Skip to comments.Public to Supreme Court: Don’t gut Obamacare [But opposition at RECORD HIGH]
Posted on 06/08/2015 7:43:10 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
click here to read article
This is an editorial disguised as news....."SCOTUS needs to obey a poll and IGNORE THE LAW" is the message.
Meanwhile, because others would be able to read the internals of the poll, the "journalist" has to bury the big news: opposition is at an all time high.
So excuses have to be found for THAT circumstance.
Ahh, the loudest voices overrule Law??? Convenient for the commies.
Our Pravda/Media knows no ‘truth’ but what the Dems tell them to print.
In 1973 I’m sure public polling would have been overwhelmingly against abortion on demand ahead of Roe v. Wade.
But I digress.
Without this poll in the WaPo, how is Roberts supposed to know how to vote?
In a poll taken at the Washington Post’s newsroom...
...”more people say the court should not take action to block federal subsidies in states that didn’t set up their own exchanges”.
...are you kidding me?! The average American would have no idea how to respond nor could they comprehend such a question.
The way I read it, people like the free money (subsidies), but don’t like deathcare.
Obie was just on teevee saying how the “majority of Americans” favor 0bieCare. The propaganda is at level highs, with the regime & Co.
Lie, lie, lie....... then report someone else’s lies then lie some more.
The fix is in. Roberts already had a chance to undo Obamacare, but he folded like a cheap lawn chair. He is not going to reverse himself now.
Getting rid of Obamacare will give the economy a real boom.
Everybody who didn't have insurance was being serviced some way...some how...whether with their private funds or medicare or Medicaid....whatever.
All Obamacare did was get all your banking account numbers and your income figures...one, big, fat, government, data bank.
So if this poll is to be believed the at least some of the people who oppose it also don't want it done away with.
WaPo and ABC — now there is a poll you can believe. /S
He also said that there was no plan "B" because Obamacare is a critical part of his overall plan.
Could he have been any clearer about what his intentions are?
Well the Supreme Court is not suppose to base rulings on public opinion polls, but who the h-ll knows anymore, some days I feel like I’m living in a banana republic with the rules being made up and changing on a whim.
Let me see, I get this here pile of dough from the government, be it subsidized health care; crop subsidy; mortgage interest deduction; welfare; 99 weeks of unemployment; earned income tax credits and the like. Now then, here comes a question: do you favor reducing or eliminating any of your benefits. Hum, let me think of this a second....I think I will answer NO.
Indeed, you make a good point. Let’s take a look at the questions asked in this poll.
“Q: Overall, do you support or oppose the federal law that made changes to the health care system? 39% Support. 54% Oppose”
That right there is significant. Opposition has never been higher. Not for any WP poll at least.
Then they asked this question:
“Q: The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding a case that could undermine the entire health care law by blocking federal subsidies that help some low and moderate income Americans pay for their health insurance. Do you think the court should or should not take. 38% Should. 55% Should not. “
The problems here should be obvious. First the question is cut off so we really don’t know what they were asked. Were they asked, “Do you think the court should or should not take...action to limit this subsidy?” OR, “Do you think the court should or should not take...the subsidy out of the law?”
Now maybe this is a problem viewing the webpage on my phone but I don’t think so. The question is cut off.
We this have no way to know what was asked other than the implication from the Post that what was asked was the latter possibility. Or something like it.
Even if that’s what was asked, the point you brought up is valid, because most might hear that question and have no idea what it means. So, to not sound stupid, and not sound like they want all parts of the law going away, like the prohibition of pre-existing conditions exclusions, most might indeed answer “the SC should not” take away the subsidies. It’s a meaningless answer though, one out of ignorance (even for the best case scenario for the Post described above).
The bottom line is we all know that most people “support” the law insomuch as it prevents any pre-existing condition from being a reason to deny coverage to an individual. Other than that though, even John Q is starting to see the light especially where his own wallet is concerned. And that, the Post really doesn’t want to report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.