New Gallup Poll on Health Care Reform

[IDBillzFan]

And yet another Gallup poll, this onel stating that for the first time in years, More in US say Health Coverage NOT Government's Responsibility.

[Magox]

And yet another Gallup poll, this onel stating that for the first time in years, More in US say Health Coverage NOT Government's Responsibility.

The wording of the healthcare bill the House passed last Saturday explicitly states that one of the bill's purposes is to provide "affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans."

 

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.

 

Poll after Poll after Poll shows that WE DO NOT WANT THESE !@#$ING HEALTH REFORMS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

 

How about, GET THE !@#$ OUT OF MY DECISIONS, AND LET ME DECIDE IF I WANT IT OR NOT.

 

 

Jesus, that must be the 4th one in the last week, but yet, BO and crew (mainly Rahm Emanuell) want them to try to have this bill passed as quickly as possible, even though WE DON"T !@#$ING WANT IT.

 

Why?

 

Because they know once they go home to their constituents during the Christmas holidays, they will demand that their ELECTED officials REJECT THESE !@#$ING BILLS.

 

Time to scrap it, and actually come up with a good Health Care Bill.

 

But we all know that they won't do that, they've invested too much into what they believe we NEED. They don't care about compromise, they have their own agenda. I just hope that these centrists do what is best in the interest of this country, as opposed to what is best for the Democratic party.

[/dev/null]

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,008 national adults

 

Flawed poll. They need to increase the sample size by 148,992

[Alaska Darin]

I'd say the decision to immunize the Gitmo prisoners was as good a reason as any to keep the government out of the health care business.

[IDBillzFan]

I'd say the decision to immunize the Gitmo prisoners was as good a reason as any to keep the government out of the health care business.

That's going to come as news to the White House.

 

"There is no vaccine in Guantanamo and there's no vaccine on the way to Guantanamo," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at his daily briefing, although a Pentagon spokesman said detainees at the base could receive it late this month.

 

Yep. Amateur hour.

[Magox]

Yet another study that shows that health insurance premiums won't go down under the house libertards plan, except this time the study was done by a top official at the agency that oversees Medicare.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...QpG-2wD9BVML100

 

Overall spending on health care would rise as a result of legislation approved a week ago by the House, and billions of dollars in projected savings contained in the measure will be difficult to maintain, according to a report by a top official at the agency that oversees Medicare.

 

The legislation would expand insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million people who now lack it, according to the report, creating a demand for services that "could be difficult to meet initially ... and could lead to price-increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage."

 

The analysis was issued by Richard Foster, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which is part of the Health and Human Services Department

 

The report issued by Foster estimated that as a result of the legislation total health expenditures would be an estimated $289 billion higher in the coming decade than would otherwise be the case.

 

Separately, the report cast doubt on the claims of House Democrats that the bill is fully paid for. It said because of reductions in planned Medicare payments, acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies "could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for some beneficiaries)."

 

Any attempt to remedy that problem "would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than estimated, the report said.

 

[Magox]

Look who doesn't like the result of the Medicare study

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/1...id=sec-politics

 

 

oh and another poll that shows most people don't want this reform, this time by ABC

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

interesting tidbits:

 

As the Senate prepares to take up legislation aimed at overhauling the nation's health-care system, President Obama and the Democrats are still struggling to win the battle for public opinion. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Americans deeply divided over the proposals under consideration and majorities predicting higher costs ahead.

The new poll provides ammunition for both advocates and opponents of reform. For opponents, a clear area of public concern centers on cost -- 52 percent say an altered system would probably make their own care more expensive, and 56 percent see the overall cost of health care in the country going up as a result.

 

Few see clear benefits in exchange for higher expenses. Rather, there has been a small but significant increase in the number (now 37 percent) who anticipate their care deteriorating under a revamped system, putting that number in line with opinion in July 1994, just before President Bill Clinton's health-care reform efforts fizzled.

 

Among those with insurance, three times as many continue to see worse rather than better coverage options ahead (39 to 13 percent), and fewer than half of those who lack insurance see better options under a changed system. Six in 10 see it as "very" or "somewhat" likely that many private insurers would be forced out of business by a government-sponsored insurance plan, a potential result that GOP leaders frequently warn about.

 

So in other words, people believe that we will pay more and get worse coverage. Yes, that's the sort of "Change" we can all believe in.

 

Independents are nearly twice as likely to be swayed away from rather than toward a candidate who supports the changes (31 percent to 17 percent).

 

and of course this is what is going to be the main factor in the November elections. That's why the White House and Congress are DESPERATE to try to get this reform done by the end of the year.

 

Think about it, it's not because they think that if they get this reform done this soon, that it will save lives. It's because they know that they don't want Congress going back home to their constituents who are opposed to this plan. They are afraid of the political backlash, they are afraid of the opposition, they are afraid that this bill could be threatened, even if that means passing something that will add to the deficit, add taxes, burden jobs, raise premiums and deteriorate the quality of health insurance not just for elders but for a segment of the public as well.

 

They are also afraid that if this drags into 2010, then that will affect the outcome of the November elections.

 

I am pretty certain, that if they ram this bill down our throats, against the will of most Americans, and Obama's and Pelosi's promises to their own caucus of passing this bill as being a positive for their reelection in November doesn't come to fruition. There is little doubt in my mind that Obama will become a lame duck president by December 2010.

[John Adams]

I am pretty certain, that if they ram this bill down our throats, against the will of most Americans, and Obama's and Pelosi's promises to their own caucus of passing this bill as being a positive for their reelection in November doesn't come to fruition. There is little doubt in my mind that Obama will become a lame duck president by December 2010.

 

My wife voted for him and now regrets her vote and believes he's a one-term wonder.

[Magox]

My wife voted for him and now regrets her vote and believes he's a one-term wonder.

I'm not going to lie to you JA, When BO was elected, I figured he was a lock to be reelected again. I would of put the odds at around 20-1, because of typical election cycles, incumbent advantages, direction the country was shifting away from and etc. etc.

 

However, he is losing the independent voters in a big way, and they are the big reason why he won this previous election, and the fact that the Democrats were super energized to go out and vote against the Republicans.

 

This next time around, if things continue to go in this direction of anti big government, anti taxes and etc. then not only will there be a smaller turn out from the Democrats, but the independents will overwhelmingly go to the other direction. Which would most likely decide the outcome of the election

[John Adams]

However, he is losing the independent voters in a big way, and they are the big reason why he won this previous election, and the fact that the Democrats were super energized to go out and vote against the Republicans.

 

This next time around, if things continue to go in this direction of anti big government, anti taxes and etc. then not only will there be a smaller turn out from the Democrats, but the independents will overwhelmingly go to the other direction. Which would most likely decide the outcome of the election

 

Independents went for Obama last time, probably because they were so sick of Bush's disastrous presidency. Obama also appeared from a distance to possibly be not quite as left as he actually is. Agreed that Independents won't go for him next time. Even Dems like my wife (who is for socialized healthcare) won't vote for him again because she distrusts his spending.

 

Still, he's got a supportive block and it will take a strong ticket to beat him. With such disdain for the Republicans among many of its former supporters, I wouldn't be shocked to see a 3-way race in 2012: Dem, Rep, Teabaggers...which would leave the right split and give Obama a win.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm not going to lie to you JA, When BO was elected, I figured he was a lock to be reelected again. I would of put the odds at around 20-1, because of typical election cycles, incumbent advantages, direction the country was shifting away from and etc. etc.

 

However, he is losing the independent voters in a big way, and they are the big reason why he won this previous election, and the fact that the Democrats were super energized to go out and vote against the Republicans.

 

This next time around, if things continue to go in this direction of anti big government, anti taxes and etc. then not only will there be a smaller turn out from the Democrats, but the independents will overwhelmingly go to the other direction. Which would most likely decide the outcome of the election

I would add that he will also need to get the black vote again, which was all but gone in the elections earlier this month. I suspect they'll come out again for in 2012, but I have no idea if that'll be a difference maker.

[Magox]

I would add that he will also need to get the black vote again, which was all but gone in the elections earlier this month. I suspect they'll come out again for in 2012, but I have no idea if that'll be a difference maker.

they won't be AS energized if this continues: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17labor.html?hpw

 

N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses

 

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

 

does this make me a racist for linking this?

[Chef Jim]

they won't be AS energized if this continues: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17labor.html?hpw

 

N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses

 

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

 

does this make me a racist for linking this?

 

No I think the fact that unemployment among blacks is nearly 50% greater than the total unemployment makes the whole country racist.

[IDBillzFan]

they won't be AS energized if this continues: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17labor.html?hpw

 

N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses

 

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

 

does this make me a racist for linking this?

Someone should tell NAACP that he's got a meeting scheduled for December. And it's not just a meeting, but a summit, which is like a really, really BIG meeting. And it'll have rich people and union people and all kinds of people there, spitballing, brainstorming, and doing summit things that happen in summits.

 

What the hell else do they want?

[Nanker]

Someone should tell NAACP that he's got a meeting scheduled for December. And it's not just a meeting, but a summit, which is like a really, really BIG meeting. And it'll have rich people and union people and all kinds of people there, spitballing, brainstorming, and doing summit things that happen in summits.

 

What the hell else do they want?

Nothing less than the Full Monty from Lookie My Johnson in Playgirl.

[Magox]

I read a great non partisan article regarding the health reforms that are being proposed today in the WSJ.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1994054014.html

 

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

 

 

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The wording of the healthcare bill the House passed last Saturday explicitly states that one of the bill's purposes is to provide "affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans."

 

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.

 

Poll after Poll after Poll shows that WE DO NOT WANT THESE !@#$ING HEALTH REFORMS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

 

How about, GET THE !@#$ OUT OF MY DECISIONS, AND LET ME DECIDE IF I WANT IT OR NOT.

 

 

Jesus, that must be the 4th one in the last week, but yet, BO and crew (mainly Rahm Emanuell) want them to try to have this bill passed as quickly as possible, even though WE DON"T !@#$ING WANT IT.

 

Why?

 

Because they know once they go home to their constituents during the Christmas holidays, they will demand that their ELECTED officials REJECT THESE !@#$ING BILLS.

 

Time to scrap it, and actually come up with a good Health Care Bill.

 

But we all know that they won't do that, they've invested too much into what they believe we NEED. They don't care about compromise, they have their own agenda. I just hope that these centrists do what is best in the interest of this country, as opposed to what is best for the Democratic party.

 

Regardless if this poll is legit, Obama is screwing this debate up. He doesn't seem to know how to parry and return fire. His passiveness seems to be killing is leadership and the style just doesn't work. Reagan, Clinton and Dick Cheney understood this....

[keepthefaith]

they won't be AS energized if this continues: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17labor.html?hpw

 

N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses

 

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

 

does this make me a racist for linking this?

 

No. Buried in nearly every Obama policy (and many not buried very deep) is economic assistance for minorities. His plan is to provide what he calls "economic justice" to minorities. Don't call me a racist. These are his words as he stated in an interview before he was elected to the senate. He stated that one of the failures of the civil rights movement was that it provided for social justice but fell short of providing economic justice or compensation to minorities. He's clearly carrying this out in his stimulus, mortgage bailout and health care programs.

[Doc]

They're going to have to go nuclear to pass it. The Republicans won't vote for it and Lieberman won't either, so that's at-best 59 Senators. And even still, you have the public option, which most Blue Dogs don't like, and the issue of abortion coverage.

[Magox]

They're going to have to go nuclear to pass it. The Republicans won't vote for it and Lieberman won't either, so that's at-best 59 Senators. And even still, you have the public option, which most Blue Dogs don't like, and the issue of abortion coverage.

Unfortunately this isn't the case. They will most likely vote this Saturday to take it to the next level. Once it gets through, then they will vote on different amendments, and the public option most likely won't be included in the final Senate version. However, there will most likely be a bill that doesn't include the public option, and when it goes back to the House leaders they will negotiate the final version of the bill with the Senate and they will put the public option back in it.

 

Then it will go back for final vote in both the house and senate, except this time around, there is no opportunity for a fillerbuster, all they need is 50 votes and most likely all the moderates including Liebermann will vote against it, but it won't matter, because there will be enough votes to get it through, meanwhile the moderate democrats will have cover in the sense that they can go back to their constituents and say "you see, we voted against the public option" knowing damn well that the most important vote of them all will be the one this Saturday.

 

Once it gets through this Saturday, then the likelyhood of the bill passing with a public option goes up tremendously. If some of these moderates really wanted to do what is best for the country, not the democratic party, they wouldn't vote for it to go to final debate. What this would do is not Kill the Bill but force Senate Leadership to rethink their Bill.

 

It's going to go through, Democratic leadership is pressing them hard, and establishing a huge guilt trip against those who are thinking about voting against it, telling them "Do you want to be the one who killed Health Reform?"

 

What is sad about this is that most people don't want the bills that are being proposed, they want health reform, but not this one, and that has been proven poll after poll after poll.