1) That 53% is an aberration. Unfavorable had been hovering in the low 40s since the passage of the ACA. It only spiked momentarily to 53% in July (two other spikes above 50 as well since 2011).
2) The biggest shifts in this poll can be seen in the Uninsured and Insured numbers.2a) First, in the Insured group there has been a slight but gradual 12 month increase in the unfavorable as well as a gradual 12 month decrease in favorable. This has to be coming from either or both, the newly insured discovering how much it costs (and what problems there are with it) and/or the already insured realizing their costs continue to rise.
2b) Secondly, the much larger shift is in the Uninsured group (still uninsured plus newly uninsured as full time shifts to part time?). Over the same 12 month trend, these shifts demonstrate a much larger increase in unfavorables as well as a decrease in favorable. This must be due to a combination of still uninsured caught between the Medicare limits and their pocket books plus those who lost their employer supplied policy due to our increase in part time work. I’d like to see a State break down and compare to the medicare “opt-out” states. A third potential cause of frustration in this group probably stems from the fact that the uninsured group even exists as the ACA was marketed as the solution to ridding us of the uninsured to begin with. 3) A minor point but these are displayed as Total Adults. Where do you read they are all registered voters?
-- Modified on 10/30/2014 12:00:06 AM
It seems like both right and left media are expecting a R senate come Tuesday, or when all is said and done as some states will have run offs after Tuesday.
But I am looking at RCP polls for Alaska, Iowa, GA, NC, NH, KS, CO, etc etc etc and they all seem to be razor thin margins within the margin of error in many cases.
People smarter than me and independent are saying the R's will most likely win but...IDK.
I am not as confident as they are.
Thoughts?
-- Modified on 10/29/2014 1:04:23 PM
where Kaiser Permanente reports an incredible drop of 53% to 43% in registered voters who have an unfavorable view of the ACA. Um, I'm not too good at math but ...isn't that less than half?
Wonder what the numbers would be if they polled the poor, black, and hispanics? Check out the NY Times article today on that one.
You’ve done such a good job of reporting the unfavorable result polls in the last year I’m surprised you missed that. And, of course, Fox News, being our only “fair and balanced” news channel, has covered this drop 24/7.
What? You say you missed all of Fox’s coverage of this drop?
Too bad, but I think you now agree with me that one of the following has to be true:
a. the polls are absolutely meaningless as a reflection of whether the ACA is good, or bad policy, since the sample size is too small and the respondents are clueless about how the ACA is actually working; or
b. your theory that the more the people learn about the ACA, the less they like it, is dead wrong.
But, addressing your post, at least we understand now why we are not seeing any Republican “the first thing I’m going to do is repeal Obamacare” ads on TV now. And wait -aren't the poor, black and hispanics the very electorate the Republicans are trying to reach ? Indeed this election will be lot closer that we thought. That crying you hear from the hole in the ground is Karl Rove. LO
Stick to Lawyering, Mari.
Polling doesn't seem to be your bag. lol
went to a 10% increase in "don't know."
The "don't know" respondents, of course, are the only ones who got it right. But the bottom line is that under the current poll less than half disapprove of the ACA. Sounds to me like your arch rival -aka "the facts" - have bested you again. LOL
You lose 43-36 and still claim victory AND the facts. Lol.
Maybe you can talk to my bookie and explain your theory to him? The Cowboys fked me Monday night. Tell him they actually won and did so by more than 9 1/2 and I'll split my winnings with you.
Get back to me. Lol
1) That 53% is an aberration. Unfavorable had been hovering in the low 40s since the passage of the ACA. It only spiked momentarily to 53% in July (two other spikes above 50 as well since 2011).
2) The biggest shifts in this poll can be seen in the Uninsured and Insured numbers.
2a) First, in the Insured group there has been a slight but gradual 12 month increase in the unfavorable as well as a gradual 12 month decrease in favorable. This has to be coming from either or both, the newly insured discovering how much it costs (and what problems there are with it) and/or the already insured realizing their costs continue to rise.
2b) Secondly, the much larger shift is in the Uninsured group (still uninsured plus newly uninsured as full time shifts to part time?). Over the same 12 month trend, these shifts demonstrate a much larger increase in unfavorables as well as a decrease in favorable. This must be due to a combination of still uninsured caught between the Medicare limits and their pocket books plus those who lost their employer supplied policy due to our increase in part time work. I’d like to see a State break down and compare to the medicare “opt-out” states. A third potential cause of frustration in this group probably stems from the fact that the uninsured group even exists as the ACA was marketed as the solution to ridding us of the uninsured to begin with.
3) A minor point but these are displayed as Total Adults. Where do you read they are all registered voters?
-- Modified on 10/30/2014 12:00:06 AM
Do you see Senate or House Dems, or even the Potus try and make the argument the HC law is popular or becoming more so?
No, they have all LONG given up arguing the polls. Even the dopey left wing media would hammer them if they did so.
I think thjat would be NO because for some reason (why don't you spin a good one here) O-care mandates on employers has been delayed by republiscum. Oh wait! You say the imperial president did that on his own??? Say it aint so!
Why would the imperial president unilaterally delay something soooooo good???? Maybe he does'nt want those polls #'s TOO HIGH!!! Well, the election is near and soon we'll get the wonderful effects of all ths companies dropping full time employees like rocks. Da people's gonna LOVE bigO when that happens....
Then there's this:
Obamacare, Year One: 78 Percent Premium Hikes
n its first year, Obamacare hiked health insurance premiums by up to 78 percent, according to a new analysis comparing insurance costs before and after Obamacare.
HealthPocket, a nonpartisan health insurance research company, analyzed government data on individual health insurance premiums in the 2013 market before Obamacare reforms and 2014′s Obamacare exchanges, and the results are in: Average premiums are higher for all ages– far above the norm for annual increases.
Young customers have been hurt the worst by Obamacare– a big potential problem for the Obama administration, which failed to attract enough young and healthy customers during the first round of exchange enrollment. But people just several years away from Medicare have been hit with double-digit hikes as well. The average, non-weighted premiums across three different age groups are higher by over 20 percent for both men and women.
The hardest hit are 23-year-old men, who are being charged 78 percent more this year than they were in 2013; 23-year-old women pay a paltry 45 percent more in 2014 than they did before Obamacare. The picture isn’t much rosier for 30-year-olds, though: The average premium rose 73 percent for men, and 35 percent for women.
Men are seeing their premiums skyrocket because Obamacare bans insurers from charging women more — even when they use more health care services. The health-care law also requires insurers to cover a boatload of services in every plan, whether customers want it or not. Included in that 78 percent-higher premium for 23 year-old men: maternity and newborn coverage– just in case.
Of course, seniors are paying for those services as well. For the 63-year-old age group, just two years away from Medicare eligibility, men were dealt a 22.7 percent increase, while women’s premiums are 37.5 percent higher.
Obamacare’s more popular provisions are causing the rate hikes as well. Because insurers are required to accept customers with pre-existing conditions, insurers are incurring additional costs from chronically ill patients.
The study doesn’t include subsidy payments, which the Obama administration often points to when discussing Obamacare premium hikes. The taxpayer-provided subsidies cover some of the price hikes for customers between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Wonder if the "latest polls" reflect this new reality?
Why oh why do I think not
Your study compared 2013 rates with 2014 rates rather than pre-ACA premium rates with post ACA rates. But we will come back to that.
Now since I think Jack is about 23, we need to allay his fears that his Obamacare policy didn’t go up 78% in one year. How did your study get “an up to 78%” increase for 23 year old males?
Well, in 2013 1 in 5 applicants were rejected. In 2014, no rejections were permitted. This means the comparison in many cases for 23 year olds was zero premiums in 2013 vs the full premium in 2014:
“As HealthPocket’s earlier research demonstrated, in the pre-reform market approximately one-out-of-five health insurance applications were rejected.4 While some portion of the rejected applicants may have applied to a different health plan and obtained coverage, it is likely that many were unable to obtain coverage in the traditional individual insurance market. In such cases, the comparison may be a 2014 premium versus no premium in 2013 when insurance could not be obtained.”
In other words, a 100% increase LOL. The health pocket study also did not adjust for subsidies or “rate ups.” So you can relax, Jack, this study has almost no validity to anything in real life.
What did the NY Times conclude last week? An 8.4% increase for the most popular plans but an average 1% increase if you are wiling to switch plans:
“In the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, which now serve 7.3 million Americans, some premiums are going up while others are going down. Based on data available so far, we reported last week that the average premiums for last year’s most popular plans would rise 8.4 percent, but that people willing to switch plans could get much better deals — an average 1 percent increase, and even decreases in some markets.”
Where did Jack go? Oh, he 's off to get an Obamacare policy. Just tell them I sent you
Well, in 2013 1 in 5 applicants were rejected. In 2014, no rejections were permitted. This means the comparison in many cases for 23 year olds was zero premiums in 2013 vs the full premium in 2014:
“As HealthPocket’s earlier research demonstrated, in the pre-reform market approximately one-out-of-five health insurance applications were rejected.4 While some portion of the rejected applicants may have applied to a different health plan and obtained coverage, it is likely that many were unable to obtain coverage in the traditional individual insurance market. In such cases, the comparison may be a 2014 premium versus no premium in 2013 when insurance could not be obtained.”
In other words, a 100% increase LOL.
.............................................................................................................................................................
Back of the napkin here,
Even if 100% of the 1-5 or 20% = 100% increase, that does not explain away a 78% increase for the age group overall.
Jack may very well be getting him some of that ObamaCare, afterall, he has no choice! I'll really be appalled if he comes back with an Obamaphone!
-- Modified on 10/30/2014 3:30:54 PM
I'll even help you with this one. The answer is pro athletes and Mark Zuckerberg. Everyone else gets a subsidy, so how much are the 23 yr olds really paying in premiums? That 78% is sinking as fast as your post.
If you can figure this one out on the back of your napkin, we'll discuss "rate ups" next time.
But Dude I'm truly in awe of your research abilities - who else could have found an Obamacare premium "study" that treated persons who couldn't get insurance as paying "zero" for purposes of a comparison. You are out of Jack's class.
And the good news is, I just got a call from Fox News. They want to offer you a job as a "Fox News Contributor." Jack - not so much. LOL.
If you can figure this one out on the back of your napkin, we'll discuss "rate ups" next time.
But Dude I'm truly in awe of your research abilities - who else could have found an Obamacare premium "study" that treated persons who couldn't get insurance as paying "zero" for purposes of a comparison. You are out of Jack's class.
And the good news is, I just got a call from Fox News. They want to offer you a job as a "Fox News Contributor." Jack - not so much. LOL.
The betting odds are 85% that the Republicans will take control of the Senate.
In the last Presidential Election, you could place bets on how many electoral votes a candidate gets.
When people are willing to put money on the outcome, they usually have done a lot of homework