Can we trust the GOP with the ACA in 2016?

[Phi for All]

And being in favor of something does indicate bias. To be unbiased they need to show all standpoints. Unbiased means that they would present the data in such a way as to not indicate things being for one side or another. This isn't just with politics, though it seems to happen more often. This is one of the reasons why Fox News is considered by many to be Right-Wing. They have consistently portrayed their views to support Republicans and Libertarians. They wouldn't be viewed as such if they presented both sides of a policy on equal ground and with equal coverage.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, I agree that our media is far too biased, but I don't think it's a problem of political leaning so much as trying to inform the public using a for-profit business model. If you want unbiased journalism, you need to remove that aspect. The media is playing to their audience in any way possible to get them to NOT change the channel. That's about as far away from informing the public as you can get without shutting the media down altogether.

 

And the ACA is a classic example of media misinformation. Far too many people don't know that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. They like the affordable care part, but if they don't like Obama they don't want Obamacare.

 

I guess the big question is, if we were to go back to requiring broadcasters to set aside an hour every day for informing the public (without commercials), would people watch a dry, fact-based but compelling news show as avidly as they do the commercial, slanted and vividly misleading news shows now? Can the media regain the kind of trust we had with people like Murrow and Cronkite?

[Moontanman]

I cannot conceive, at this time at least, of ever trusting the republican party again. They have defied all reason and reality for far too long, their agenda is driven by interests other than their constituents, usually making money for themselves, They have little or no connection with reality or reason.

 

I think we are witnessing the self destruction of the republican party or possibly the splitting of the republican party into two parties. I think it's distinctly possible we are in the middle of our entire political system, if not self destructing, resetting it's self and making current party lines meaningless.

 

It's difficult to see how any political system so far removed from the people it represents can survive in a free society but of course that is the $64,000 question....

[Phi for All]

I cannot conceive, at this time at least, of ever trusting the republican party again. They have defied all reason and reality for far too long, their agenda is driven by interests other than their constituents, usually making money for themselves, They have little or no connection with reality or reason.

 

Part of this is true of many politicians in both parties. The salary they make is a drop in the bucket to what they'll potentially make or already have made. That's why some can afford to give it away to charity, like we're supposed to praise their humanity instead of questioning their motivations.

 

A big part of any worker's motivation to be competent is the threat to their wages. It's hard to do that with politicians who already have a lot of money or are guaranteed private sector employment in exchange for their "connections".

 

 

 

 

iNow mentioned a Republican candidate he thinks would work to administer the ACA effectively if elected in 2016. Is there anyone else that wouldn't undermine it without using the normal procedures to do so?

[iNow]

What this poll doesn't show, that it really should is how much of the remaining percent either A) Doesn't care (Neutral), B) Opposed, or C) Has no Bleeping idea what it's about. Polls like this show sensationalism that can either help or hinder the progress of various tasks that the government puts forth.

You seem to be commenting merely on the summary from the news article I shared here, not on the poll or study itself, and consequently you appear to be jumping to misguided conclusions about the intentions of those involved and actual measurements performed.

 

The poll was significantly more robust than you seem to give it credit for, and I recommend you review it more completely prior to engaging in such rants about "sensationalism" and what is or is not shown. I say this in the spirit of kindness and the growth of our collective understanding, not as an attack on you or in any way intended to disparage.

 

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/

[WWLabRat]

You seem to be commenting merely on the summary from the news article I shared here, not on the poll or study itself, and consequently you appear to be jumping to misguided conclusions about the intentions of those involved and actual measurements performed.

 

The poll was significantly more robust than you seem to give it credit for, and I recommend you review it more completely prior to engaging in such rants about "sensationalism" and what is or is not shown. I say this in the spirit of kindness and the growth of our collective understanding, not as an attack on you or in any way intended to disparage.

 

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/

I'm sorry, I mentioned that I was commenting on the website that you had linked to. At the time I was writing that, I was still at work and many political sites (among others as well) are blocked, so the access I have to outside information is severely limited. I didn't have a chance to actually look up the full poll that you managed to post this last time. Thanks for posting that. I'll definitely review what is provided and go from there.

 

In the meantime however, what I said before still stands. The way the information is presented on the original link is indicative of bias. That's all I was saying.

[iNow]

I didn't have a chance to actually look up the full poll that you managed to post this last time. Thanks for posting that. I'll definitely review what is provided and go from there.

 

In the meantime however, what I said before still stands. The way the information is presented on the original link is indicative of bias.

I disagree completely, mostly because your criticisms applied to a study you hadn't even read and the article summarizing to which I linked was entirely on-point, but you are certainly welcome to your differing opinion.

 

In the meantime, here's remarkably similar and robustly consistent data from an entirely different study:

 

 

 

Supporting my original argument that the public is not actually entirely against Obamacare, many are just misled and misinformed about it, here is a third study rebutting Unity's original claim:

 

 

 

Even if you merely concede that the public is evenly divided on the issue, my intent was to rebut Unity's claim, and I feel I have.

 

This was his claim:

The fact that now people are against the ACA just shows that the Democrats are doing it for political motive.

And yet this is the data even in the face of massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns against it:

 

 

Don't think think there has been a massive misinformation campaign? Just check this out:

 

Edited October 2, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

In the meantime however, what I said before still stands. The way the information is presented on the original link is indicative of bias.

No, it isn't.

 

It is merely favorable. To be indicative of bias it would have to be more favorable than the straight facts. Unbiased reporting of a favorable situation or circumstance will be favorable of course - in fact, neutral reporting of such would indicate bias.

[imatfaal]

No, it isn't.

 

It is merely favorable. To be indicative of bias it would have to be more favorable than the straight facts. Unbiased reporting of a favorable situation or circumstance will be favorable of course - in fact, neutral reporting of such would indicate bias.

 

QFT +1

 

Presenting both sides of the argument as equally deserving of attention when one faction is spouting raving fantasist nonsense and the other is providing widely supported and well documented research is not balanced reporting.

[Greg H.]

I'll be honest, I've felt that for a long time what this country needs is to be a bunch of smaller countries - we have reached a point in population diversity where it is becoming nearly impossible to reach consensus on major issues.

 

I don't trust the politicians in Washington in general, but to be honest, the last decade or so everything that the Republicans try and do just scares me. I keep hoping the party will officially split so I can actually vote for the moderate people that I tend to agree with more, instead of having to vote against their party in general because I'm too damned scared of what the extremists might be able to do if they win. To a lesser extent that goes for the democrats as well. What we really need is a third moderate party.

[GiantEvil]

Imagine an incident where a national monument has been vandalized through being festooned with feces.

 

Fair and balanced news report;

Last night some person, maybe as an attempted good deed gone awry, has spread whole organic fertilizer on and around a certain national monument. At least the grass around the monument should grow quite well for some time.

 

True reporting;

Last night some miscreant festooned national monument x with feces.

 

A pound can't be balanced with a ton, neither can true be balanced with false. In the context of an unambiguous reality, there is a right and a wrong and they are neither equivalent nor equally balanced, but one is right and one is wrong.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought, if the dispute rumbles on long enough the US will end up defaulting on its debts. That will probably crash the world's economy.

Those of us "outside looking in" can clearly distinguish between the two groups who are in a position to avoid that.

One side one the election, and with it the right to govern: the other side didn't.

 

Only one side has the moral high ground here.

[Phi for All]

I'll be honest, I've felt that for a long time what this country needs is to be a bunch of smaller countries - we have reached a point in population diversity where it is becoming nearly impossible to reach consensus on major issues.

 

I don't trust the politicians in Washington in general, but to be honest, the last decade or so everything that the Republicans try and do just scares me. I keep hoping the party will officially split so I can actually vote for the moderate people that I tend to agree with more, instead of having to vote against their party in general because I'm too damned scared of what the extremists might be able to do if they win. To a lesser extent that goes for the democrats as well. What we really need is a third moderate party.

 

Before that can happen, we need a different voting system. Winner-take-all is a big reason why we have this current ~50/50 fiasco. It would be awesome to have an Eisenhower party, and I'd like to see some ideas from the practically non-existent left be represented as well (even some of those far-left Kucinich kind of ideas, like the public should keep owning our own utilities).

 

Since our current voting practices historically guarantee the emergence of just two major parties, I have to assume those currently pulling strings behind the scenes want it that way. Fewer campaigns to finance, clearer lines to be drawn (us vs them) and it's just easier to fool most of the people all the time this way.

[WWLabRat]

 

Before that can happen, we need a different voting system. Winner-take-all is a big reason why we have this current ~50/50 fiasco. It would be awesome to have an Eisenhower party, and I'd like to see some ideas from the practically non-existent left be represented as well (even some of those far-left Kucinich kind of ideas, like the public should keep owning our own utilities).

 

Since our current voting practices historically guarantee the emergence of just two major parties, I have to assume those currently pulling strings behind the scenes want it that way. Fewer campaigns to finance, clearer lines to be drawn (us vs them) and it's just easier to fool most of the people all the time this way.

 

Rather than have a different voting system, we need to use one that actually makes sense: every vote counts. Instead of this bull crap with the electoral college deciding who they are going to vote for because they thing that's what the people want. Yeah, I'm sure there would be instances where recounts would be needed in the event of a close race, but it's the most accurate way of seeing who it is that the American people really want to have in offices.

[iNow]

You know that argument being made by the right and being propagated across "conservative" media sources that ACA is pushing people into part-time jobs? Yeah, surprise surprise. That's a bit of a lie, too. The data is pretty clear on this:

 

 

http://www.epi.org/blog/obamacare-isnt-causing-increase-part-time/

 

One of the more baffling messages in the current debate over the economy and “Obamacare” is the hue and cry over the trend in part-time employment. The fact is that since the end of the Great Recession, the trend in part-time employment has been down, not up.

<...>

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers will be required to provide insurance to workers who work for more than 30 hours a week. This mandate does not take effect for another year. There is no reason why anticipation of it should increase part-time employment in the meantime. And at any rate, such employment has been falling before and after the passage of Obamacare.