Five specific GOP predictions about Obamacare: TRUE OR FALSE?

Back before Obamacare was passed, good conservative Republicans made MANY DIRE PREDICTIONS about all of the things that would go wrong with Obamacare if it was made into law.

Well, most of Obamacare has now been implemented, so let’s see how accurate these predictions were! Specifically, the Commonwealth Fund has released the results of a new survey to find out what people’s real, true, actual experiences with Obamacare have been.

PREDICTION 1: Obamacare won’t really cover any new people!

Republicans were making the sensible prediction that all Obamacare would do is make lazy people even lazier by making the taxpayers pay for their insurance, but it would not actually insure more people.

Result:

Obamacare: Uninsured Rate Declines

(About 9.5 million adults gained new coverage, and that figure does not include children.)

PREDICTION 2: The coverage provided by Obamacare will be worse!

Republicans predicted that people will be worse off with Obamacare plans than they were before, because Obamacare is socialist and socialism is always bad.

Result:

Obamacare: people are better off

(Fifty-eight percent of those who signed up for Obamacare — either for Medicaid or private insurance — said that they were better off than they were before than had their new insurance plan.)

PREDICTION 3: People will hate the Obamacare plans!

Republicans were frantically going around finding people who didn’t like their new Obamacare plans in order to prove that everyone hated it.

Result:

Obamacare: most people like their coverage

(78% of the people surveyed reported being satisfied with their new Obamacare insurance.)

PREDICTION 4: People signing up won’t even use the coverage!

Obamacare will be forcing people to buy coverage that they won’t even use!

Result:

Obamacare: most people have used their coverage

(Three out of five enrollees have used their new insurance — most were people who couldn’t afford care before.)

PREDICTION 5: Obamacare will cause long lines and wait times, nobody will be able to get appointments!

Just like in Canada, right!?!?

Result:

Obamacare: most people got appointments quickly

(More than a third were able to get appointments within a week, more than half were able to get appointments within two weeks.)

SO WHAT IS THE VERDICT?

The Republican predictions about the failure of Obamacare are…. well, just look at the graphs!

I think “Close Enough!” pretty much captures it, don’t you?

SHOCKING: Weird climate change poll suggests that money matters to people.

Liberals have been trumpeting a recent poll result that suggests people are willing to pay more for their energy bills in order to fight global warming a.k.a. climate change.

“By an almost two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 33 percent, Americans say they would pay more for energy if it would mean a reduction in pollution from carbon emissions,” says the Bloomberg National Poll website.

This goes against the headlines from 2012, where a Huffington Post poll said that 54% would be unwilling to pay more to fight climate change, compared to only 20% who said they would be willing.

Has the American population shifted its opinion THAT DRAMATICALLY in less than two years?

(the answer is below the image… can you guess it before you scroll down?)

Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.
Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.

No, it hasn’t. In fact, there is no evidence that the American people have changed their opinions on this issue at all. This is something that gets us really, really mad here at Liberal Bias because it involves biased reporting about NUMBERS AND STATISTICS, and unfortunately in this case it is not tied to one side of the partisan divide or the other. Both liberals and conservatives have mis-reported this result.

The difference is in the details of the questions on the surveys.

The 2012 survey asked: “If it meant we could stop climate change, would you personally be willing to pay 50 percent more on your gas and electricity bills?” (emphasis added).

The 2014 survey asked: “What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month – in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?” (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION:

So the first survey did not find “people unwilling to pay more”; it found “people unwilling to pay 50% more.”

The second survey did not find “people willing to pay more”; it found “people willing to pay $20 more.”

These two survey results, together, do not show that people’s opinions about climate change are “evolving”.  They merely show that the amount of money that people are asked to pay to fight climate change matters.

Shocking result, right?

 


 

Now, let’s talk about liberal bias.  For dedicated Tea Partiers and Conservatives, who live in a world where “unbiased” means “not liberal” and “fair and balanced” actually describes what Fox News does, the 2012 poll result represents the real truth, because “OMG FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SO EXPENSIVE IT WILL CAUSE TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!!!!1”

Obviously, asking people to pay a mere $20 more for climate change is unrealistic, right? We have to make the number big enough to seem scary.  If we don’t make regulation seem scary, well then that is just LIBERAL BIAS.

Do you agree?