Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WarOne wrote:It would be like the UK granting Irish citizens UK citizenship

Just to point out, from an Irish veiwpoint they aready do this with the blokes born in the north.

And it works the other way around too, someone born in the north is legally entitled to Irish Citizenship.

zatchmo wrote:

Frazzled wrote:At least he was elected.

Speaking of Bush being elected, I would like to say that statement is suspect at best.

Heh heh, that pie chart might mean something if we elected the President via the populat vote. However, since we don't, it really doesn't mean a whole lot. Bush was electected per the rules set for Presidential elections....and remember, Gore couldn't even win his home state. If he had, Florida would not have mattered one bit.

Forgive me for asking a stupid question, but this is an area where I really don't have a lot of info - but why is US medical insurance so expensive?

Is it because you're such a litigious society, or was it like this before y'all started suing one another over the tiniest things.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Forgive me for asking a stupid question, but this is an area where I really don't have a lot of info - but why is US medical insurance so expensive?

Is it because you're such a litigious society, or was it like this before y'all started suing one another over the tiniest things.

Malpractice and associated legislation is estimated to represent around 3% of total medical costs. It is a factor, but not a big one.

Private insurers in the US add a huge amount over the top, legislation just passed will require 85% of premiums to be spent on healthcare. I don't believe many insurers meet that standard presently. In comparison, the benchmark in Australia is 5%.

The US system contains a lot of administrative waste, the costs of billing and on-billing adds up like you wouldn't believe. Then you have debt collection, bankruptcy proceedings and the whole works. The benchmark for health admin its 2 to 5%, the US is closer to 15%.

Drugs in the US are outrageously expensive, and generics are not used as often as elsewhere.

ounumen wrote:Woohoo I get be taxed to help the whopping 30 million sick lame lazy and slowed get health care. Yup I am thrilled over it. Cant wait to see what else Obama has planned. Damn I am so angry over this I cant think.

Your answer makes it obvious on which side of the 30 million you are, out of which i derive that you are voluntarily taxing yourself by subscribing to a privatized healthcare insurance. Now tell me why it's ok if some third party makes money out of people's fear of getting sick and why it's not ok if you pay it via taxes and it's organized by the state without them making profit on it?

Orkestra wrote:That pie chart makes me think of a new American Political Party with Pac-Man as their mascot.

"President Pac-man, do you have a statement for the press?"
"WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA"

I'd vote for that, just on general principle.
Wow my man Nader got more votes than I thought. If the rest of you pukes had voted for Nader maybe Toyota would have a decent car.

For all those predicting a tidal wave of resentment about the passage of the Health Care Reform bill that will turn the obstructionist GOP into the majority party:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Looks like a slim majority of Americans think the bill was a GOOD thing.

Lord-Loss wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Id actually like the Queen far more if she did actually smash some peasants Frazz, sadly, its not the case though mate.

I just had the mental picture of the Queen on a hovering gold throne, beating chav's to death with her cane...

She would use a Purdey.

Kilkrazy wrote:

She would use a Purdey.

...actually...I'd pay good money to watch that upon reflection.

@KK - That would make a wicked HQ for an IG army...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html#chart

Commissar Molotov wrote:For all those predicting a tidal wave of resentment about the passage of the Health Care Reform bill that will turn the obstructionist GOP into the majority party:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Looks like a slim majority of Americans think the bill was a GOOD thing.

That's certainly encouraging for the Democrats, though one poll doesn't tell us much. It will be interesting to see the results that Rasmussen, among others, turn up in their inevitable surveys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html#chart

Wait, so we vote for Congress as a whole now? Funny, I thought Congressmen and Senators were elected to represent specific districts or states, and that only those people living in said districts or states had any say as to who would win the election.

Congress, as a whole, always turns out low approval ratings. Primarily because Congress, as a whole, is made up of individuals who are not responsible for the majority of people being polled.

dogma wrote:Wait, so we vote for Congress as a whole now? Funny, I thought Congressmen and Senators were elected to represent specific districts or states, and that only those people living in said districts or states had any say as to who would win the election.

Congress, as a whole, always turns out low approval ratings. Primarily because Congress, as a whole, is made up of individuals who are not responsible for the majority of people being polled.

I see a poll showing disapproval of congress every few months, they started showing up when Bush hit sub-30 approval ratings. There's nothing you can post that'll stop them showing up, it isn't as though Fraz doesn't realise that approval of congress as a whole is irrelevant when re-election rates are so high - because they like their guy, it's everyone else in congress that sucks. It's just he doesn't care because it supports his idea of the people rejecting government as usual.

Lets try this again.

Here's a historical chart. Note the rates at 1994 and 2006. Both times had approval around 22%.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RhPvOzR-PiI/AAAAAAAAAyI/SkSVQP724OY/s1600-h/CongApprovalLongTerm20070328.png


Here's the current.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html#chart
Approval is about 17% (and falling)

Notice which one is the lowest. Mmm, Paul MuaDib ponders, low rates, turn over of Congress, is there a relationship?

Albatross wrote:@KK - That would make a wicked HQ for an IG army...

I have that figure and a much older Queen Victoria with double-barrel elephant gun.

And you've given me the superb idea to use her for my Praetorian based African PDF.

I'm excited about this, and happy to see it passed.

As for it being a dark day for Democracy... America is not a democracy. Never was. That's a common misconception.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:I'm excited about this, and happy to see it passed.

As for it being a dark day for Democracy... America is not a democracy. Never was. That's a common misconception.

Eric

Indeed. it is a Federation

Frazzled wrote:
Notice which one is the lowest. Mmm, Paul MuaDib ponders, low rates, turn over of Congress, is there a relationship?

The Republicans took the Senate in 2002 at a point of high approval, there was no change in majority in '96 despite low approval, and no change in majority in '92 despite the lowest approval rating per the data provided. The race comes down to individual districts, and specific political situations; especially with the introduction of a popular third party.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Notice which one is the lowest. Mmm, Paul MuaDib ponders, low rates, turn over of Congress, is there a relationship?

The Republicans took the Senate in 2002 at a point of high approval, there was no change in partisan affiliation in '96 despite low approval, and no change in party in '92 despite the lowest approval rating per the data provided. The race comes down to individual districts, and specific political situations; especially with the introduction of a popular third party.

I don't exactly recall but something in the back of my mind tells me there were specific ballot measures in the states which drove Republicans to the booths. Was that the year where the gay marriage issue made it to several states? I haven't had any polysci courses but I'm assuming people tend to become more driven to vote based off core issues...rather than a person.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
I don't exactly recall but something in the back of my mind tells me there were specific ballot measures in the states which drove Republicans to the booths. Was that the year where the gay marriage issue made it to several states? I haven't had any polysci courses but I'm assuming people tend to become more driven to vote based off core issues...rather than a person.

To some extent I think that Bush's popularity following 9/11 did a lot to help the Republican brand, but yeah, the push for social conservatism was a big issue at the time.

Still, 2002 was a weird year in the Senate.

Paul Wellstone, the Democratic candidate in Minnesota, died in a plane crash and was replaced by Walter Mondale. He ended up losing to Norm Coleman for a variety of reasons, though many people believe it was related to political speeches at Wellstone's funeral.

Saxby Chambliss won the support of the VFW in Georgia, and defeated triple amputee and combat veteran Max Cleland.

In Missouri, Jean Carnahan lost to Jim Talent after having been appointed following her husband's posthumous victory in the previous race.

Somehow I feel the John Birch Society has something to do with this conversation.

1994 had nothing to do with 2002.

Frazzled wrote:1994 had nothing to do with 2002.

I'm fairly certain we haven't limited ourselves to those years, but perhaps you missed that JBS is still around and funding quite a few Republican events.

And apparently I am in the wrong thread.

Commissar Molotov wrote:Looks like a slim majority of Americans think the bill was a GOOD thing.

And a slim majority of Americans think the world is 5000 years old, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith into 'majorities' here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And a slim majority of Americans think the world is 5000 years old, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith into 'majorities' here.

As a measure of the objective truth of a thing, no, majority support or opposition doesn't mean a thing is true. But in the context used here, whether the bill is popular or not and will lead to Fraz's promised reckoning at the ballot, then majority popularity is a reasonable measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Lets try this again.

Here's a historical chart. Note the rates at 1994 and 2006. Both times had approval around 22%.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RhPvOzR-PiI/AAAAAAAAAyI/SkSVQP724OY/s1600-h/CongApprovalLongTerm20070328.png


Here's the current.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html#chart
Approval is about 17% (and falling)

Notice which one is the lowest. Mmm, Paul MuaDib ponders, low rates, turn over of Congress, is there a relationship?

The correlation to economic activity is pretty telling, a far greater determinant of support than individual bills and the politics surrounding them. Other than that, the dips in the lead up to elections are interesting. As a predictor of elections it's pretty hazy, what needs to be looked at is which Democrats are looking vulnerable, and where the GOP can find 10 senate wins. General approval doesn't mean much.


In other news, given the GOP has declared they'll only be working two hours a day now because the HCR bill passed and its just not fair and we're totally not crying there's just something in my eye... perhaps people are right to be scathing on congress. Seriously, stopping government because you don't like a bill getting passed is pathetic.

http://dccc.org/blog/archives/republican_approval_ratings_at_all_time_low/

And data from June 2009 is going to help clear these waters how?