Wednesday, December 4, 2013

As America's Youth Mature, Bad News for ObamaCare... Good News For the Nation!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Oops! Time for more re-education/indoctrination I suppose. The very crowd that the ACA (OBAMAFART) needs to successfully foist the government mandated health insurance law on the individual and independent American people are balking. GREAT NEWS for liberty and the proper role of government. Since the two lunkheaded sides of the political spectrum are INCAPABLE of working to find consensus this is the next best thing. Independent, intelligent individuals, and the future of the nation making their voices heard, loud and clear.

NationalJournal - Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University's Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25--the youngest millennials--would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America's rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government's domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. "Young Americans hold the president, Congress and the federal government in less esteem almost by the day, and the level of engagement they are having in politics are also on the decline," reads the IOP's analysis of its poll. "Millennials are losing touch with government and its programs because they believe government is losing touch with them."

The results blow a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama's two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama's approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied "all members of Congress" should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

While there is no provision for a public recall of U.S. presidents, the poll question revealed just how far Obama has fallen in the eyes of young Americans.

IOP director Trey Grayson called the results a "sea change" attributable to the generation's outsized and unmet expectations for Obama, as well as their concerns about the economy, Obamacare and government surveillance.

The survey of 2,089 young adults, conducted Oct. 30 through Nov. 11, spells trouble for the Affordable Care Act. The fragile economics underpinning the law hinge on the willingness of healthy, young Americans to forgo penalties and buy health insurance. {Read More}

There is hope for America yet!

Via: Memeorandum

24 comments:

  1. One of the great flaws of the ACA was the private mandate as opposed to a Medicare buy-in or a public option. The insurance companies were dead set against the latter route because they knew they could not compete with Medicare or large non-profits, an irony lost on conservatives. Without special status, the insurance industry would probably be out of reach for the vast majority of people. The industry is heavily reliant on the government.

    And expecting young people to choose to purchase expensive insurance from for-profits or they may have to pay some more taxes sounds more like a plan to raise taxes on the lower brackets than a plan to actually get people insured. I don't blame young people for being turned off on that, and it doesn't surprise me at all that this stupid idea was a conservative one, and therefore should have not been engaged in the first place. Obama was not able to man up to the right and the insurance companies on that one, and that was disappointing.

    Just the same, if you think this will enamor the young to the right, you're nuts. That ship sailed. away a long time ago. In 20, 30, 40 years, the GOP will be long since in the minority across the country and conservatism will be little more than a nagging regional affectation as it has been through much of our history.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To your last paragraph... and progressives will finally achieve their goal of progressive socialist one party rule.

      At least you're honest about your desires. Must be the day for it as the President let the cat out of the bag tonight on Mathews Hardball. Which was really more softball lobs than hardball.

      Delete
    2. Les said: "To your last paragraph... and progressives will finally achieve their goal of progressive socialist one party rule."

      Yeah... a lot like North Korea, which is what you get when you realize full progressivism, with such features as all of the "plutocrats" (small businesses) crushed, a total "fairness doctrine" in which the state is the arbiter of what is fair to report, universal healthcare, people who make movies criticizing the rulers are criminals (the goal of "Move to Amend" and the idea of repealing "Citizens United"). A truly wonderful progressive place.

      Delete
    3. Jersey once again speaks like a campaign stump speech without any regard to history and facts: " In 20, 30, 40 years, the GOP will be long since in the minority across the country and conservatism will be little more than a nagging regional affectation as it has been through much of our history. "

      Replace GOP with Democrats, and conservatism with liberalism, and you get the the exact sort of party boilerplate boasts I see from hardline purely partisan conservatives also. Jersey has a hell of a lot in common with them.

      Delete
    4. Also, RN, in regards to "and progressives will finally achieve their goal of progressive socialist one party rule.", I would like to mention something a little off topic, but timely.

      Today we remember and honor the life of Nelson Mandela. He angered many on the left because when he got out and saw the reality of South Africa and economics in the world. he embraced free markets and rejected left-fascism. From this Branson article:

      "...ultimately, after taking office in 1994 he embraced fiscal restraint, privatizations of state owned industries, structural reforms to the labor market, and a monetary policy to control inflation."

      Nelson Mandela is to be honored for standing up to oppression... and that includes the oppression of state control. More on topic, he embraced knowledge and new solutions and was famously able to ditch disproven failed ideology for pragmatism and sound approaches. This is the kind of thinking we need for healthcare... not reactionaries of the left and right using this issue as an excuse to support profiteering insurance hawks or megalomaniac government control of private affairs.

      Delete
    5. Jersey said: "Just the same, if you think this will enamor the young to the right, you're nuts."

      Let's truth-check this, shall we? To see if JMJ is making a sound accusation, or bellowing like a beast (a la Howard Dean) confident of a victory that won't occur.

      From Gallup, 2009

      Age Group: 18 to 29: 30% conservative, 31% liberal (essentially the same), and 39% moderate. Yes. the largest group in the "young" is enamored of moderation, and the left isn't any more successful than the right.

      Delete
  2. This was utterly predictable. Of course, young people see through this confiscatory piece of clap-trap and of course they're going to pay the fine and do the sane and responsible thing and purchase a catastrophic plan outside the network. The leftist dolts think that the American people are stupid and while I largely concur with them on that, they ain't THAT stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "conservatism will be little more than a nagging regional affectation as it has been through much of our history." Yeah, as opposed to liberalism which hadn't given a President for nearly 80 years (Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton not being anywhere near as liberal as Obama and FDR).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were long periods in our history when conservatism became a regional nagging affectation. One time it caused 600,000 Americans to die. In post WWII America, the GOP had to transform into a Southern-based Party in order to keep enough constituency. During the 40 years or so of that transformation, they became a long-term minority on Capitol Hill, where laws come from. Were it not for gerrymandering, the numbers clearly show they'd already be a minority or at least close to one today.

      The young people who are disappointed by the ACA, erstwhile Obama supporters, are certainly not going to vote conservative in the future. They may not like the ACA, but they can't stand the stench of the refuse the GOP is shoveling, especially the social crap. They also know Obamacare is easy to fix, we just have to see if Obama, or President Hillary, can muster the political power to do it.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. To try and lay the blame of slavery/the Civil War strictly at the feet of "conservatives" is thoroughly comedic. a) Modern demarcations of liberal and conservative, while they may in fact salve the psyche of the pedestrian thinkers such as Jersey, cannot readily be transplanted into previous centuries. b) There have clearly been numerous examples of those who we now consider as progressive in the west who have also been virulent racists; Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Teddy Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, Margaret Sanger, H.G. Wells, etc.. And c) every other country in the hemisphere got rid of slavery without a civil war and so maybe your good guy bad guy paradigm needs to be reexamined just a bit.

      Delete
    3. And I didn't say that young people were necessarily going to vote for the Republicans. I only said that Obamacare was going to implode and that the hard left was going have to pay a price.

      Delete
    4. "... or President Hillary, can muster the political power to do it."

      1) The last thing we need is a Hillary Presidency, 2) Perhaps your desire is for a North American Greece/Portugal sooner rather than later?

      It doesn't really matter because just as youse guys planned (democrats and republicans) this nation will arrive there eventually. I'm glad I'm not long for this this existence. Time is ticking and the grains of sand left are few. The problem will be as planned, left for the next and the following generation to deal with.

      Delete
    5. "1) The last thing we need is a Hillary Presidency"

      Her swearing an oath to protect the Constitution would be a 180 for her. Hillary, at a time everyone knew the cause of the Benghazi incident (which had nothing to do with movies), went public and took the opportunity to attack the First Amendment rights of filmmakers. Hillary did this as part of a campaign to support "blasphemy laws" which would in effect enshrine special protection for certain faiths and destruction of free speech rights in US and international law. Read here for an account of Hillary going before and honoring a terrorist organization and not being friendly at all to free expression.to a terrorist organization.

      Hillary should apologize for these statements and re-iterate her support for the freedom of filmmakers to make any movie they want about any historic or imagined figure they want.
      --------------------------

      RN asked: " 2) Perhaps your desire is for a North American Greece/Portugal sooner rather than later? "

      Someone shouted support of single payer in reply to this. That answer was clearly "sooner".

      Delete
  4. Well wd/DS, it couldn't possibly be any worse then the disastrous ACA.

    Either way tic toc, tic toc, tic toc... the countdown commences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: I do think it "single payer" would be worse than the ACA. We'd go from dozens of independent and imperfectly-competing insurance companies to one single one. And this single one, unlike the present insurance companies, would be able to murder you for refusing to participate in it. (And yes, of course, despite your earlier suspicion, I am aware that the ACA is not "single payer". And, I think, like you, the ACA is fixable. Single payer is not fixable at all other than a reform that would completely break up the monopoly and privatize it).

      Delete
    2. Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modificartions (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea.

      As I said, it couldn't possibly be worse than OBAMAFART. Of course I have mentioned the Swiss Style Healthcare might work here, again with modifications to adapt to a much larger populace.

      Problem with the republican plans is they really are repackaged what we already have. Sooo, what we have ia OBAMAFART,.

      Delete
    3. Actually, Dennis, we'd go from insurers providing their services for profit to a service operated by servants of the people, provided on a not-for-profit basis. The costs would drop significantly and everyone would be covered. Everyone isn't covered under the ACA. In fact, state legislatures and governors (of red states) decided it would be just fine with them if poor people continued to die due to a lack of health insurance. And they also decided that people showing up in emergency rooms (where they couldn't be turned away and where the cost to treat them would be much higher) would be great as well. All for the pleasure of knowing people would die unnecessarily? Huh. Maybe that's murder?

      Delete
    4. BTW, Les, if you want to append "fart" to the end of the name of the law, what about calling it "Heritage-Fart"? Obama went with the Conservative plan because he thought he'd get some cooperation from the Republicans (seeing as the Conservatives came up with it). What he didn't want was a repeat of what happened under Clinton (when the defeated legislation was called "HillaryCare").

      Delete
    5. Good idea, thanks Mr. Sanders. Heritage/OBAMAFART it is.

      Point of clarification, I am fiscal conservative (as in Classical Liberal) and a social libertarian. I pay little attention to the HF these days as they are neither.

      Delete
  5. By the way jmj, as to "the stench of the refuse", suffice to say that is a truly bipartisan effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to forgive him, Les. The dude sees lefts and rights in his Cheerios.

      Delete
  6. IMO, young people are unhappy with lack of jobs and loaded with college debt. Neither party seems
    able to address those issues, and that generation seems glum and uninvolved. Whether that translates into shifting political demographics remains to be seen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As to whether or not the dissatisfaction and lack of involvement by young adults results in shifting political demographics I agree, it is much too rearly to even make a guess.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.