CNN.com Notes Unpopularity of ObamaCare, Hypes Minority Who Think It's Not Liberal Enough
On the one year anniversary of ObamaCare being signed into law, nearly 6 out of every 10 Americans oppose ObamaCare, according to a new CNN poll.
Yet in reporting the development, the network's website spun the development by noting the polling is about where it stood last year and that the latest poll could be bad news for Republicans.
From a March 23 post at CNN.com's Political Ticker blog (emphasis mine):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓One year after President Barack Obama signed the health care reform bill into law, a new national poll indicates that attitudes toward the plan have not budged.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, on the one year anniversary of the signing of the law, a majority continue to oppose the measure, but some of the opposition is from Americans who think the law is not liberal enough.
Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.
"It's worth remembering that opposition to the bill came from both the left and the right last year, and that has not changed either," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In 2010, about a quarter of the health care bill's opponents disliked the bill because it was not liberal enough - the same as today. That works out to 13 percent of all Americans who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough. Forty-three percent oppose it because it was too liberal."
[...]
There are two ways to look at the poll's overall numbers. One is that 59 percent oppose the law. The second is that if you add the 13 percent who oppose the law because it's not liberal enough to the 37 percent that support the law, you come up with 50 percent of the American people who disagree with the Republican leadership on the issue.
Of course, between last year and now there's been an intervening midterm election that reduced the ranks of Democrats in the Senate and netted House Republicans 63 new seats, securing a sizable majority.
What's more, the 2012 election cycle is foreboding for Democrats, pitting many liberal Democratic incumbents from solidly red states up for reelection in a year when conservative voters will be champing at the bit to vote against Obama.
Those factors certainly give an edge to conservatives.
What's more, if Obama's liberal base is bummed because they think Obama is not liberal enough, the White House may not be able to count on the enthusiasm and heavy turnout the president enjoyed in 2008, making reelection anything but a slam dunk.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
CNN's favorite tool
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:09pm.
-present opposition as support and support as opposition (depending on who is President).
This same tactic could have been used on polls regarding Iraq in, say, 2005. Many who polled as being against the war could very well have been wanting MORE action, not less.
Yet, CNN would never have touted such a thing then because it would have made Bush look better (which is exactly what CNN tried to do here for Obama). This is why only one poll, the one in writing on voting day, actually matters.
This minority would be the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 3:58pm.
This minority would be the ones who pay no taxes, collect government benefits and entered the country by illegal means?
Polls
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 4:39pm.
Ring Ring: Hello.
Caller: Would you like to participate in a poll?
Unknown Person: Sure. Let me just finish my 40.
Caller:Do you want Obamacare repealed?
Unknown person: Hell no! Next thing that you know I will lose my food stamps, welfare check, section 8 housing and be forced to look for a job. What is happening to this country! Goodby you communist.
Interestingly enough
Submitted by Garlock on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:43pm.
Speaker Boehner has been touting this poll, yet without mentioning the fact that only a minority agree with his stance.
Actually quite boring.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:27am.
No one cares to hear from a 60 time j frank wilson wannabe troll.
Uh-huh. Blackout boys and girls. No worries. The wayback machine has a diesel generator.
20. Claims only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican and 9% as Conservative --- Does that pass the smell test boys and girls? IT DOESN'T--- "...important fine print -- specifically that the scientists that it surveyed were all members of the AAAS. I do not have detailed demographics information, but based on my experience I would guess that AAAS membership is dominated by university and government scientists. The opinion poll thus does not tell us much about US scientists as a whole, but rather something about one scientific institution -- AAAS. And the poll indicates that AAAS is largely an association that does not include Republicans."
The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.
"Boring"
Submitted by Garlock on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:56am.
So apparently, when one of the most influential Republican leaders of this country makes heavily misleading claims about an issue that his party considers most important, and can mean life-or-death situations for numerous people, it should only generate a collective yawn from us? Are you SERIOUS?! Tell me, Vet, what do you consider "interesting"?
And look at what Vet does here. He immediately dismisses my comment, and then quickly shifts attention to something I said months ago that has nothing to do with what I said above. That's clever.
Regarding the scientists' political affiliation comment though since he brought it up, I agree that Pielke makes a good point. However, just because you work for a university or the government doesn't make you a de facto liberal/Democrat. There are plenty of university faculty who are conservative, just as there are plenty of people who work in the government that are conservative (i.e. House of Reps, numerous state Governors, state legislators, law enforcement, etc).
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:36am.
Oh Mumzie. Somebody's diaper is full. Pliz hurry.
...because you work for a university or the government doesn't...
Not your original LIE, was it, LIAR?
SLGT: Well, it's no wonder that only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican and 9% as Conservative, so I'm not surprised.
You did not say 6% of university or government blah blah blah. YOU LIE. AGAIN.
And why did I bring up an old lie? TO SHOW YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE TRUTH EVER.
EVER. YOU LYING SNIT. EVER AGAIN.
Affiliations
Submitted by Garlock on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:00am.
You're right, it wasn't my "original lie" because I did not see the Pielke comments on it at the time. Did you gloss over the part where I say, "Regarding the scientists' political affiliation comment though since he brought it up, I agree that Pielke makes a good point"? I'm also not sure how my subsequent qualification that not all university faculty/government workers are liberal is a lie like you say it is. Do you have a source that says they are all liberal?
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:17am.
I did not bring the link forward to discuss it LIAR. The link and quote PROVED YOU LIED.
Do you have a source that says they are all liberal? --- Read it again Retard. Who said who was all liberal? KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE CONSTANT DISTRACTING BOLLYOTZ.
YOU LIED. I PROVED YOU LIED. And now you are LYING AGAIN to distract from the ORIGINAL LIE you told.
If you didn't bring it forward to discuss it
Submitted by Garlock on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:36am.
Then why'd you bring it up? A distraction?
You truly are STUPID AS A ROCK.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:47pm.
Look at me quote myself from THIS VERY PAGE because trolls are stupid as rocks: And why did I bring up an old lie? TO SHOW YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE TRUTH EVER.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:33am.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: ...most influential Republican leaders of this country makes heavily misleading claims...
Here is the Speaker Boehner tweet --- RT @johnboehner: CNN survey: 59 percent of Americans oppose job-crushing ObamaCare, “unchanged” from 1 yr ago
Where in that tweet is the heavily misleading claim?
From the CNN link Mr. Sheppard gave us --- Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed.
Is that heavily misleading? Boehner: CNN survey: 59 percent of Americans oppose... CNN: ...with 59 percent opposed.
How is that heavily misleading? Looks right on to me.
Speaker Boehner: ...job crushing Obamacare...
Is that heavily misleading?
Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the “amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent...,” an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.
Looks right on to me.
Speaker Boehner: ..."unchanged" from 1 yr ago.
Is that heavily misleading?
Again from Mr. Sheppards link --- Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.
Looks right on to me.
YOU LIE AGAIN YOU SNIVELING LITTLE LYING SNIT GARLOCK.
YOU
LIE
AGAIN
Garlock is a vicious nasty little trud of a LIAR.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:41am.
As usual, Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll is too stupid to come up with these lies on his own. We have to find out where he got them.
SLGT: Speaker Boehner...touting...poll...misleading...
PoliticalCorrection A Project of Media Matters Action Network: Boehner Touts Poll... he's badly misrepresenting...
A VICIOUS LYING LITTLE TRUD THAT CAN'T EVEN COME UP WITH IS OWN LIES.
HE STEALS THEM FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
He probably steals my debunking of the lie and then posts it there as another user.
Amazing
Submitted by Garlock on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:29am.
Amazingly enough, the words "tout" "poll" and "misleading" are not trademarked or copyrighted. They are common words that come up often when describing public opinion and when political figures cite polls. Here's one from The Hill that uses the words "Boehner" "touts" and "poll". Maybe I "stole" it from that?
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:05am.
I have documented at least a dozen times YOU BROUGHT A LIE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. Just like you did here. Tell us all. LIE AGAIN. Tell us you got that from The Hill. PUT IT IN WRITING YOU LYING SISSY. DO IT.
YOU LIE AGAIN.
You forgot misleading YOU LYING SNIT. Funny how you dropped that right quick.
Come on. Tell us where you got it. You are so quick to point out another site.
Your link don't use the word misleading. BUT THE SITE YOU GOT IT FROM USES THE SYNONYM MISREPRESENT. YOU CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER THE CORRECT WORDS WHEN YOU BRING YOUR LIES HERE. LIAR.
I'm trying to figure out why you're so angry
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:39pm.
Why does this bother you so much? What does it matter that the Hill article uses a synonym? What does it matter that I say "misleading" and Media Matters does too? Just because one source used a common word to describe a poll doesn't mean everybody else using that word got it from that source. People can think independently, you know.
why iz akz trolliz. Why.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:29pm.
Not like trolliz has 60 documented Stupid n Liez. Oops. Trolliz dared to say he go info from The Hill. Trolliz backs down. Zing.
Ha
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 5:19pm.
0% of that was a lie, and 0% of that was me backing down in any way.
You truly are STUPID AS A ROCK.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 8:42pm.
Who said it was a lie little lying snit? I dared you to say you got it from The Hill, the website YOU BROUGHT HERE.
NOW. NOW I will call you a LIAR. Little chickensnit liar that claims he did not get the LIE from the source I found then pisses and moans yet never will state where he found it. It was simple dare based on words only and yet you can't even explain that. Coward.
I'm not being a coward
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:09pm.
I'm not shying away from stating where I got it because I didn't get it from anywhere.
This may be tough for you, but I can think of things to say and analyze stuff without needing to look to sources to provide me with talking points and analysis. I can look at poll results, see the % breakdown, and figure out something to say about it all by myself.
The only reason I brought up the Hill is because I was being facetious.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:21pm.
Let's look at the list of LIES the SLGT brought from somewhere else.
15. Claims 95-97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and caused by man-made activity. - LIE. ...close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW.
16. Claims ...rising global temperatures has an effect on weather volatility/unpredictability.. --- LIE - Noel Sheppard already debunk that Newsweek article.
17. Claims ...the news has recently come out that 2010 was the hottest year on record... --- LIE - ...NASA’s chief temperature trickster, James Hansen, issued a press release... ... If they relied solely on satellite data, which accurately covers the entire planet, 2010 would not top the list.
Ahh. I am tired of repeating myself. Go to The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll. and see for yourself what other lies he brought here. 20. 21. 25. 33. 37. 39. 40. MOST IMPORTANTLY 41. 45. 46. 48. 53.
But yeah, suddenly, the stupid lying Garlock troll is all on the up and up on this one. Honext. Iz not bring lize from sunwhar else. Honext.
I see the logic there
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 1:36pm.
Because I've cited sources in the past, that means everything I write has come from someplace else. You're right, there's no fallacy there, I'm just a robot who cannot input anything of his own. ROBOTS. ASSEMBLE. MUST. KILL. HUMANS.
I'd like to point out something on #17 though. The source you link about using satellite data, it has come to my attention that some of the satellites might have faulty sensors, so I don't think solely relying on them is the answer. Moreover, the author's main point in that article seems to me that his main concern was the "hottest year on record" claim, not so much that satellites weren't being relied on, and his main gripe was that it wasn't the hottest year on record for the U.S. He uses U.S.- only climate data to corroborate his point, citing examples of record high temperatures in the 1930s. Except, it seems to me those were examples of extreme highs, and not average highs.
Nevertheless, based upon your assertion yesterday that state and federal categorical data should be distinct, then global data cannot be invalidated solely because an individual country's data is a bit different. Thus, I find your source's reasoning to be unpersuasive.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:18pm.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: ...I've cited sources in the past...
What is it with this little child that he can't understand what adults say. Again. Again. Again I must quote something I said on this page because the little lying child acts like I said something else.
Me, on this page, here, right here, on this page: Let's look at the list of LIES the SLGT brought from somewhere else.
I said you bring LIES here little lying stupid child. Just once, why don't you try to respond to what I SAID.
Misleading claims and CBO estimates
Submitted by Garlock on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:26am.
Speaker Boehner's claim/tweet is misleading because it only refers to the % of people who oppose the law without mentioning the significant number of people who oppose it because it does not go far enough (which the CNN article mentions immediately afterward in the 4th paragraph). We've talked about this before. Boehner cites the poll to make it seem like the majority of the public is on his side in order to prove that the GOP has the go-ahead to continue their plan, when in fact the majority of the people do not agree with the GOP's plan. That's called misleading.
As for the "job crushing Obamacare" claim that references the CBO estimates, I'd first like to point out the hypocrisy of conservatives of citing the CBO as "right" and use it in their arguments ONLY when it says something that they already agree with. Anyway, the people who use the CBO estimates to say it will cause massive job losses are being misleading by making it seem like these people want to work and are losing their jobs against their will, when in fact they are not, it's a decrease in the "amount of labor supplied." Unsure as to what that means? Let's take a look at the actual CBO report:
"The net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies that will reduce the cost of insurance obtained through the newly created exchanges, beginning in 2014. The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market. In addition, the phaseout of the subsidies as income rises will effectively increase marginal tax rates, which will also discourage work. But because most workers who are offered insurance through their jobs will be ineligible for the exchanges’ subsidies and because most people will have income that is too high to be eligible for Medicaid, those effects on financial resources and marginal tax rates will apply only to a small segment of the population.
Other provisions in the legislation are also likely to diminish people’s incentives to work. Changes to the insurance market, including provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions and that restrict how much prices can vary with an individual’s age or health status, will increase the appeal of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers. As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would."
Did you get that? Basically, many people only work, or work as much as they do, in order to receive health insurance because receiving it through their employer is their most viable option. When another option becomes available, they can then quit their job voluntarily, they are not being fired. This involves mostly the elderly. Indeed, I work with an elderly gentlemen who only wants the job in order to receive the health insurance benefits our employer provides; it's not because he wants to work.
Moreover, let's take a look at something else the CBO report says:
"In contrast, another feature of the Medicaid expansion removes an existing disincentive to work for many low-income individuals. People currently lose eligibility for Medicaid if their income rises above a certain level; for working parents, the median income threshold for eligibility among states was 64 percent of the FPL in 2009. The health care legislation will allow parents to work and still qualify for Medicaid until their income exceeds 138 percent of the FPL. Moreover, parents whose income exceeds the new, higher threshold may be able to work and receive the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions for insurance purchased through the exchanges."
So in addition to the law allowing people to voluntarily stop supplying their labor, it also removes another disincentive that keep people from working.
Was that sourced well enough for you Vet?
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:21pm.
mislead : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit
SLGT: ...heavily misleading... misleading claims... ...is misleading...
I SAID PROVE IT YOU LYING SNIT. ALL YOU DO IS BACK UP THE MAN'S POINTS.
Bringing forward a quote from the CBO, the same one sourced by the Republican PDF I linked, a quote that SAYS jobs will be lost PROVES Speaker Boehner's POINT. YOU LIE AGAIN. The CBO says reducing the amount of peope in the workforce by 1/2 percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply IS STILL 650,000 jobs with will be KILLED by this legislation. YOU LIE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Continuing to point out that people oppose it because it does not go far enough IS A LIE. THEY STILL OPPOSE IT.
LYING SNIT TROLL. TRY BEING HONEST IN ONE POST.
I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:53pm.
1) Yes, they still "oppose" it, but not for the reason Republicans think they oppose it. Boehner thinks that because he opposes it because it goes to far, and that someone else opposes it because it doesn't go far enough, that means everything's hunky dory and some sort of alliance can be formed backing the GOP's agenda on health care reform. This is a TOTALLY INCORRECT ANALYSIS. There is NO SUPPORT from those who oppose it because it doesn't go far enough for the Republican stance on the issue. This means Republicans CANNOT CLAIM that the majority of the public agrees with them. It is SIMPLE AS THAT. Any other analysis of is not relying on the evidence.
2) Regarding the CBO job loss analysis, it is apparent you disregarded EVERYTHING in my post, and thus what the CBO actually said. Jobs are not being "killed" AT ALL. People are not being fired. People are VOLUNTARILY leaving their jobs because they don't need them anymore. They were only constrained to them in order to get health insurance, probably because they cannot find an affordable one on the private individual market (ironic, eh?) Allowing people to leave their jobs as they so choose - to "reduce the amount of labor that workers choose to supply - is a 100% free-market position, so I think the real question here is why are you so opposed to letting the market work, Vet?
Whoops. Don't care.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 8:44pm.
Your lies stand. Too bad. So sad. Must be really tough on the 60 time liar.
Whoops
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:10pm.
Sorry, but there are 0 lies in that so therefore there are no lies to stand.
Phweet. Pray hard trollie. Pray to the trollie Gawds.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:44pm.
31. Never let your opponents have the last word.
Always get the last word, even if your last "word" is merely a "The sound of a weasel sneezing!" or a disturbing picture, which has the added bonus of inflaming the regulars of a non-binaries group. With this goal in mind keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored; keep checking occasionally just to be sure. Sometimes it helps to post your reply as a new thread.
7. Keep posting non-stop. Flood the group with your idiocy and nonsense.
Some readers may equate your volume with proof of quality. You will tie the newsgroup regulars in knots trying to refute you and they won't have time for posting on-topic.
10. Refuse to admit your errors.
Never ever admit your errors no matter how blatant they are. If you find no way out and have to admit that you are wrong, phrase it so that you can accuse your opponent of being wrong.
11. Never apologize for your misbehavior.
Never ever apologize no matter how out of line you have been behaving. If you should ever find it to your advantage to apologize, phrase it as a slap in the face of the person whom you have already wronged.
That's funny
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 2:09pm.
Every single one of those applies to you more than it applies to me. But, you know, Rule #10 and Rule #11 means there will never be an acknowledgment of that.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:21pm.
Except I don't have 60 documented Lies and Stupid here do I? Little lying stupid child.
Haha
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:33pm.
Yeah, because I don't have the time nor desire to collect and document everything you say (I'm glad you have that passion though, I suppose). It'd be useless anyway since everyone else on here supports you out of fear or some sort of odd respect for angry brashness, derogatory remarks, and general rude behavior.
Iz brave trolliz.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:09pm.
iz not scured word bulliz. Not! iz furry brave. Rilly. ezzyone scured word bulliz. Not trolliz! Rilly. bulliz use wordz. scarez ezzyone except brave trolliz
6. Create imaginary crowds that are siding against you. Dead Zippers: I've been taking on personal attacks for quite some time now... Garlock the SLGT: ...everyone else on here supports you out of fear...
8 Whine that you are not scared of those that point out your troll ways. Dead Zippers: You don't scare me, JWF. ... ...you...should know by now I'm not going away. Garlock: ...everyone else on here supports you out of fear...
Wow. One sentence hit 2 pages out of the Troll Bible: New Testament. Are you a preacher in the Church of Troll?
Sissy. Scared of a guy that has the same thing you got. A brain and a keyboard. Oh wait, you iz not scared. You just sez everyone else is. U iz brave trollie. Stupid. A Liar. But so furry furry furry brave against the guy with the words and the keyboard.
Now you demand respect after that beclownment. OK? You demand it. You deserve it after filling your diaper and whining about the word bully.
Scared of a guy that has the same thing you got---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:17pm.
A brain and a keyboard.
Great line.
Sure knocks the stuffing out of any claim Garlock, or any other mook brings to the table about being smacked down by anger, non-tolerance, or sheer numbers.
MD
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:44am.
Garlock the SLGT: ...can mean life-or-death situations for numerous people...
YOU LIE AGAIN. No one is being denied medical care in this country. NO ONE. YOU LIE AGAIN.
SOURCE IT. LIAR.
How's this
Submitted by Garlock on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:35am.
Francisco Felix, 32, a father of four who has hepatitis C and is in need of a liver, received news a few weeks ago that a family friend was dying and wanted to donate her liver to him. But the budget cuts meant he no longer qualified for a state-financed transplant. He was prepared anyway at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center as his relatives scrambled to raise the needed $200,000. When the money did not come through, the liver went to someone else on the transplant list. “I know times are tight and cuts are needed, but you can’t cut human lives,” said Mr. Felix’s wife, Flor. “You just can’t do that.” Such high drama is unfolding regularly here as more and more of the roughly 100 people affected by the cuts are becoming known: the father of six who died before receiving a bone marrow transplant, the plumber in need of a new heart and the high school basketball coach who struggles to breathe during games at high altitudes as she awaits a lung transplant.
They say human life is priceless. But, in Arizona, that's not necessarily the case anymore, since the state decided to cut funding for transplant patients. That decision has left some people's lives hanging in the balance, including Courtney Parham, who suffers from an acute form of leukemia. The company dropped Courtney because she was too sick to be a full-time student, which forced her on to the Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System, or AHCCCS. And, then Governor Brewer dropped more bad news; no more transplants for patients like Courtney, all to help balance the budget. The Straw-Parham family told KGUN9 they must raise somewhere between $400-$800 thousand dollars for a transplant, or their daughter will die.
And that's just in Arizona.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:58pm.
Do you even read what you post LIAR?
...state financed transplant --- What does that have to do with Speaker Boehner's tweet. HE IS FEDERAL. LYING SNIT.
The father of four, DOES IT SAY HE DIED? IT SAYS THE LIVER WENT TO SOMEONE. LIAR.
Tug at the heartstrings instead of telling the truth.
Where is the name of that father of six? LIAR.
The plumber and basketball coach are ON THE WAITING LIST FOR A TRANSPLANT. LIAR.
And the transplants in the second paragraph were canceled by the state because THEY DON'T SAVE LIVES and they COST TOO MUCH. STATE. YOU SNIVELING SNIT. STATE, NOT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU LIE.
...Republican leaders of this country makes heavily misleading claims about an issue that his party considers most important, and can mean life-or-death situations for numerous people...
LIAR You said of THIS COUNTRY. NOT STATE OF ARIZONA.
Tugging at the heartstrings
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 2:23pm.
...Republican leaders of this country makes heavily misleading claims about an issue that his party considers most important, and can mean life-or-death situations for numerous people...
LIAR You said of THIS COUNTRY. NOT STATE OF ARIZONA
I'm sorry, I guess I forgot the part where Arizona isn't a part of the United States.
Does it matter to your point if he died or not? You clearly said, "YOU LIE AGAIN. No one is being denied medical care in this country. NO ONE. YOU LIE AGAIN." Your point wasn't if people were dying or not, it was if they were being denied medical care, and clearly all of these cases are of people being denied medical care.
Who cares? Why is that important? Were they supposed to include a full list of each person's full name that was being denied a transplant?
So? How does that make me a liar? Sure they were on the waiting list. So were several other people...until they were dropped from it. Just because you're on the waiting list doesn't guarantee you a transplant. I guess you skipped this part of the article:
“The most difficult discussions are those that involve patients who had been on the donor list for a year or more and now we have to tell them they’re not on the list anymore,” said Dr. Rainer Gruessner, a transplant specialist at the University of Arizona College of Medicine.
Organ transplants are already the subject of a web of regulations, which do not guarantee that everyone in need of a life-saving organ will receive one. But Arizona’s transplant specialists are alarmed that patients who were in line to receive transplants one day were, after the state’s budget cuts to its Medicaid program, ruled ineligible the next — unless they raised the money themselves.
That's funny, I don't recall seeing you raising an issue earlier about a division between federal and state. And who cares? Regardless of whether it's a state decision or a federal decision, it still stands that some people who were awaiting medical care are now not going to receive it, which relates 100% to your key assertion that "no one is being denied medical care in this country." Besides, if you look in that WSJ article, it says in the 4th paragraph that "Transplants could be targeted because they are one of the few areas where states can make coverage cuts in the state-managed program for the poor funded jointly by the federal and state governments." Sounds to me like that federal government is playing a role anyway.
Moreover, the WSJ article states that several experts and transplant groups found flaws in the data, and find the reasoning Arizona is giving for making the cuts faulty and irrelevant.
I'm surprised, Vet. There's usually a flaw or false statement in many of your posts, but it's not often that an entire post of yours was incorrect. I hope you're not getting a little sloppy.
Whoops. Don't care.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 8:47pm.
I am not here to school a lair that argues something about the federal government, then switches his argument midstream to a state government.
You argue like a child. You are a child. A little lying snit of a child.
Pack sand. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Make it smooth.
The argument still stands...
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:15pm.
Just because the original point regarded a federal law doesn't mean situations involving the states don't apply. The whole point we were discussing here was your assertion that there was nobody being denied medical care. There was no clarification on your part for a federal or state context, so I went ahead and easily found cases where people were in fact being denied medical care. How is that lying like a little snit of a child? I'm pretty sure you're the one who is bad at arguing, evidenced by the fact that, once again, you have no valid rebuttals, and once again, you are reduced to making sneering comments about me and ending the conversation by calling me a liar/child/snit. You obviously never passed logic or debate class.
Garlock---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:25pm.
If The Vet never passed logic or debate class, you should then be mortally ashamed of getting your ass kicked regularly by him.
As you just can't seem to get that fact through your skull, it appears you will always have to pretend that The Vet cannot be logical or in any way outdo you; and that is just another lie woven in and around your persona.
MD
This is a tiresome lying little child.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:53pm.
Bust his initial lie. He makes 7 more in the follow up. Bust those 7, he makes 7 more for each busted lie. And on and on and on.
Next thing you know, he is showing us why government and their death panels needs to get out of healthcare and not having a clue he is showing exactly why.
I want to live an extra 15 minutes. I demand the government spend $244.445 million to give me that 15 minutes. NOW. It is a right. I DEMAND IT. I AM LIBERAL.
Funny
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 1:43pm.
"I want to live an extra 15 minutes. I demand the government spend $244.445 million to give me that 15 minutes. NOW. It is a right. I DEMAND IT. I AM LIBERAL."
That's interesting how that's somehow a liberal argument. Aren't there tons of conservative outrage over comparative effectiveness research?
That will be $100. I accept PayPal.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:40pm.
You want a education from the people here. Pay for it.
I am sick of your nonstop unending question after question after question just to keep the adults in the room. You want an education from us. Pay for it. Otherwise. You got a point. Make it. You got some facts. Source them.
Knock it off with expecting us to be you AnswerSlaves. Little lying stupid child. Act like you have interacted with Adults before.
Uh
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:38pm.
Since when did I ask for an education from you people? Oh that's right, I NEVER DID.
My "question" was rhetorical, since it is abundantly obvious that conservatives/Republicans have come out against the CER provision in the PPACA. But yeah, good job in creating yet another post that does NOTHING to address anything I say.
Just checked PayPal.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:13pm.
Sorry. The interroads musta swallowed your payment. The network packet pixies are so playful and sometimes will use an intenet packet to play with. Pliz try again trolliz. Then I can resume schooling you.
Whatever lying snit.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:46pm.
I am not here to school you on how the transplant waiting list works. Not a single one of the examples from your NYT article was denied care. NOT ONE. And as usual, you failed to prove I was wrong. All you did was whine and ask question after question. AM I YOUR FRIGGIN' TEACHER?
YOU HAVE A POINT. MAKE IT. YOU HAVE A CLAIM. BACK IT THE FRELL UP.
Once again, I have to QUOTE MYSELF because lying trolls are stupid: THEY DON'T SAVE LIVES and they COST TOO MUCH.
From the link: The state agency that recommended that Arizona stop paying for transplants of lungs and, for certain patients, hearts and livers, has defended the move by citing studies and figures that it says demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the procedures.
You got a problem with the state agency, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM. I AM HERE TO PROVE YOU LIE.
PACK SAND LIAR. PACK IT TIGHT. PACK IT HARD. MAKE IT SMOOTH.
Friggin teacher
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 2:05pm.
"Not a single one of the examples from your NYT article was denied care. NOT ONE."
Oh really? From the NYT article: "But the budget cuts meant he no longer qualified for a state-financed transplant. He was prepared anyway at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center as his relatives scrambled to raise the needed $200,000. When the money did not come through, the liver went to someone else on the transplant list."
So, when his qualification for state-financing was eliminated. Then, when he couldn't come up with the money privately to pay for it himself, he didn't get the liver. Sounds like being denied medical care to me, doesn't it?
Anyway, I'm glad you can quote the WSJ article about the transplants ineffectiveness and cost. I can do it too! Let's see what would have happened if you had included the very next line after your quoted section: "The state agency that recommended that Arizona stop paying for transplants of lungs and, for certain patients, hearts and livers, has defended the move by citing studies and figures that it says demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the procedures. Several transplant experts, however, point to flaws in the data and the way the state's Medicaid agency, called the Health Care Cost Containment System, has used the figures. " Yeah, that's true, including that last part may have undermined your point. Let's see if they elaborate one what those flaws include:
"To make its case for cuts, the Arizona agency cited several sets of numbers. In dropping coverage of liver transplants for patients with hepatitis C, the state said liver recipients suffer recurrence of the disease at a rate of 100%. And the state argued that candidates for lung transplants would live just as long with other medical care, citing data from university studies.
Several major transplant-surgeon and recipient groups disagreed... Arizona 'used data that were outdated or data that made no sense, or they misinterpreted or misrepresented what experts said'.
Take the issue of hepatitis C. Dr. Abecassis notes that transplants aren't meant to cure the disease, but to grant years of life to recipients before the disease eats away at the new liver—generally, at a very slow rate. Citing the recurrence rate isn't relevant, he says.
For lungs, a crux of the state's position was a 1995 study of 49 patients at the University of Washington, 25 of whom received transplants; the rest were waiting at the time of the study. The study concluded that transplant recipients would live half a year longer than those who didn't get a new lung, but the difference wasn't statistically significant—in part because the sample size was so small. Also, researchers didn't wait to track patients' survival, instead extrapolating long-term mortality rates from deaths and sickness in the short run.
"I'm slightly horrified that they used a 15-year-old study to make this decision," says Scott D. Ramsey, professor at Washington's medical school and co-author of the 1995 paper. "It's sort of like making a decision on whether to pay for 2010 AIDS drugs based on data from 1995 AIDS drugs."
At least two subsequent studies have shown that lung-transplant recipients live significantly longer than those who don't get lungs."
Let's see what they said when presented with these criticisms: "Monica Coury, assistant director of intergovernmental relations for the state's Medicaid agency, said Arizona didn't need to provide justification. "Congress doesn't require states to provide any reasoning," she says. "States could arbitrarily decide to cut transplants."
Looks like they change course from "Look at the evidence!" to "We can do whatever we damn well please."
By the way, I apologize for the long quotation, but it's an important part of the article. Indeed, it took up pretty much the entire second half, I'm surprised you didn't notice it.
Didn't read a word of that screed.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:42pm.
I am not paid to educate you. You can't keep your posts down to a few short paragraphs. Don't expect me to take the time out of my day to read your term paper. I am not paid to do this.
Try again. Or pay me. I accept paypal as I have already stated.
Truly amazing
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:45pm.
Yet again, the Vet is scared by lots of words and refuses to read something that may conflict with his false assertions. Or, the more probable possibility, is that the Vet actually did read all of that and just refuses to respond to it because he knows that it directly conflicts with his false assertions.
Again, I'm not sure how you're supposed to be educating me here, nor have I requested your "teaching." But anyway, let me break it down for you in just a couple lines so you can easily read it with your sub-par reading comprehension skills:
You cite WSJ article and make some claims. I cite the exact same WSJ article, specifically the paragraphs that immediately follow your quotes, and which make up basically the rest of the article. These paragraphs refute everything you say, and everything the Arizona said about their reasoning behind the cuts.
It really doesn't get any more simple than that. I use a link YOU BROUGHT HERE to REFUTE WHAT YOU SAY.
Class dismissed.
Whoops. Did not read much of that at all.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:17pm.
It appears you started that off with an insult. How stupid are you? You think I will read your insulting posts?
Fail. Trollie Fail. I am not getting paid for this trollie. But wait, you have been informed of that already.
You pay me. I might actually read your drivel. The_Vet_Trollie_Schooler@PayPal.com. $100 trollie. Send it or shut up.
Insulting posts
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:53am.
I think this one really takes the cake for S#!& The Vet Says: "It appears you started that off with an insult. How stupid are you? You think I will read your insulting posts?"
Are you kidding me? There are COUNTLESS posts from you that start off immediately with an insult, usually right in the subject line. Sometimes there are even entire posts you write whose only content is insult and derogatory remarks without any substance at all. And I know you fully expect people to read them.
And you're saying I fail? You sir belong in the loony bin.
P.S. Vet still hasn't addressed the quotes from his very own article that dispute his point entirely. But you know, Rule #11. Or whatever.
Gee, Garlock---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:57am.
I wonder why you get picked on so much?
MD
Another day. Another empty paypal account.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:29am.
I am starting to think I may have to offer my troll schooling services elsewhere. There is that melveeng or melvinger troll. He looks promising.
Vet---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:10pm.
if these mook trolls are bereft of sense, ideas, and the ability to engage in independent thought; they are probably bereft of moolah as well.
An allowance from Mumsy and Daddy just don't go very far.
MD
Can anyone explain the Stupidity of Stupid Lying Trolls?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 12:11am.
Can anyone explain why I would argue why the state of Arizona banned certain transplant procedures despite ----
1. I am not a doctor.
2. I am not from Arizona.
3.I don't like government healthcare because of things like Arizona death panels.
4. I am not on a death panel.
5. I don't like the idea of death panels.
6. I really don't care.
7. I already linked to an article that explained Arizona's reasoning.
8. Twice.
9. I think spending $2,000,000 to extend a life for 3 months is insane.
10. I have to make the same money vs extending life decisions with my pets and government is not involved. Well, it ain't millions but it still comes out of my pocket. Should I spend $3000 extending the life of this cat for 6 months when I can take that money to the human society and save X cats from a life of misery in a little room with 16 other cats.
11. Arizona said the procedures don't save lives. Not happy with the decision? Oh, why let's give even more life and death decisions to MORE government, both other states and federal.
12. Seriously, let's create federal death panels. Mmmmkay?
13. No, really, let's create federal death panels. You don't like state death panels. Let's create federal death panels. Mmmmmkay?
14. No. Really Really Really. You don't like Arizona's death panels. Give that power to the federal government and they will do so much better at saving health care money by not making the same kind of death panel decisions. Mmmmmmkay?
15. Idiot.
Garlock
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 12:20am.
You do realize that being denied treatment, and being denied a transplant are two different things, don't you?
The fact these people are on the list belies your claim.
Sorry to get you involved my friend.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 12:44am.
I told this idiot that No one is being denied medical care in this country. And as usual, a troll threw a troll snit fit.
Take this sob story that is Francisco Felix.
Flor Felix has applied to the National Transplant Assistance Fund so that the family can raise money for her husband's surgery. Byron said doctors believe Francisco will be healthy enough to receive a transplant if another match comes along within the next year or two.
According to United Network for Organ Sharing, a national non-profit that is contracted with the federal government to manage the U.S. organ-transplant system, the average wait time for a liver is 796 days. Francisco has been on the waiting list since April and only got this chance so quickly because the family friend wanted to donate to him.
So this guy tries to jump the line and gets called on it because he can't pay for it. He WENT BACK ON THE LIST. And his wife applied to a charity.
What did I say? No one is being denied medical care in this country.
So little lying TURD Garlock. Francisco Felix is not being denied medical care in this country.
You pernicious lying little snit.
FRELL YOU GARLOCK THE LYING STUPID TROLL. HE HAS 2 YEARS TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO PAY FOR HIS TRANSPLANT.
Yeah, I saw that
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 12:50am.
I'm big on definitions of terms. Thought it funny that the troll here was unaware of his own argument.
And you never have to apologize to me for bringing me into a troll bashin'.
Hmm
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 12:55am.
In reading further, it seems also that if big guv didn't regulate healthcare, in the form of new medicines, techniques, or advances via the FDA, (yeah, those bastards cost me some money last year), that there might, just might be some advances in technology. We have an artificial heart, why not an artificial liver? Lungs? Pancreas???
You've done a bang up job on the troll. I'm just scrounging for scraps.
Us evil conservatives.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 1:15am.
We are desperately researching an artificial heart. Artificial transplant recipient number One. Future President Dick Friggin' Cheney. The most prominent future recipient of a Dick Cheney Artificial Heart - Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Trolls will not stop the evil that is conservatism. See you at the next monthly meeting.
Believe I'm on chips and dips duty this month
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 2:14am.
I trust the usual array of fried tortillas coupled with salsa and cheese dip will suffice?
Hey everybody. I was denied medical care.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:11pm.
Can someone write my Senator or alert the Media or somethin'. I was flatly denied medical care.
My Story and the Newspapers can feel free to quote me: I was in my basement cutting rope that I use to hang the carcasses of passing hoboes and hippies to dry for use in my hobo stew. Anyhoos, I got distracted because it turns out on of the hippies was still moving around and not quite dead like I thought. I was so busy what with standing on the hippie's throat until he stopped floppin' around, I completely forgot what I was doing and sliced my thumb open with the knife. So I go to the emergency room and they told me to sit and wait for the doctor. I had to wait in the emergency room lounge. I WAS DENIED MEDICAL CARE. I did not get immediate medical attention. I WAS DENIED MEDICAL CARE. I had to wait one hour to get stitches in my thumb.
Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: ...he didn't get the liver. Sounds like being denied medical care...
...doctors believe Francisco will be healthy enough to receive a transplant if another match comes along within the next year or two. ~ ...the average wait time for a liver is 796 days. Francisco has been on the waiting list since April and only got this chance so quickly because the family friend wanted to donate to him.
Let's see. Felix has to WAIT for a liver just like everyone else. Only in a STUPID LYING LITTLE CHILD-TROLL'S world is this called being denied medical care.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
You keep pretending you are not coming here and LYING to our faces you little lying snit of a troll.