll to be accurate, because it flatters your own prejudices. You aren't waving your hands around at all, you aren't even bothering to try to justify your position. How truly admirable of you, tyr. But go on, hurl another insult, it's all you've got.

[tyr_13]

If you would care to present an argument for why a self-selected group of respondents should be considered as indicative of anything other than itself, feel free to offer us your insights. Otherwise, all you've got is that you WANT this poll to be accurate, because it flatters your own prejudices. You aren't waving your hands around at all, you aren't even bothering to try to justify your position. How truly admirable of you, tyr. But go on, hurl another insult, it's all you've got.

Darat already highlight the parts that made me personally reverse my deceleration of useless to this poll. But you've denied that. Probably because it flatters your own prejudices to do so.

EDIT: And if you believe pointing out your handwaving is an insult, than yes, I'm insulting you.

[Ziggurat]

Darat already highlight the parts that made me personally reverse my deceleration of useless to this poll. But you've denied that. Probably because it flatters your own prejudices to do so.

No, because of the sentence immediately following what Darat highlighted. You know, the bit where they admit that they cannot control the reliability of their poll results. Correcting for gender, age, and party affiliation doesn't correct for the fact that it's still a self-selected sample. If you can't figure out why that's relevant, well, you really don't have much of a clue at all.

[tyr_13]

No, because of the sentence immediately following what Darat highlighted. You know, the bit where they admit that they cannot control the reliability of their poll results. Correcting for gender, age, and party affiliation doesn't correct for the fact that it's still a self-selected sample. If you can't figure out why that's relevant, well, you really don't have much of a clue at all.

Correcting can't correct for. That's what you just said. That's hilarious.

I'm not saying this poll is perfect, but it isn't useless at all. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that most GOPers don't know what the word 'socialism' means, but I'm not backing down from Anti-christ.

[Ziggurat]

Correcting can't correct for. That's what you just said. That's hilarious.

Correcting for one problem doesn't correct for a completely different problem. Such a simple concept, and yet it eluded you. That's not hilarious, it's sad.

[tyr_13]

Correcting for one problem doesn't correct for a completely different problem. Such a simple concept, and yet it eluded you. That's not hilarious, it's sad.

No, it being a self-selected group cannot completely invalidate the findings in this case. The group was fairly large and did control for other conflicting variables. That is why it's hilarious. You want to take one issue and make it completely negate everything else.

[Ziggurat]

The group was fairly large and did control for other conflicting variables.

That's just it: other variables. Not for the fact that it's a self-selected group. That alone makes it different from the population at large, and different in unknown ways. The Harris folks know that. They acknowledge that. It's only you (ok, Darat too) who's hiding their heads in the sand about that fact. It's a non-random sample. Therefore, there is no way of knowing how representative of the general population it actually is. Hence the disclaimer that you want to pretend doesn't exist. Either that, or you really just aren't smart enough to understand why that's significant. Which gets us back to the sad part, because one doesn't need to be very smart to understand that.

[tyr_13]

That's just it: other variables. Not for the fact that it's a self-selected group. That alone makes it different from the population at large, and different in unknown ways. The Harris folks know that. They acknowledge that. It's only you (ok, Darat too) who's hiding their heads in the sand about that fact. It's a non-random sample. Therefore, there is no way of knowing how representative of the general population it actually is. Hence the disclaimer that you want to pretend doesn't exist. Either that, or you really just aren't smart enough to understand why that's significant. Which gets us back to the sad part, because one doesn't need to be very smart to understand that.


You do realize that even 1% of the American population is millions of people right? This poll does point to a disturbing trend. I get that this poll can't prove that it really is 24% of the GOP who think that Obama may be the Antichrist, but what portion do your observations lead to? A small fringe? A large fringe? A sizable minority? Half the party?

You want to ignore the core problem because the sample of this poll is self selected. Keep your head in the sand for all I care, but don't act like it isn't a problem and expect me not to laugh.

[Thunder]

indeed. if even 1% of the USA thinks Obama is a Bolshevik, and are willing to take up arms to remove him and his government from office, we have a BIG problem.

hell, even .1% of the USA being ready & willing to take up arms against the government is a very bad thing. that's 300,000 people!!!!

[Ziggurat]

You want to ignore the core problem

The core problem is nothing new, it's got nothing to do with Obama, and it's not peculiar to the US. There are lots of stupid people in the world. That has always been the case, and it will likely to continue to be the case for quite some time to come, if not for the rest of human history. I'm not ignoring that problem, I'm just not playing chicken little about it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I just wish I could get inside his head and see if he is lying or delusional.In Boner's case, he's lying. I'm sure there are delusions in his head as well but he's on the talking points memo list serve and knows when he's repeating the Party line from the day's list.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not likely. I looked it up. Under the newly passed bill, a cadillac plan has a premium greater than 8,500. (I think that's per family.) The reconcilliation bill would increase that number to over 10,000.

My HSA plan, which is what I assume you have, has a very low premium, and a very high deductible.

Our company actually offers three different plans. One of them, the "high option" plan, might be in the cadillac range.I pay for private insurance and I pay $1,045/month. It's not a Cadillac plan, it's a "people over 55 plan".

[Skeptic Ginger]

No they know that the goverment through regulation already controls all business with things like accounting laws, enviromental regulation(damn you Nixon you socialist), OSHA and such. They just like pretending that it isn't and so that changing regulations is some take over because it sells so well.Sigh...If only it were true we wouldn't have had the last recession.

[DrBaltar]

Here is what I think you are claiming:

I'm asking for evidence that THATs the tipping point
So you're not using Google as an example of altruism? Ok... here's the evidence.

See the 2010 budget chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg).

According to this (http://cbs5.com/national/obama.2010.budget.2.944398.html) and other articles, we have a $3.55 trillion budget which is $1.75 trillion into the red. That's a staggering 49% that we have to cut in order to stop the hemorrhaging of our debt. If you add up the four welfare items of the top 5 budget items in the graph that totals to 56.74% of the budget. Even if you completely slash defense and every other item other than those 4 altruistic welfare programs we are still 6% over budget. How can we be this altruistic and solvent at the same time?

[Cicero]

The Harris Interactive online poll involved 2320 people. It was not exclusively a GOP poll. They don't identify what percentage of those in the poll were actually GOP.

2320 people = 0.00077% of the population.

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

[drkitten]

The Harris Interactive online poll involved 2320 people. It was not exclusively a GOP poll. They don't identify what percentage of those in the poll were actually GOP.

They don't need to. The sample was sufficiently messed up, by their own admission, that the numbers are gibberish:


Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

[drkitten]

So you're not using Google as an example of altruism? Ok... here's the evidence.

See the 2010 budget chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg).

According to this (http://cbs5.com/national/obama.2010.budget.2.944398.html) and other articles, we have a $3.55 trillion budget which is $1.75 trillion into the red. That's a staggering 49% that we have to cut in order to stop the hemorrhaging of our debt. If you add up the four welfare items of the top 5 budget items in the graph that totals to 56.74% of the budget. Even if you completely slash defense and every other item other than those 4 altruistic welfare programs we are still 6% over budget.

No, no evidence of any particular tipping point, then?

[Meadmaker]

So you're not using Google as an example of altruism? Ok... here's the evidence.

See the 2010 budget chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg).

According to this (http://cbs5.com/national/obama.2010.budget.2.944398.html) and other articles, we have a $3.55 trillion budget which is $1.75 trillion into the red. That's a staggering 49% that we have to cut in order to stop the hemorrhaging of our debt. If you add up the four welfare items of the top 5 budget items in the graph that totals to 56.74% of the budget. Even if you completely slash defense and every other item other than those 4 altruistic welfare programs we are still 6% over budget. How can we be this altruistic and solvent at the same time?

Hmmm.....deficit=spending-revenue.

How many ways could we lower the value of the right hand term?

[ponderingturtle]

Survival of the fittest works in nature. It increases the viability of the population. The fact is, we cannot afford health care and all the other welfare programs we've got going. So the debate over whether we should have it or not is moot. If our country has a positive cash flow and no deficit then that is another story entirely. That is a nation without an expiration date.

Good we need to get more executioners in emergency rooms and get rid of laws requiring the treatment of people just because they are dying. Now when there is a car crash, the first thing you do is not evaluate the patient, but their credit rating to determine triage.

[ponderingturtle]

What is the population of the USA? Something like 400 million isn't it?

And 14% of people think he could be the anti-christ that means literally millions of people believe this :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp and a few other smilies!!

This is an internet poll, so if it was worded differently we could find out that 88% of the population thinks he is Ron Paul, and also the best color to paint a room.

[ponderingturtle]

I haven't made that claim. You made the claim that they're not.
I assume you have no evidence to back it up?

The tens of thousands of people dying every year from preventable causes because they lack insurance is not enough?

What evidence would you accept, piles of dead bodies clearly are not enough.

[pgwenthold]

The tens of thousands of people dying every year from preventable causes because they lack insurance is not enough?

What evidence would you accept, piles of dead bodies clearly are not enough.

His own dead body?

Then again, at that point it is too late...

[DrBaltar]

No, no evidence of any particular tipping point, then?

Well the 2009 budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget) was a $3.1 trillion budget that had a deficit of $1.4 trillion, or 45% of the budget. The top 4 welfare programs there totaled to 53.5% of the budget. If you slashed all but those 4 welfare programs, that would leave 46.5%. So now we're 1.4% into the black. So 2010 is the year that we couldn't even hypothetically slash all but the 4 largest welfare programs without a deficit.

[drkitten]

Well the 2009 budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget) was a $3.1 trillion budget that had a deficit of $1.4 trillion, or 45% of the budget. The top 4 welfare programs there totaled to 53.5% of the budget. If you slashed all but those 4 welfare programs, that would leave 46.5%. So now we're 1.4% into the black. So 2010 is the year that we couldn't even hypothetically slash all but the 4 largest welfare programs without a deficit.

So, no. No evidence, but lots of rhetoric.

[Upchurch]

Pretty much. We have the current (actually previous year's) financial situation, but nothing to indicate that this is the tipping point.

[DrBaltar]

Good we need to get more executioners in emergency rooms and get rid of laws requiring the treatment of people just because they are dying. Now when there is a car crash, the first thing you do is not evaluate the patient, but their credit rating to determine triage.

It's a sad story. But math can be a bitch sometimes. We don't have the money.

[DrBaltar]

So, no. No evidence, but lots of rhetoric.

Ah, sorry. Did I loose you with all that math?

[Cicero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Obama does not want to let people die in the street, or go bankrupt paying their health-care bills. So clearly, he is a Socialist anti-Christ.

:)




http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b56/Polythemus/fail-owned-action-comics-fail.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b56/Polythemus/?action=view&current=fail-owned-action-comics-fail.jpg)

[drkitten]

Ah, sorry. Did I loose you with all that math?

Not at all. You lost yourself in the math and didn't realize you needed to provide relevant math.

[drkitten]

Pretty much. We have the current (actually previous year's) financial situation, but nothing to indicate that this is the tipping point.

But, he was supposed to blind both of us with Science!? What happened?

[pgwenthold]

Not at all. You lost yourself in the math and didn't realize you needed to provide relevant math.

Do you know how big a trillion dollars is? Using a value of 0.11 mm for the thickness of a dollar bill, a stack of a trillion dollars would be a stack 235 feet tall!!!!!!!!!

And 13 trillion, our current deficit, would be a stack of $1 bills that is more than 3000 feet tall, taller than the tallest buildings on the planet!

We can't afford so much debt!!!!!

(how's that for irrelevant math to prove the point?)

[ponderingturtle]

It's a sad story. But math can be a bitch sometimes. We don't have the money.

So are we keeping these huge tax cuts if we are so strapped for cash? And you need to agitate for changed in the laws to make it legal to throw people out in the street to die because they are poor.

Make your class warfare explicit.

[Darat]

This is an internet poll, so if it was worded differently we could find out that 88% of the population thinks he is Ron Paul, and also the best color to paint a room.

An internet poll in the sense that the Harris one is is no different to a telephone poll, postal or face-to-face one. It isn't an open webpage that anyone can just go in and click on. I do the "internet poll" for YouGov and they select people for each poll and they have been as accurate as many other polling companies such as Gallop and Harris over the last few years.

[Lurker]

It's a sad story. But math can be a bitch sometimes. We don't have the money.

OK, I assume you have said that for every budget back to 1960 (except '98-'01 and 1969). Every year a deficit. We don't have the money.

Ah, sorry. Did I loose you with all that math?

Well, you sure didn't lose him with the English. :)

(sorry, pet peeve)

[DrBaltar]

OK, I assume you have said that for every budget back to 1960 (except '98-'01 and 1969). Every year a deficit. We don't have the money.We've had a debt since before 1960, but yeah, I would say by then we should have realized that we don't seem to be making any progress on paying it off.

Well, you sure didn't lose him with the English. :)

(sorry, pet peeve)Oh did I write 'loose'? Usually eye am knot sew careless. Eye half a spelling checker that normally catches any miss steaks eye didn't sea. Sorry fore the mist ache.

[Skeptic Ginger]

An internet poll in the sense that the Harris one is is no different to a telephone poll, postal or face-to-face one. It isn't an open webpage that anyone can just go in and click on. I do the "internet poll" for YouGov and they select people for each poll and they have been as accurate as many other polling companies such as Gallop and Harris over the last few years.But an internet poll typically surveys the people who find the site on their own. Like TV polls, they only reflect the viewers. Phone polls are random though they now often miss the younger population segment which only have cell phones and no land lines and they've always missed people who decline to participate.

Regardless, an online poll has to be getting a less random population segment than a phone poll.

I'm not sure how your YouGov poll is as accurate as the major polling companies. I'm skeptical but by all means show us how it is they get a random sample and I'll reconsider.

[Darat]

But an internet poll typically surveys the people who find the site on their own.

...snip...

You do not understand what an "internet poll" is in this sense. All they mean is that they conducted the poll via the internet not that they had a little box on one of their pages that says "click here if you think Obama is the antichrist".

In other words it is just like when a polling company calls people, or sends them a postal survey.

[ponderingturtle]

You do not understand what an "internet poll" is in this sense. All they mean is that they conducted the poll via the internet not that they had a little box on one of their pages that says "click here if you think Obama is the antichrist".

In other words it is just like when a polling company calls people, or sends them a postal survey.

How do they get their list of names to randomly select people? There is no phone book or total address listings for the internet, so if they started with a biased list to select from, they will get biased results.

[Darat]

A "random" poll would not return reliable results - why would you want to run a poll that does not (or cannot be weighted) to account for the actual demographics of the population you are wanting to poll?

[ponderingturtle]

A "random" poll would not return reliable results - why would you want to run a poll that does not (or cannot be weighted) to account for the actual demographics of the population you are wanting to poll?

So where did they get their list of names or email addresses then? You can include demographic questions and weight them after of course. But if they started with a sample that was highly biased they will get highly biased results

[Darat]

So where did they get their list of names or email addresses then? You can include demographic questions and weight them after of course. But if they started with a sample that was highly biased they will get highly biased results

I don't know, my point was the idea that just because a poll was run via the internet does not mean it can be discounted especially since many folk against the poll seem to think it's like a poll on the front page of a website.

The company I know most about in the UK has (apparently) a database of around 300,000 people that they poll from, they filter that database to represent the demographic they want to poll for.

[Nickolai_88]

Um, silly question but whats an anti-christ?

[Darat]

It's part of Christian mythology - generally given as the person/being that will bring about the apocalypse (end of earthly existence).

[ponderingturtle]

Um, silly question but whats an anti-christ?

See christ is a fundamentalist particle in the universe, who some call the god particle. Now if it is thought of as a fermion then it would need to have an antiparticle of some kind, in this case that is the anti christ. If christ and antichrist meet I would expect them to explode in a massive explosion of belief.

[drkitten]

I don't know, my point was the idea that just because a poll was run via the internet does not mean it can be discounted especially since many folk against the poll seem to think it's like a poll on the front page of a website.

Yes, but when the poll company itself says that the poll can be discounted, I'm inclined to take them at their word:


Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Harris acknowledges this is a self-selected poll.

Harris states forthrightly that they can't even estimate the sampling error.

What possible reason can you have for giving the numbers any credence at all?

[Darat]

Yes, but when the poll company itself says that the poll can be discounted, I'm inclined to take them at their word:



Harris acknowledges this is a self-selected poll.

Harris states forthrightly that they can't even estimate the sampling error.

What possible reason can you have for giving the numbers any credence at all?

That applies to all voluntary polls, since all such polls are based on the people that have agreed to answer the pollster's questions.

[Captain.Sassy]

heh

Remember when that lady was like
"I've been reading about Obama, and he's an Arab..."

and then McCain snatched the mic from her and was all like
"No he's not, he's a good person."

lol.

[Nickolai_88]

So, an anti-christ is an atheist then? That doesn't sound so bad, I mean I'm an atheist and I would assume most skeptics are.

[drkitten]

That applies to all voluntary polls, since all such polls are based on the people that have agreed to answer the pollster's questions.

Then how come other voluntary polls -- including voluntary polls run by Harris -- can have estimates of sampling error, but this one, by their own admission, cannot?

Why are you arguing that this poll is like all the other ones that Harris runs when they themselves say it isn't?

[Darat]

So, an anti-christ is an atheist then? That doesn't sound so bad, I mean I'm an atheist and I would assume most skeptics are.

I doubt the anti-christ does not believe in Christ!

[Nickolai_88]

I doubt the anti-christ does not believe in Christ!

I'm confused, whats an anti-Christ then? And why do Republicans think the President is one.

[Darat]

Then how come other voluntary polls -- including voluntary polls run by Harris -- can have estimates of sampling error, but this one, by their own admission, cannot?

Why are you arguing that this poll is like all the other ones that Harris runs when they themselves say it isn't?

Because that is not what they say:

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=37111&GoTopage=1&Category=1777&BzID=1963&t=30

...snip...

Q. As with most newsworthy and controversial polls, some people don't seem to like the answers and if you don't like the message, the easiest thing to do is to shoot the messenger. What criticisms have you heard?

A. Critics of our poll have focused on two issues: our online methodology and the way we asked questions. Enough has been written about our online methodology that there is nothing much to add here. However, I would remind readers that we believe the accuracy of our online polls because they have proved to be, on average, more accurate than telephone polls in the more than fifty elections where there are head-to-head comparisons.


...snip...

[Darat]

I'm confused, whats an anti-Christ then? And why do Republicans think the President is one.

See Antichrist.

[Captain.Sassy]

I'm confused, whats an anti-Christ then? And why do Republicans think the President is one.

50% religious fundamentalism, 50% mental retardation.

[ponderingturtle]

Here is a video that addresses why many people might believe these things

PP0AY4PNVlg

[Skeptic Ginger]

Progress, (if the polls are comparable), 40 percent of Fox News focus group believes President Obama is a Muslim (Video) (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/40-of-fox-news-focus-group-believes-president-obama-is-a-muslim-video)


Here's the transcript (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Feb/08/analysis_with_frank_luntz.html) on Real Clear Politics.


I'm sure this made Luntz proud (not the progress, just the fact he's been part of such a successful campaign to deceive).

[TraneWreck]

Obama is a socialist with respect to health care, because he wants the government in charge of American health care.

There is no new government insurance provider. All insurance will be given by private companies.

How is that a "government takeover?"

If I passed a bill that said (setting aside the Constitutional issue), "Everyone needs to buy at least one McDonald's burger a week," that would be a "government takeover" of McDonald's?

[A Laughing Baby]

There is no new government insurance provider. All insurance will be given by private companies.

How is that a "government takeover?"

If I passed a bill that said (setting aside the Constitutional issue), "Everyone needs to buy at least one McDonald's burger a week," that would be a "government takeover" of McDonald's?

Dude. That post is nearly a year old.

[TraneWreck]

Dude. That post is nearly a year old.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. I thought we were on page one.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. I thought we were on page one.

Oh well, c'est la vie.Sorry, a new Fox poll was just reported on and I thought it was best to bump the old thread rather than starting a new one. I got a chuckle out of your post since I've done it so many times myself.