From - McClatchy http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/1 … z168GbRfv3
"WASHINGTON â�� A majority of Americans want the Congress to keep the new health care law or actually expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
The post-election survey showed that 51 percent of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44 percent want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.
Driving support for the law: Voters by margins of 2-1 or greater want to keep some of its best-known benefits, such as barring insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. One thing they don't like: the mandate that everyone must buy insurance.
At the same time, the survey showed that a majority of voters side with the Democrats on another hot-button issue, extending the Bush era tax cuts that are set to expire Dec. 31 only for those making less than $250,000."
Why wouldn't they? It's not perfect but a significant improvement.
i saw that poll today and last night i saw wendell potter the cigna insurance executive that is the whistlblower on the insurance industry. he explains just how unscroupulous it was before healthcare reform in a book called the deadly spin. i wonder what all those foaming at the mouth right wingers will say now that it's apparent that they were lied too?
Which is the problem with both the law and the poll. If you ask people whether they are in favor of preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, most people are going to say yes. Or similarly when you ask them about allowing them to keep their kids on their insurance longer and about the closing of a loophole insurance companies have used to deny prescription drug coverage. Pretty much nobody is opposed to those things because they do nothing but benefit them.
However, when you ask them about the part of the bill that people who oppose the bill actually object to, you get a much different answer:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144422/Four- … s-Far.aspx
The same law that was "shoved down our throats"?
Are you saying the majority of the American people approve having things shoved down their throats?
Be specific - what people and what's in their throat?
Teabaggers are very oral - at least that's the rumor.
My comment was tongue in...
Damned double entendres!!!
Valid point - Obama ran his campaign on Health Care Reform and was elected on that platform and then delivered on that promise. It's not perfect - on that one point we all agree - but to pretend that HCR was sprung on the people as a surprise is preposterous.
From what I remember the last time I saw any US porn - yes !
I would rather have mandatory healthcare shoved down my throat than have a sharp object shoved down my throat and then have no way to afford to pay off my medical bills afterwards.
We're one of the few industrialized nations that have a sorry health care system. We rate #37 in the world when it comes to health carfe and the healthcare bill is a start. It's a foundation to build upon and although not perfect, it'll evolve into something that will benefit all Americans. I don't care what the Tea Baggers or conservatives say. There's no doubt that they love America, but they don't like anyone in it! They need to get over themselves!
How long before our resident baggers tell us it is all lies?
Will Fox report this? If so, what will the baggers do? Will their heads explode?
I won't deny it, a poll is a poll. However, I will suggest reading the book "How To Lie with Statistics" and "Freakonomics" and "Superfreakonomics" to help you with gauging when a poll is being undertaken with a goal in mind
(*I'm not saying that this poll WAS conducting trying to prove one way or the other, I'm just saying that it does happen, and these books will arm you against such treachery*)
I will, however, say that Tyranny of the Masses is still Tyranny. I don't want to pay for your health (because I'm a jerk), but you're forcing me to do so because you have the military on your side. That's tyranny.
An unemployed and therefore uninsured man dies because he can't afford treatment, leaving behind children. Who is going to pay for their upbringing? Taxpayers are.
Maybe if there WAS a Death Panel, they would have deemed him worthy of treatment and saved the you some money.
yes yes yes, death sucks. This is the problem with this discussion. I say: "I want a system that most efficiently gives people freedom and also keeps things working properly", to what everyone replies: "YOU HATE CHILDREN!!!"
Paying for sick people = nice
Stealing the money from people = not nice.
Stealing money from people, and then using it to pay for sick people = In my opinion: Evil; In your opinion: nice.
I'm merely drawing attention away from the "we're helping people" part of the debate and towards the "government is paying for that with stolen money".
Death sucks. Sorry it exists.
you refer to stealing as though it were true. the right refers to charity. as though peoples left overs is enough to do something on a regular basis. charity is supposed to be 10% of your income and it would only help a couple people in that local area. healthcare reform will take an additional 2-3% only and help everybody, all the time. the right uses the word freedom to manipiulate in favor of money. if the decisions that are made are logical and better for the people, how can you go wrong. it's like your mom when you were five telling you to look both ways when you cross the street and you complaining that you don't want to "have" to look both ways because it's not freedom ha
I fail to see how you can agree with my TV analogy, but then say that forcing me to pay money to people i don't want to give money to is is NOT theft.
Your analogy about crossing the street is not apt - I willingly choose to look both ways. i don't have a gun pointed to my head while demanding I look.
If i choose to not pay taxes, I go to jail. Even if I disagree with health care, warfare, etc, I need to pay or have my freedoms stripped.
Charity would be me doing as such: "Hey, I have money that I don't really need, and there are a lot of sick people out there. I'll WILLINGLY donate my money to them to help make their lives better."
Evan, if you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to work.
It's not theft because you can opt out of the system. No one is holding a gun to your head.
But as I've pointed out before, you'll also need to stop using the interstate, stop buying things at the supermarket, and not call the police next time you need protection.
I understand your point. However, wouldn't your logic apply to those who recieve government benefits without paying taxes? Should they too not be allowed to use the roads, police and fire departments? There are people in this country who are completely dependent on government subsistinance.
Well, what of it?
Who depends on those people who are dependent on the government? Are we talking about single moms who have no other way to raise their kids? Disabled people who have no way to make a living? Elderly people who rely on social security and medicare? What's the problem with that?
What about people who are unable to get a job that pays more than minimum wage because of their education or the economic situation where they live?
The number of people out there who are sitting around on their butts doing absolutely nothing while living large on a government check is probably right about zero.
And even if they are living completely off a government check, what are they getting? 15,000 a year maybe?
What value does a congressman get each year from his health coverage alone?
Did you know that this quarter, corporations posted the highest profits ever while unemployment remains stagnant? How are they making that money? Why aren't we taking those profits and investing them in supporting our fellow Americans who are out of work, sick without insurance, going hungry, veterans living on the street?
"Who depends on those people who are dependent on the government?"
No one, so why are they dependent on the Government? Where are their families? If we can post the names of deadbeat dads, dui arrest, etc in news papers, why not post the family members names who are neglecting their own? Not the Governments problem. Especially since the government solves problems with other peoples money.
"Are we talking about single moms who have no other way to raise their kids? Disabled people who have no way to make a living? Elderly people who rely on social security and medicare? What's the problem with that?"
Social Security is paid for, the member gets less than he/she paid in, if they are simply drawing based on retirement age. It needs to be abolished, but we can't just stop it overnight.
Single moms? Again, where are the fathers? Where are their families. Maybe some believe that the government should take the place of families, I don't.
"What about people who are unable to get a job that pays more than minimum wage because of their education or the economic situation where they live?"
How is that yours or my fault? What business of the Governments is it? So we reward a lack of effort or ability? How is that equitable?
"The number of people out there who are sitting around on their butts doing absolutely nothing while living large on a government check is probably right about zero."
You know better, I'm sure living in Tennessee, you've heard of "Crazy Checks".
"And even if they are living completely off a government check, what are they getting? 15,000 a year maybe?"
That's a great attitude, if you like being pecked to death by a duck!
"What value does a congressman get each year from his health coverage alone?" If you don't care about 15000 a year times hundreds of thousands, why do you care about the benefit program of 535? However I would tell you what ever it cost, is 100% too much!
"Did you know that this quarter, corporations posted the highest profits ever while unemployment remains stagnant? How are they making that money? Why aren't we taking those profits and investing them in supporting our fellow Americans who are out of work, sick without insurance, going hungry, veterans living on the street?"
Why do you begrudge their success? Do you not believe in your own ability to be successfull?(Rhetorical, I hear your confidence in your writing). We are a Capitalist society. Business' are NOT in business to create JOBS. It's a handy side effect to being profitable. Government intrusion has not helped and you know that. With the health care bill pending employers are afraid to hire, until they fully understand the implications.
Besides, they are "EARNING" those profits, not "TAKING" them.
Are they earning them? Really? Or are they gaining at the expense of Americans on the street?
Real wages have stagnated over the past 40 years for the bottom 40% of Americans. For top earners wages have doubled and quadrupled.
Tax subsidies for Oil companies average out to 4 billion dollars per company. How is that "earning" money?
CEO pay is now something like 300 times the pay of the average worker.
These people aren't earning anything - they're taking more and more and leaving you and me with less and less.
There will allways be a looser. It's the way of the world. The answer is not through more government intrusion. IMO.
I think it was great when, TIME?(I think) published a piece about CEO salaries. I believe a few were embarassed into skipping a years salary(CISCO, if memory serves).
Oil Subsidies = Government intrusion.
I think those who are concerned with the poor should, ONE: Help them yourself. TWO: place the scrutiny on Charities, NPO's and Churches, not the Rich.
They are leaving you and me what? I agree to work for a given wage. They get whats left. Thats business.
It was great when a UAW guy could get 25/hr for putting on lug nuts. Those days are over, thanks to UAW GREED and Clinton's NAFTA. Too bad it wasn't the UAW that lost, instead of the auto industry. How's their profits? I suspect theirs are growing by leaps and bounds. The UAW produces NOTHING.
William, have a great Thanksgiving. I do enjoy discussing the issues with you. Your a liberal that can expound upon the lefts positions. Not just quote the talking points. From you I can gain perspective. I think it's ok to disagree, even argue. I think it's all for nothing if you don't gain perspective. From you, I gain perspective.
You put up a foolish argument.
Indeed, if I wish to enjoy my freedom, I can simply choose to live off of the work of others! Indeed, through your own demands, I would be one receiving "free" health care, living off of welfare. It wouldn't be enjoyable, but it would be *cough* freedom.
i agreed with you in the analogy. with bush in iraq people become so swept up in the ferver that they don't use anything rational in their decisions and if you go against it then you quickly become the outsider. the leader of a nation should be much a parent. after much thought you must do what is "BEST" for your family.is that what bush did and is that what obama did? the answer is no and yes respectively.
with healthcare i don't see why "ANYBODY" would complain about "ANYTHING". it's always been to expensive and there were so many rules that disqualified you that even when you bought insurance you didn't know if you had insurance.
we had ins for my first son to be born. my company transferred me to the northern part of the state. we went to use it for pre natal care. they said that even though my same company was in the northern part of the state. i couldn't use my insurance because it was for the southern part. is that laughable?
so we purchased the new northern version that was exactly the same and let the first lapse. the story gets more complicated and ridiculous than that. at 61/2 months company transfers me back to the south. now northern won't work. i get ready to get new southern and they said you had to have the policy before the seventh month of pregnancy or the pregnancy and birth would not be covered. pre-existing condition.ultimately i had to pay for my son to be born out of my pocket. basically i paid the insurance company $5000 for that year for nothing. they were there only to rip people off. anyone that believes in freedom great! but you must ask the question freedom to do what?
but there are those that don't choose to look both ways and they will say the same negative rhetoric.eventhough the decision is for everyones good.
If they choose to not look both ways willingly, then it's freedom.
If they choose to look both ways because a gun is pointed at them, then it's tyranny.
It's really that simple.
well then you will have a lot of people run over in the name of freedom.our gov't says we will watch out for their safety.
according to your theory then we need no gov't. which, would quickly reproduce all the abuses from the past ,then a new gov't and we would wind up right back here.
The reply is for Pcunix: LOL if FOX News says anything negative about the Republicans or Tea Baggers. I'll bet that Glen Beck has a lower back tattoo (tramp stamp) of Bush and that a Bush/Cheney shrine exists somewhere in the building.
When I realized that the people crying about the Death Panels early on were seriously frickin' believing such blatant BS...
I tuned out politics completely. Seriously. My head was going to explode. I couldn't take it anymore so I shut the door.
Wasn't there an election just now?
Yeah. I heard it was a massive landslide... neener neener neener
But the way I'm seeing it, things are fairly checked and balanced over there in Washington. Kinda how things are supposed to be?
You can check out of politics but politics won't check out on you.
Social Security - Medicare - Health Care - fair taxes - Wall Street Reform - Environmental law. All these will bite you on the behind sooner or later if they don't get fixed.
Death panels won't really 'exist', but they will eventually come about.
The thing is that, now that more people have health care, demand for care will increase. Supply can't increase as fast, largely because of regulations like the AMA. Also, the government will (since it will likely be paying for a huge chunk of it) need to cut back on costs. This will take the form of some sort of price control. When price controls exist, it destroys a market: why bother making anything if you can't get a profit for it? (and vice-versa, why NOT make something and charge too much if you know the government WILL pay for it, no matter what).
Anyway, those things will come to ahead, and there will need to be SOME system of rationing out the valuable resources. It won't be, literally, a panel of judges sitting around deciding who gets to die, but more likely something along the lines of what we have now for people who need organs - a list of who gets it. -- this system of lists and the sort exists mostly because the US doesn't have a system of selling organs, or competing for purchasing a body-part. Countries that DO allow the selling of organs, and the price bidding for organs (for example, Iran allows you to sell your kidneys) don't have as long of a wait for organs.
So, it won't really be a "panel of judges deciding who gets to die" but it will be a systematic way of deciding who gets to live due to unnecessarily increased scarcity.
Libertarianism has his own system of rationing -
the rich live -
the poor die.
Death panels exist now. For real, at insurance companies. However, unlike bureaucrats, who might decide that an operation that gives people an extra three months isn't worth spending a million dollars on, these panels look for reasons to deny individual claims.
If a federal panel decides to make a rule we dont like, we can threaten our Congress Critters. If a death panel decides against you now, maybe you can sue - if you live long enough.
Here's how our government works.
Two people break into your house at night and begin to steal your tv.
When you tell them to stop, they tell you "oh, don't worry, you're a member of our new gang! see, it's not stealing! You're one of us!"
When you then tell them that you don't want to be in the gang, they pull out a gun and tell you that you don't really have a choice.
But, they tell you that they'll be "nice" and "benevolent". They'll put it to a vote (after all, you are a member of their gang!). Two people raise their hands in favor of stealing your tv. You are the only one who votes against it.
So, they steal the TV, and you just had democracy crammed down your throat.
Then, to make sure that not many people get mad, they sell the TV to a pawn shop and get half of what it was worth, then they keep 75% of it (they said something about a tax... not quite sure), and then they donate the remaining 1/8th of the value of the tv to an orphanage.
When you protest to the orphanage, everyone else says "What! Do you hate children?!"
... and that's how government works. It's not really a dictatorship... it's just... y'know, democratatorship.
well i do agree with you there.bush did that with iraq. we neither needed it nor wanted it. it was a frivolous show of power and if you voted against it you were immediatley and severly ostricized. remember those girls that played the violins, country western singers? for them it was a career ender.
we have only two sides to a story. for healthcare if the laws make it so that 31 million don't have healtcare and EVERYONELSE can't provide it for their children beyond 18, the pre-existing conditions etc. why didn't the industry fix it? so,keeping in mind that no matter what decision we make half the people are gonna be unhappy and in this case have been whipped into a frenzy to actually vote against themselves. if you were president what would you have done?
If I were president (and, god willing, that will happen), I would probably have brought all our troops home, put the money that we saved into funding all those promises that our idiotic legislature promised the people over the past century, and then started vetoing legislation like a madman.
An unbalanced budget? BOOM veto.
Evan, what are you smoking tonight?
That example with the TV and the orphanage is wack.
Sorry. But it is.
Doctors used to compete for your dollar which kept health care costs low and allowed people to pay out of pocket. Isn't it weird that you need to make a co-payment for little things like a bump on your head or some stitches?
Now doctors are low-level employees in a bureaucratized system, where third party insurance companies call the shots on people's health.
The real problem is INSURANCE. Insurance is simply a middleman that's running up the cost.
Insurance is the worst form of gambling, because your betting against yourself.
Yep. People are scared of a catastrophic loss and don't believe they can get enough help from friends/neighbors/relatives/strangers. Hence they choose to spend a fortune on all kinds of insurance instead of saving this money, which in the vast majority of cases is a superior tactics. Scared people do dumb things.
I personally don't do any insurance except for what I am absolutely required by the law.
Insurance makes sense if it's voluntary. A group of people say "hey, any one of us could die next" and so they pool their money together for a purpose.
Then an intriguing thing happens, the company in charge wants to know how they can cut costs by finding out who will become sick. They invest money to find out, and then we get increased money invested in research of diseases.
In the long run this is a good thing because it hen becomes cheaper to prevent the problem from occurring than it is to insure against the issue. Insurance looks evil, but it generates fantastic results. AND it is VOLUNTARILY as opposed to through theft (government taxation).
Health insurrance is currently voluntary. However it is so HEAVILY regulated that I can't buy what I believe I need. I'm forced into a all or nothing scenario.
Insurance is the problem. How its regulated, how its delivered.
Wow - that is AWESOME! that you can choose to drive a car without insurance. Where I come from it is MANDATORY.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l … bipar.html
Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship
By Greg Sargent
Is the left's enduring caricature of Rahm Emanuel -- as the primary advocate for the White House's futile and self-damaging quest for bipartisanship -- all wrong?
In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn't pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton's failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.
Rahm makes the claim in interviews with journalist Richard Wolffe, in his new book, "Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House," which was released today. From page 102:
Unlike his boss, Emanuel wasn't interested in looking reasonable with Republicans; he wanted to look victorious. He didn't care much for uniting red and blue America; he wanted blue America to beat its red rival...
Obama was prepared to sacrifice time and political capital to make his policy bipartisan and more ambitious; Emanuel believed Obama did not have that luxury. "Time is your commodity. That answers everything," Emanuel said. "But a lot of us thought we didn't have the amount of time that was being dedicated. If you abandon the bipartisan talks you get blamed. He still wanted to try to achieve it that way. But that's one of a series of things you can look back on and be a genius about.
"My job as chief of staff is to give him 180-degree advice. He hired me, as he asked, to learn from the past, or to use my knowledge from my time in Congress and in the Clinton administration. Watching '94, watching '97 when we did kids' health care, and then studying Medicare, what were the lessons? The lesson about time as a commodity is not mine, it's Lyndon Johnson's. You got X amount of time; you gotta use it."
The decision to waste time chasing bipartisan support for health reform was clearly one of the mistakes that led to health care being such a big political liability for Dems. It extended the whole mess by months and months, which gave opponents more time to demagogue the bill and scare voters and helped turn the public against the process. Rahm seems to be suggesting here that he foresaw something like this happening, and argued against the futile quest for bipartisan support, which is certainly not the view of his legacy in the White House that has endured.
I pay no taxes. I have no health care. I do not use any government services. I am the world's only truly free man.
by Judy Specht4 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
This link has good information on this subject. I haven't read it all yet. It is from a conservative news site.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=106694
by Georgiakevin7 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by Peeples3 years ago
Curious as to what people who are against everyone having healthcare think should be done for those who really can't afford healthcare. What are the other options? Continue down the same road we are on now?
by vshining7 years ago
We all know affordable healthcare in America do not exist and it's sad because America is suppose to be the land of the plenty, but yet we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare.I appreciate the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.