|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
From the Washington Post -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03719.html
Noteable quote if you don't click in the link...
"Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.
Similarly, a more recent poll by Ipsos showed that among the 47 percent who initially said they "opposed health care," more than a third of opponents said they "favor" reform overall but think the current plan doesn't go "far enough." Shifting these people to the group in "favor of reform" would reduce opposition to current reforms to under 40 percent. "
Good spin. Most dems support the plan, while most reps oppose. The people who think the plan isn't liberal enough are mostly democrats. With that in mind, the key is the independents. They oppose the plan 64-32%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … are_reform
Polls are pretty murky, actually. I think it's more telling that Scott Brown was elected in BLUE Massachusetts after running as the 41st vote against HC.
I talked to a staunch dem yesterday about this. She liked the bill at first, but she feels it's been so tainted with the bribes, add-ons, and unfair perks for certain groups that it's not worth passing now.
I support parts of the plan and oppose others. I hope we like it when it's put into effect - because it will pass.
Don't say that habee. I can't see any reason why I should go to jail because I neither want nor need health insurance.
Rasmussen Reports is a legitimate polling organization, but it leans toward the conservative side. Rasumssen was a consultant to Bush's election campaign. and Rasmussen has been criticized for the wording of its poll questionas:
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls. Examples of Rasmussen's questions with wording issues include:
* Agree or Disagree: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."
* Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?
* Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?
* Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?
Good, Madame! You're just the kind of person this needs in order to be successful - people who don't use insurance to balance out those who will use it but can't or don't want to pay for it.
I usually stay away from this subject. Both points of view are valid here, so I don't feel the need to jump in
I'm not an independent, I'm a very liberal dem. I'm sure if you follow this you know that it was Rep. Stupak who stirred up the abortion component - I did campaign work for him back in the 90s and I'm still close with some of his Michigan staff. I contacted his regional manager about this mess because I actually had an anti-Stupak ad on my profile page here at HP, right under my damn photo. Pissed me off.
I'm deff pro-choice but I don't support federal funding. This is the type of compromise needed for the plan IMO.
Anyway, to this thread: It's true that many opposers are standing against components of it but not the actual bill itself. It's the lack of insurance and the prohibitive expense that need to be addressed. The rest can be dealt with.
I know - first hand - that the current health system is allowing people to die simply because they cannot pay. It tears my heart out and leaves me feeling like our country is not even America, if you know what I mean. This is not supposed to happen in our nation.
Health care should not be a premium lifestyle choice that is only available to those who can afford it.
An imperfect health care bill is good enough for me at this point. Anything that could help stop this is a step forward. A funeral should not be a treatment option.
Many agree with you, Madame, including some Constitutional lawyers. Even the Congressional Research Center said this in the NY Times:
CRS: Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.
When this bill is passed, the Supreme Court will have to decide if forcing citizens to purchase health insurance is Constitutional or not. I'm sure it will be challenged.
"When this bill is passed, the Supreme Court will have to decide if forcing citizens to purchase health insurance is Constitutional or not. I'm sure it will be challenged."
Ya' got that right.. And that's the forum where it should be decided.
As I stated, MR. Deeds, polls are murky. Rasmussen, however, was spot-on with the 2008 election. If so many people want this bill, how did Scott Brown get elected?
Scott Brown got elected by convinving the peopleof Mass that he was going to represent them. Mass HAS universal health care which I understand he's not out to repeal. The Democrats put up a poor candidate who ran a dismal campaign. Though I disagree with Brown on issues, the better candidate won. I disagree that the results are an indication of how Mass feels about health care - look at their system...
Okay, Mr. Deeds, if Rasmussen is too "right" for you, here's the CNN poll on how independents feel:
52% - scrap the bill and start over
27% - stop all legislation on HC
18% - pass the bill
In comparison the the CNN poll, Rasmussen appears to be leaning left!
I don't want to be told what health plan I can have. I want to choose. It's my right as an American. The government has no right to make my health care decisions.
The goverment is NOT making health care decisions. No one from the government stands bettween you and your doctor. Period.
No one is telling you what health care plan you can have. There will be minimum standards for how health care contracts can be written. The health department does not tell restaurants what they can offer or how to cook, but they deny a restaurant the right to endanger public health with what they sell. You can select from theoptions that meet a minimum - some argue that there should be NO minimum, that anyone can read a contract and understand the impications of caps or exclusions.
Either you have bought into the lies - or you are deliberately spreading them. There's room for a legitimate debate and an honest difference of opinion on reform. But the discussion has degenerated to where I am spending 70% of my time refuting things that are not true - whch means only 30% of my time in 'legitimate' discussion. This is no accident - conservatives want the argument in never-nevr land so people will throw up their hands in disgust and quit. To some degree, it's worked.
Some of us have our eye onthe ball - 45 million Americans without insurance - 45,000 per year who die for the lack of it.
There are other ways to take care of the problems with health care than to trample the freedom of this country's citizens. There is obviously QUITE ENOUGH doubt about THIS particular bill to even consider passing it, and yet officials are determined to have their way.
And what is the DEAL with all the extra, unrelated CRAP that keeps getting added to it??
You mean the freedom of the 40 million people who have no health insurance?
"Another reason for pride, that of being a citizen! For the poor,
citizenship consists of supporting and sustaining the power and
idleness of the rich. They must work for those goals before the
majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."
Man, I AM one of the 40 million poor Americans who doesn't have health insurance. So yeah, I guess I do mean ME.
Some day you may wish you had it and not be able to get it.
Perhaps. But even if that's the case, I am not willing to see this country and the system abused for it.
We need to come up with solutions that we can agree on, that are not swayed by lobbyists with money, that are not shoved through legislation with heavy-handed tactics, that actually address the problem of HEALTH, and that are not full of unnecessary and unrelated bribes (what other people call "pork").
The "lobbyists with money" are the insurance and drug companies opposing health reform with lies about "death panels," cuts in Medicare and saying that there will be a huge cost when actually the CBO predicts a savings to American tax payers. Without reform costs are sure to keep increasing. The "bribes" to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana have been stripped from the proposal. They were a big mistake. Both are now opposing the public option supported by 41 senators.
I didn't say we didn't need reform. I said THIS bill may not be the way to go.
The bill isn't perfect, but it's a big improvement. More people will be covered including those with preexisting conditions, and it contains a number of features that will improve care and reduce costs.
I'm glad you're so sure about that. But the point is that it seems that MANY others in this country are not--more than enough to indicate a high level of doubt. THAT is my main issue with the thing. I know we need reform, but we do not need to screw the system or force it to get it.
ETA: BTW Ralph, it's always good to chat with you. You are generally more informed about this sort of thing than I am...I'll readily admit that. I've got to get off this 'durn' forum and get some grocery shopping done, but I've enjoyed this. Have a great day!
That 'preexisting conditions' part sure as hell won't reduce costs, and the 'you must buy or else' clause sure as hell isn't constitutional.
Hey, that's good to know about the bribes. Thanks.
Doug Hughes says
Some of us have our eye on the ball - 45 million Americans without insurance - 45,000 per year who die for the lack of it.
I guess the administration has added in the 14.9 million that are unemployed and most surely are not paying healthcare premiums ?
People aren't dying because they don't have healthcare, the issue is not about healthcare.
The government is NOT making health care decisions. No one from the government stands between you and your doctor. Period.
For your information, Medicare does deny certain procedures and does Not Pay for procedures that the government deems unnecessary.
Any government involvement in the life decisions of our citizens comes with strings attached, don't forget that.
The issues are the rising cost of health reform insurance not healthcare.
Today on a news program, a Democrat Congressman stating the democrat talking points stated ,''to do nothing is inexcusable ''.
The president said '' we need to get more people paying in order to reduce insurance cost '' .
If what the president said is correct then why has Obama and the super majority Democrat Congress not concentrating on , as president Obama promised,jobs and fixing the economy.
For the past 15 months, this congress has neglected to produce jobs but wasted taxpayer time and money on a bad healthcare reform bill.
People who have read the existing bill do not favor the bill in it's existing form.Until the bill is written ,scored by the CBO and given the people 72 hours to review the bill one must patiently wait before making a sensible judgement.of the bill.
We should be looking for an honest debate on all points of the bill when the democrats release it to congress.Let's try to put aside all the gimmicks that is going on behind closed doors for the time being.
With all due respect
How does having a job cure a disease?
I lost a friend who was working full time but could not get coverage. It goes without saying that I am not the only American who knows somebody who has died simply because they could not afford healthcare.
Saying that people are not dying because they don't have healthcare is an ignorant argument. It is completely off base and out of touch with the reality.
At which other point in history has it been the job of Congress to create employment? Are we a capitalist society, or aren't we?
My adult children don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, either. As for me, my policy will be taxed, while a union member with a similar policy won't be taxed. How, to any rational person, is this fair??
I want all citizens to have health insurance if they want it. I don't want ins. companies to be able to drop or deny coverage for sick people. Everyone agrees on these points. Why couldn't we start here instead of the 2,000+ - page monstrosity that this has evolved into?
I'm also worried about the cuts in Medicare. And I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions!
Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, he states:
"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years".
Wow. And here I thought it was ok for my mom to have healthcare.
A SPECIAL INVITATION TO THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE
On Saturday 3/20/10 EXCLUSIVLY on Fox News cable at 10:00am to 12:00 ET time NO OTHER PLACE BUT FOX NEWS
A special program regarding healthcare reform '' LIVE AND UNCUT '' direct from Washington , hosted by Neil Cavuto.
Members of both parties will be interviewed.
FOX NEWS '' WE REPORT YOU DECIDE '' '' FAIR AND BALANCED ''
Try not to miss the program, it's for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Liberals and all Americans.
I don't believe I missed anyone.
Looking forward to comments.
You're right, Jon. We should all wait to see the bill.
And Mr. Deeds, not all the bribes have been stripped from the bill. Research it.
by Georgiakevin8 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 fishskinfreak20088 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_ … h_overhaul"President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when...
by scoop4 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High...
by TimTurner8 years ago
Ok so I'm watching CNN this morning and they have 3 Democrats talking about the healthcare plan and how it's going to be great for Americans.They talked about ways they were going to pay for the plan and two of the ways...
by Poppa Blues8 years ago
The bill contains 500 billion in NEW taxes. These taxes will affect everyone, not just the rich. In fact if you need a medical device, you will now have to pay a tax for it! Yes a tax on things like defibrillators,...
Copyright © 2018 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.