April 2, 2012

61% of voters think it's likely Obamacare will be repealed.

And 54% favor repeal.

Presumably, that's repeal if the Supreme Court doesn't strike down the law, and 54% expect the Supreme Court to strike down the law, and 50% would like to see that happen. 37% would like the law upheld, and only 26% think that's going to happen. Only 20% of voters think Congress has the constitutional authority to force everyone to buy health insurance.

And here, Scott Rasmussen why the law will die even if the Supreme Court upholds the law and Obama is reelected...

Seventy-six percent [of Americans] think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.
Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change.

It's not just the idea of making the choice that drives these numbers, it's the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care. For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values. That's why an approach that increases consumer choice has solid support and a plan that relies on mandates and trusting the government cannot survive.

59 comments:

Lem said...

Spot on..

gadfly said...

I don't think we have any influence here, so why the poll? It just makes Zero appear to be lower than dirt . . .

I withdraw my question!

Michael K said...

If Obama is re-elected, it will matter little what the people want.

Bender said...

If Obama is re-elected, it will matter little what the people want

People will want what Obama tells them they want.

Carnifex said...

It won't matter because if Zero wins a second term, he will just use his presidential fiat, and take over health insurance anyway. And I'm starting to feel like we are loosing a point here. It's not and never has been about health care. There's money to be made in health care but it takes hard work.

It's about health INSURANCE. Just lay back, and every swinging nut in the country has to send the government a check. And if you don't really want to pay it out to cover old people and their needs, whatta' they gonna' do about it? Dat's right...nuttin'. They paid already so eff em'.

All that sweet liquid green. All floatin' 'round, no one using it. How could a government resist that temptation?

The older I get, the more disdain I have for politicians.

O/T

UK was able to hold off a remarkable rally by Kansas to win number 8, Baby!

Rabel said...

S. E. C. baby.

gk1 said...

I keep waiting for the democrats to save themselves but I guess they have to get their clocks cleaned in another election to get it. We don't want this fucking thing. Stop forcing it!

gmk said...

"37% would like the law upheld... Only 20% of voters think Congress has the constitutional authority to force everyone to buy health insurance."

This seems to indicate that (at least) 17% of voters think the law is unconstitutional, but want to see it upheld anyway.

I find that very disturbing.

Chip Ahoy said...

I don't know what all this whoop-de-doo is about repeeling the bomb carrot. You know you got to scrape the peel off because those things grow in the dirt! And if you don't get it all the first time you keep going and repeel it. Duh.

And if your carrots look like bombs then you need to break up your soil more completely and mix in some organic material. It sounds like your soil probably has too much clay.

T J Sawyer said...

The ultimate test for Obamacare was always going to be the premiums. The bill provides for a maximum of 3:1 ratio of premiums for old folks versus younguns. (See http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill34.pdf)

Anyone who works with healthcare premiums will tell you that the current ratios run about 7:1 or more.

The big surprise to the people in their twenties and thirties who voted for hope and change will be two-fold.

1. I have to buy health insurance?

2. It costs how much?

I have been looking forward to watch this play out and will be greatly disappointed if the show is stopped.

crosspatch said...

One major problem I have with the mandate is that it specifies what you have to buy. In other words, it would be like a mandate that everyone had to buy soda pop, but also specified how much of it and what flavor they have to buy even if you don't like that flavor.

If one is 28 years old, is healthy and single, they might want a high deductible catastrophic policy.

One other thing, off topic. My employer has offices in Europe in three different countries. I watch tonight as email reminders come in that those offices will be closed on Good Friday and I pine for the days when our country was allowed to have a culture.

Joe Schmoe said...

Don't get my hopes up.

I hope the SC tosses it all. Even if Republicans win back the WH and Senate, I don't trust them to repeal completely. They get distracted when they're in power, and instead of trying to fix things, they load up on pork.

Obama sent a warning shot across the SC bow today, saying essentially it would be unprecedented to overturn a law passed by a strong, elected majority. There are so many things wrong with his statement, but I'm up early for travel and better get going. I'll just say he's an ass.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Adding onto what Joe said, the 'unexpectedlys' just keep coming from this prez.

The attack on the integrity of the SCOTUS by Teh Won is truly historic.

Never mind that this legislation barely passed, save with a majority in 2 houses.

And he has the stones to sell it as being passed by STRONG majorities?

I hope all of you that voted for or still think this guy hung the moon are happy. An embarrassment doesn't begin to describe.

It should be interesting when Dinesh D'Souza's revelatory movie about Barry comes out this summer.

edutcher said...

This is like the death penalty being declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS when Carter was in.

The people spoke, loud and clear, and SCOTUS heard, loud and clear, and repealed the decision.

And GodZero doing his Chicago act probably pushed them that much farther.

Paco Wové said...

Crosspatch-
At the big soulless multinational I work for, employees in India get Good Friday off, but employees in the U.S. don't.

Pogo said...

If we shoot down Obamacare in self-defense, the news will call it racism.

purplepenquin said...

At the big soulless multinational I work for, employees in India get Good Friday off, but employees in the U.S. don't

Sounds like those US employees need a union. 'cause if you're working on one of your religion's most holiest of days, then obviously you're a poor negotiator.


The company is using their "collective" powers when negotiating with each individual worker, so why shouldn't the workers do so as well?

Pogo said...

In which purple assumes something not in evidence.

Fen said...

I'm laughing at the "constitutional law professor". Never occured to him that his signature policy was unconstitutional. And now he reveals his ignorance by attempting to browbeat the Supreme Court into upholding his D work.

Liberal wounds have been self-inflicted. A leader who's defects have been hidden by affirmative action. Along with media cheerleaders who have cocooned liberals from reality.

Paco Wové said...

Government-mandated holiday. Unions got nothing to do with it.

Paco Wové said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

The "constitutional law professor" must have been out playing golf the day they covered Marbury v. Madison.

Pogo said...

Nixon "...when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Obama: "When I do is, it's constitutional ."

MadisonMan said...

I keep waiting for the democrats to save themselves but I guess they have to get their clocks cleaned in another election to get it.

Yes, the loony left has the reins of the Democratic Party. Well, the pendulum will swing.

Periodically the wacky right takes the reins of the Republican Party. Then the pendulum swings.

What can an average citizen do? Not much but endure.

Roger J. said...

Interesting that the "constitutional law professor" would issue such a statement to the SCOTUS--apparently his constitutional law training failed to educate him as to the idea of separation of powers. The man is a mindless idiot, and IMO, a danger to the republic.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"What can an average citizen do? Not much but endure."

Not voting democrat party-line for the candidate in the clown suit once in awhile might help.

Freder Frederson said...

The attack on the integrity of the SCOTUS by Teh Won is truly historic.

You don't know much about history, do you. How about this or this

Roger J. said...

Freder: I would suggest your links do not address the question of the appropriateness of a president involving himself prior to a decision. Both FDRs court packing scheme, and President Jackson's dicta occurred AFTER the fact.

X said...

so this thing will be paid for by the generation that won't pay their student loans. great plan.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

RogerJ

But but but....

Of course because ole Freddie provides links it MUST be proof that my statement is WRONG.

It MUST.

Right???

I guess Teh Won wants to be first to do just about everything. After all, we are constantly reminded that he IS the first black president. No obsession with identity/race on the left, whatsoever.

X said...

John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! is right up there with How many divisions does the Pope have?

Henry said...

Freder, historic examples of a President's attack on the court are context, not refutation. Good work. You figured it out.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...

You don't know much about history, do you. How about this or this



Hysterical.

Um, you do realize the court in this case has not yet ruled, right?

So your "examples" are kind of like meaningless.

Dummy.

Henry said...

I do agree with the substance of Freder's argument that Obama's and the left's spite-fest about the Supreme Court is really nothing comparable to FDR's proposal.

It's historically petty.

bgates said...

You don't know much about history, do you

You don't know that "historic" is not a synonym for "unprecedented", do you.

Roger J. said...

For the record, while I think FDRs court packing scheme was nuts, it at least comported with the constitution. And Andrew Jackson's swipe at Marshall was consistent with separation of powers. Mr Obama's demarche is, to my way of thinking, a foolish pronouncement that underscores is total lack of awareness of separation of powers. The man is a meglamonical idiot.

bgates said...

Seventy-six percent [of Americans] think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles

I'd like to know more about the other twenty-four percent. Do they think Americans should have the right to choose between basic cable and the premium channel package? Or downloading the album on iTunes vs going to the concert?

They bother me almost as much as gmk's 17% who think the constitution doesn't matter.

greenlantern said...

@Freder Frederson: Metropolis fan , too! Just found out the Giorgio Moroder's 1984 version of Metropolis was digitally remastered it for DVD.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

All nitpicking aside, we can agree what was done is not 'routine'.

Constitutionally tone deaf? Unsurprising.

The man knows the document is one of negative rights (for good reason). It was written to safeguard against men just like him.

But, this is inconvenient for a totalitarian. So bullying tactics and intimidation must be employed.

Roger J. said...

re Mr Obama's screed about an unelected SCOTUS possibly undoing his "signature" legislation. That coupled with his SOTU attack on a SCOTUS decision. You gotta wonder what the nine unelected justices are thinking at this point in time.
Fun times ahead.

bgates said...

You gotta wonder what the nine unelected justices are thinking at this point in time.

Three or four of them are thinking, "He's right, we can't overturn this momentous legislation that they worked so hard on."

One of them is thinking, "He's right, we can't overturn this momentous legislation that I worked so hard on."

Four or five of them are mouthing, "Not true."

All you gotta wonder is whether Kennedy is in the first group or the last.

ricpic said...

Those Supremos don't have the decency to do "the human thing!"

David said...

Obama probably does not really care whether the law is sustained, as long as the dispute gets him re-elected.

Fen said...

I predict that 4-5 of them are shrugging it off and making an effort to not let Obama's insult affect their decision re the constitutionally of his D work.

I bet this is how Obama made his way through life. I expect he'll play the "but I'm black!" card any moment now.

I find it entirely appropriate that a Diversity Hire climbed to the pinnacle of Democrat leadership and then fumbled and lost the game for them. Hoist with their own petard.

Maybe next time they'll choose a candidate who's qualifications extend beyond being the right skin color.

Fen said...

"Consitutional Scholar" my ass.

Tim said...

"Maybe next time they'll choose a candidate who's qualifications extend beyond being the right skin color."

I wish I could agree, but that assumes intelligence not in evidence.

ricpic said...

No doubt about it, our alien prez, by his own words is the gold standard when it comes to judging all things decent and human.

Tim said...

"Maybe next time they'll choose a candidate who's qualifications extend beyond being the right skin color."

Indisputably, the least qualified person ever nominated by a major political party for president.

No one should ever trust any Obama voter's judgment.

Original Mike said...

"For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values."

It doesn't matter what people believe. Obama won.

cubanbob said...

What the progressives fail to understand that powers given to the federal government once given are rarely if ever rescinded. They fail to think of what those powers can do in the hands of their opponents.

Freder, purple stop and think of what a republican administration and congress could do with the powers granted to the feral government under the expanded commerce and federalism issues at stake with the ACA if ruled constitutional: in no particular order rent control laws could be swept aside, restrictive zoning laws, state minimum wage laws, state insurance mandates, state environmental laws and regulations that exceed the federal requirements, gun laws, sanctuary statutes along with passing a national right to work act and banning closed shops, repeal state and local Davis-Bacon Act type laws and many more such laws and regulations at the state and local level.

Think this through, pendulums swing both ways.

Fen said...

Gun ownership too, Cuban. HHS has determined that an armed citizenry reduces injury and loss of life. Therefor, everyone is now required by law to submit to a background check, purchase a firearm, and take safety training every year.

Hahaha.

AllenS said...

cubanbob said...
Freder, purple stop and think...

Is that some kind of a joke?

LakeLevel said...

cubanbob: "Think this through, pendulums swing both ways".

You really don't understand the left wing mind. In THOSE cases, of course it's un-constitutional. "Because everyone knows that" is a rational argument in their minds.

purplepenquin said...

purple stop and think of what a republican administration and congress could do with the powers granted to the feral government under the expanded commerce and federalism issues at stake with the ACA if ruled constitutional:

Oh, I am very aware of what the ramifications would be if the mandate-to-purchase is upheld. That is why I've been against it ever since I first heard about it.

Christy said...

Anyone else discount polls against the fact that about 48% of American voters do not pay taxes? Do a few of those non-tax-payers suddenly see outlay not reimbursed by government?

cubanbob: "Think this through, pendulums swing both ways". Exactly my worry when Republicans passed the Patriot Act.

cubanbob said...

purplepenquin said...
purple stop and think of what a republican administration and congress could do with the powers granted to the feral government under the expanded commerce and federalism issues at stake with the ACA if ruled constitutional:

Oh, I am very aware of what the ramifications would be if the mandate-to-purchase is upheld. That is why I've been against it ever since I first heard about it.

4/3/12 10:56 AM

It gets even worse when you take the federalism issues, the religious liberty issues and the contract law issues in to consideration.

Not only is the possibilities I mentioned earlier possible but with these expanded powers coupled with the Kelo decision all manner of things could become possible that the left never contemplated.
For example using the Kelo doctrine of eminent domain local governments could be required to levy property taxes on private non-profit real estate since the exemptions or reduce rates minimize local revenues and require offsetting federal grants to cover grants so by eliminating these exemptions and reductions the federal government would need less borrowings or can shift the funds now given to the local governments for other purposes. It could curtail expanded social services beyond that of what state and local governments provide above the federal floor. Again that would be accomplished with the expanded federalism powers as those expenditures reduce federal tax receipts when those tax payments portions of the expanded local benefits are taken as deductions towards federal income taxes. Same for state tax credits and grants for green energy, again the list is rather long.

The mandate is but the tip of the iceberg.

Rusty said...

purplepenquin said...
At the big soulless multinational I work for, employees in India get Good Friday off, but employees in the U.S. don't

Sounds like those US employees need a union. 'cause if you're working on one of your religion's most holiest of days, then obviously you're a poor negotiator.


The company is using their "collective" powers when negotiating with each individual worker, so why shouldn't the workers do so as well


Then you just become a pawn for another corporation, a union.
I negotiate my own deal with my employer. They don't like it? I take my mad skilz elsewhere.

cubanbob said...

Christy said...
Anyone else discount polls against the fact that about 48% of American voters do not pay taxes? Do a few of those non-tax-payers suddenly see outlay not reimbursed by government?

cubanbob: "Think this through, pendulums swing both ways". Exactly my worry when Republicans passed the Patriot Act.

4/3/12 11:19 AM

Christie you are making my point: notice how the democrats have not repealed it? Power once given is seldom rescinded.

Commercial Insurance Brokers said...

No excuse!!!