SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: FJB who wrote (350032)2/22/2010 11:20:55 AM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations  Respond to of 793840
 
Obama sinking fast as all promises decompose and all words leave his mouth with the rotten stench of animal waste!

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, February 22, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That matches yesterday’s result as the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends).

The only day that Barack Obama’s Approval Index ratings were lower than today was last December 22. Like today, that came at a time when the President was making a strong push for his proposed health care legislation. Most voters have consistently opposed that plan.

Forty-seven percent (47%) say it is possible for the U.S. to achieve victory in Afghanistan while 30% disagree. Voters remain divided as to whether the primary objective should be victory or getting troops home as soon as possible.

New data released this morning on the Republican primary in Florida shows that Marco Rubio has opened a wider lead over Charlie Crist.

Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Topics include voter frustration with Washington, health care, Election 2010 and more.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

Commenting on In Search of Self-Governance, Jay Cost says that Scott Rasmussen “draws upon his unparalleled knowledge of public opinion to explore the relationship between the governed and the government, and what the people can do to change that relationship for the better. The result is a thoughtful and persuasive essay from a writer who knows the subject matter inside and out. I highly recommend it."

In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com.

(More Below)

Currently, 39% of voters nationwide favor the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed. Most say that Congress should wait to act until voters select new congressional representatives in November.

If the proposed health care plan becomes law, 78% of voters expect it will cost more than projected. Voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the federal deficit and lead to middle-class tax hikes. Most of those with insurance fear that they could be forced to change their coverage if the health care legislation passes.

Rasmussen Reports has polled on 2010 Senate races in Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Washington, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina and Iowa.

Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina Wisconsin, and Texas.

Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about his favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.

(More Below)

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

Data from the Washington Post confirms that Rasmussen Reports was well ahead of other media coverage on the Massachusetts Senate race. In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

During Election 2008, liberal blogger Nate Silver said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."

In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.

An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.

We also have provided a summary of our 2008 state-by-state Presidential results for your review.

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).

See also our 2008 state results for Senate and governor. See 2006 results for Senate and governor.

Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members. Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology).

Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Since the November 2008 election, the number of Democrats in the country has declined while the number of unaffiliated voters has grown.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 35.6% Democrats, 33.1% Republicans, and 31.2% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.



To: FJB who wrote (350032)2/22/2010 1:24:39 PM
From: gamesmistress2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793840
 
Why does Anthem want to raise its rates? One explanation.

Sebelius pumping up Dems with attacks on Big Insurance
Filed under: General — Karl @ 9:49 am

[Posted by Karl]
patterico.com

In hindsight, it seems odd that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had such a low-profile role in Democrats’ attempt to take over the US healthcare system. She now seems to be assigned the role of cheerleader, to pump up the party’s left-wing base. That is the main function of her idle talk about reviving the public option (which even Ezra Klein sees as pssibly self-defeating). It is also the main point of her recent attacks on big rate increases proposed by Big Insurance (Democrat strategist Ed Kilgore and The Hill are among those noting the attacks are “aimed at ginning up public support for their healthcare reform efforts”).

Her primary target is Wellpoint’s Anthem Blue Cross unit in California, which seeks a large rate increase in the individual market. Although Sebelius was quick to note that Wellpoint made billions last year, she ignored the fact that Anthem Blue Cross lost money. Paul Krugman gets half-credit for conceding that point:

Here’s the story: About 800,000 people in California who buy insurance on the individual market — as opposed to getting it through their employers — are covered by Anthem Blue Cross, a WellPoint subsidiary. These are the people who were recently told to expect dramatic rate increases, in some cases as high as 39 percent.

Why the huge increase? It’s not profiteering, says WellPoint, which claims instead (without using the term) that it’s facing a classic insurance death spiral.

Bear in mind that private health insurance only works if insurers can sell policies to both sick and healthy customers. If too many healthy people decide that they’d rather take their chances and remain uninsured, the risk pool deteriorates, forcing insurers to raise premiums. This, in turn, leads more healthy people to drop coverage, worsening the risk pool even further, and so on.

Now, what WellPoint claims is that it has been forced to raise premiums because of “challenging economic times”: cash-strapped Californians have been dropping their policies or shifting into less-comprehensive plans. Those retaining coverage tend to be people with high current medical expenses. And the result, says the company, is a drastically worsening risk pool: in effect, a death spiral.


Krugman then argues that “California’s death spiral makes nonsense of all the main arguments against comprehensive health reform.” However, Krugman ignores the fact that the woes of Anthem Blue Cross — and similar insurers — rest quite a bit with government in the first instance:

Wellpoint’s rate hikes are the direct result of the Golden State’s insurance regulations—the kind that Democrats want to impose on all 50 states. Under federal Cobra rules, the unemployed are allowed to keep their job-related health benefits for 18 to 36 months. California then goes further and bars Anthem from dropping these customers even after they have exhausted Cobra. California also caps what Anthem can charge these post-Cobra customers.

Most other states direct these customers to high-risk pools that are partly subsidized, but California requires the individual market to absorb the customers and their costs. Even as California insurers have had to keep insuring these typically older and sicker patients, the recession has driven many younger, healthier policy holders to drop their insurance—leaving fewer customers to fund a more expensive insurance pool.


***

This episode is a preview of the adverse selection that would happen nationwide if ObamaCare passes. The Democratic bills would control what insurers could charge and force them to take all comers, regardless of health status. These burdens were supposed to be made tolerable by requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. Yet when this “individual mandate” proved to be unpopular, Congress watered it down so that younger customers would be able to pay the penalty knowing they can wait until they’re sick to pay the more expensive premiums. The only way an insurer can make up for these higher costs is to raise premiums.

Mind you, Big Insurance can blame themselves for their current plight. Their lobby — America’s Health Insurance Plans — was quite content to back ObamaCare, so long as there was no public option and the mandates were high enough to guarantee them higher profits in the future. The vast majority of Americans who are already have insurance — and are generally happy with it — deserve better. Unfortunately, the whining reply of AHIP honcho (and former Big Labor hack) Karen Ignagni suggests they still have not learned that you cannot cut a long-term deal with a crocodile.