WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although several parts of the Affordable Care Act have yet to be implemented, 23% of Americans say the healthcare law has hurt them or their families, while 10% say it has helped them so far. Still, the majority of Americans (63%) feel the law has had no impact on them or their families.

This update is from Gallup polling conducted between Feb. 28 and March 2, just prior to the Obama administration’s announcement this week that insurance companies will be able to delay until next year the requirement that they cancel or replace policies that don’t conform to the provisions of the law often referred to as “Obamacare.”

The 23% who feel the law has hurt them is the highest percentage for the question since Gallup began asking Americans about it in 2012, and is up from 19% in previous polling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167756/number...nches.aspx

Redistribution of wealth. Doomed to failure. Just like anything Zero touches. Reverse Midas Touch President.

What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

Only one in ten of uninsured people have gotten insurance under Obamacare. What a great reason to destroy the health system in this country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/h...story.html

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

Why? Dirty Harry will just take to the senate floor and call them liars.

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

Increasingly for the rest of this year and 2015-'16, I think the media focus will be on that.

. . . and there is a huge difference between "having coverage" and "getting healthcare". just wait until the people with the crappy policies and spaghetti thin physician networks start trying to actually see a doctor.

it's only march. there is more fail to come.

(03-07-2014 03:41 PM)EagleX Wrote:  . . . and there is a huge difference between "having coverage" and "getting healthcare". just wait until the people with the crappy policies and spaghetti thin physician networks start trying to actually see a doctor.

it's only march. there is more fail to come.

Exactly.

But the left will provide a patch for this too: incapable physicians, who get pushed through college and med school b/c racism.

And alternatives will get more coverage too: if you like your shaman, you can keep your shaman.

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

I don't think your analysis is totally correct since it has also been noted that not many of the uninsured have picked up coverage.

The 10% helped may include a large number of 21-26 year olds who have been able to stay on their parents' policies. Also, the "no pre-existing condition" clause allows people who couldn't get insurance to get it now. Again, those folks were clearly helped by Obamacare.

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

ACA was originally sold during a serious recession as a cost control bill. it was a complete and total lie, but that's what we were told. remember "bend the cost curve down"? it has always been a coverage bill, but that was one of the first of many, many lies we have been told about ACA.

(03-07-2014 04:09 PM)EagleX Wrote:  ACA was originally sold during a serious recession as a cost control bill. it was a complete and total lie, but that's what we were told. remember "bend the cost curve down"? it has always been a coverage bill, but that was one of the first of many, many lies we have been told about ACA.

IIRC, the reason it was put out there as cost control bill was so it would come under reconciliation rules and could be "deemed" passed. Scott Walker swept into office to tip the scales against ZeroCare, so they used the slaughter amendment to deem it passed. It was all procedural BS that Zero, Pelosi and Reid cooked up.

(03-07-2014 09:02 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Still, the majority of Americans (63%) feel the law has had no impact on them or their families.

Of course it has no impact if he keeps f'n delaying the damn thing. And I bet this 63% comprises those with employer provided health insurance.

(03-07-2014 04:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

I don't think your analysis is totally correct since it has also been noted that not many of the uninsured have picked up coverage.

The 10% helped may include a large number of 21-26 year olds who have been able to stay on their parents' policies. Also, the "no pre-existing condition" clause allows people who couldn't get insurance to get it now. Again, those folks were clearly helped by Obamacare.

My recommendation is about which message is stronger and harder to deflect. There are instant rebuttals to the "only 10% of Americans have benefited" approach, but few to the "a quarter of Americans are experiencing negative effects" or "ACA has hurt more than twice as many Americans than it's helped" approach.

(03-07-2014 04:16 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 04:09 PM)EagleX Wrote:  ACA was originally sold during a serious recession as a cost control bill. it was a complete and total lie, but that's what we were told. remember "bend the cost curve down"? it has always been a coverage bill, but that was one of the first of many, many lies we have been told about ACA.

IIRC, the reason it was put out there as cost control bill was so it would come under reconciliation rules and could be "deemed" passed. Scott Walker swept into office to tip the scales against ZeroCare, so they used the slaughter amendment to deem it passed. It was all procedural BS that Zero, Pelosi and Reid cooked up.

no, that was just abject parliamentary misconduct. it was sold to us as a cost control bill from the get-go. we only heard three snippets about the damn thing from the very beginning until they began to spring it on us: (a) preexisting conditions, (b) 26 year olds on mommy and daddy's insurance, and © bend the cost curve down.

reconciliation was the only way they could get it through the senate after kennedy died.

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

Wrong as wrong could be. These aren't the same 10%. This was supposed to "provide quality affordable health care for the 30 +- million people who don't have healthcare"(PP). It hasn't come remotely close to meeting that goal. Not even close.

A benefit can be classified by damn near anything. Maybe it's knocked 20 bucks a month off their premium, maybe their Dr's office is 10 minutes closer, maybe the prescrips are now 4 bucks instead of 10.

This in no way says it's provided those without health ins., that health insurance. why? Cause it hasn't. It simply says that the dims pushed through a program that was largely unnecessary, widely despised and has disrupted millions of peoples lives and will cost TRILLIONS of dollars to accomplish next to nothing.

The real take away here is pretty simple- 86% (!) of the American people have either been hurt or not helped in anyway by this monstrosity and that number being hurt is only going to grow. Quickly. All for what?

At the end of this destruction CBO still estimates there will be.... wait for it.....

30 million uninsured. So what was the point again? Sure as hell not to insure the uninsured. I suspect something a bit more nefarious.

(03-07-2014 05:59 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 04:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

I don't think your analysis is totally correct since it has also been noted that not many of the uninsured have picked up coverage.

The 10% helped may include a large number of 21-26 year olds who have been able to stay on their parents' policies. Also, the "no pre-existing condition" clause allows people who couldn't get insurance to get it now. Again, those folks were clearly helped by Obamacare.

My recommendation is about which message is stronger and harder to deflect. There are instant rebuttals to the "only 10% of Americans have benefited" approach, but few to the "a quarter of Americans are experiencing negative effects" or "ACA has hurt more than twice as many Americans than it's helped" approach.

I agree, you are totally correct. It's a matter of how you want to frame it.

(03-07-2014 05:59 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 04:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:10 AM)Hitch Wrote:  What % of Americans lacked health insurance before the ACA?

The standard talking point was "30 million uninsured" so that would have been about 8% in 2010. That does resonate because I recall one commentator stating that 90% of the people had health insurance at the time.

So 10% of Americans saying that they've experienced a benefit from a law designed to directly benefit ~10% of Americans sounds about right.

The headline shouldn't be the % of Americans that have been helped (which appears to be on target), but rather the % of Americans that have experienced harm.

I don't think your analysis is totally correct since it has also been noted that not many of the uninsured have picked up coverage.

The 10% helped may include a large number of 21-26 year olds who have been able to stay on their parents' policies. Also, the "no pre-existing condition" clause allows people who couldn't get insurance to get it now. Again, those folks were clearly helped by Obamacare.

My recommendation is about which message is stronger and harder to deflect. There are instant rebuttals to the "only 10% of Americans have benefited" approach, but few to the "a quarter of Americans are experiencing negative effects" or "ACA has hurt more than twice as many Americans than it's helped" approach.

Okay, wasn't sure where you were going with that prior statement, thought it was another lame defense of this debacle. You're talking about the messaging part of this. Fair enough.

10%? That high?
What law was ever passed that is hated worse?
Which laws. Prohibition.