>>But hey, they must all be uncritical partisan hacks who believe every word from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, right????

I agree that this is *exactly* the sort of superficial understanding that wants to be seen as intellectualism in pop culture.

Amateurs imagine that each survey or finding occurs in isolation and need not be compared to anything else.

Experts insist on comparing with other models or with what came before and what is predicted next, so they can tell whether things are getting better or getting worse or at least whether goals are realistic.

This is why those Commonwealth Reports compare between First World countries- since stats for just one country don't provide much detail about how things are going. You need to compare.

In this case, you needed to compare with the Physician Foundation surveys of 2008 and 2010 before issuing a declaration re the meaning of the 2014 survey. You made no attempt and I doubt you even know- so let me tell you that physicians have been negative about healthcare admin and funding for years now. The ACA did not just materialize in Nirvana and screw it up, it just happens to be the prevailing model in 2014.

Those of us who actually read the surveys rather than sound-biting or cherry picking convenient stats, consider that physicians are more positive today than they were in previous surveys.

For clarity: physicians are more positive today than they were in previous surveys.

My expectation would be that partisan "intellectuals" don't want to hear that, so they cherry pick the latest statistics and claim the sky is falling.

Does this mean that the ACA is a resounding hit? Of course not. But nor is it proper to draw the conclusion you seek.

I go back to my earlier example- that Republicans know the ACA is no good until they sign up, whereupon 75% are satisfied.

QED, Voila, and thanks for the example.