actually he explained almost step by step why their polls are not scientific. I'm still on vactiona and responding to this thread, because your claim here was so detatched from reality that it amazed me. Major pointed out how the responders to the poll aren't randomly selected and the method of response etc.
It's 1995 all over again! GOP Exempts Deficit Busting Policies From New Budget Rules Republicans' deficit reduction platform, which may have helped catapult them into the majority, is about to run headlong into a hard reality: Many of their key policy goals will increase the deficit dramatically. To get around this fact, they've included measures in their new rules package to exempt some of their biggest legislative priorities from deficit consideration. Among the exceptions, which the House is likely to consider in the 112th Congress, are the health care repeal bill (scheduled for a vote a week from Wednesday), the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, an AMT patch, extending the estate tax, and more. You can read more about the health care repeal side of this here. And more about the GOP's Calvinball rules here. That law, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will reduce the deficit by $143 billion through the end of the decade, and more so in the decade after that. Thus, repealing the law will blow a similarly sized hole in the deficit. Republicans wave this off. "No one believes that the job-killing health care law will lower costs, because it won't," Michael Steel, spokesman for incoming House Speaker John Boehner, told Politico. "That's why we've pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that will actually work." That statement echoes what Republicans have been saying for months now. But the CBO has said explicitly that repealing health care reform would cause the deficit to increase. The House GOP is set to ignore that warning when they hold their vote on repeal next week.
No they aren't. Sadly, the stock market now has nothing to do with sentiments of average investors. It's artificially pumped up to make the economy look better Staying out of the healthcare debate. :grin:
So you agree that there is confidence about the economy right now? And you think that is because the Republicans are holding a pointless vote to repeal the health care bill? LOL, good stuff.
40%? Be serious. What are these people going to do then? Okay, some portion could realistically retire. For younger doctors that can't yet retire, what work could they do that will make as much or more money than they could as doctors -- even as doctors under 'Obamacare'? Everything they've already invested in getting their degrees, setting up practices and so on are sunk costs that cannot be recovered by merely quitting. So, what well-paying jobs are they qualified for?
I would say the increase in investor confidence comes from the Republicans winning Congress. Investor confidence started rising around mid October; about the time it was looking certain Republicans would win.
I agree that 40% won't retire and some physicians are just angry and blowing smoke, but even if half these people are being truthful it would be a lot.
I would be interested in the same unscientific survey with the following question: "What would your career plans be, with no healthcare reform, given the current state of your work and the healthcare enterprise overall." All doctors I know considered status quo unsustainable. (This is a sample of about 100, which is a long story. Not my personal doctors.)
No, it wouldn't. The people who responded to the email are not a representative sample, the only thing that poll "proves" is that 40% of the people who responded to that email don't like the HCR bill.
Explain that investor confidence started increasing in mid October? http://www.statestreet.com/investorconfidenceindex/ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GRZEWI:IND
Don't feel like looking over other links because they're not medically relevant or authoritative, but this is not from NEJM.
Yer not even a good liar. From your linky The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society. I mean, that's on the home page of your link. I didn't even check the other links. Seriously, how can we believe anything you say when you keep do this kind of stuff?
