Poll: Majority of Americans Say Health Care Law Should Stand or be Expanded
Fifty-one percent of registered voters say that Congress should let the new health care reform law continue as is or change it so that it does more, according to a McClatchy/Marist Institute poll conducted Nov. 11-15. Thirty-three percent want to repeal it completely, 11 percent want it changed so that it is less sweeping and 5 percent are undecided.
Among those who support the legislation, 16 percent are in the "let it stand" camp while 35 percent believe it should be changed to do more.
Sure, it's "only" 51 percent but hey, that's a majority, folks.
To repeat, our health care system is broken. It needs fixing. It needed this fix. It needs more. Not more government, per se, but more fairness, equality and affordability.
So we have plenty of problems, Republicans. Go find and fix those, the big ones. Cut spending of the Department of Defense. That's one of the biggest spenders in the government but leave the Health Care Reform Act alone.
Not that it will happen but we can hope.
Link: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/23/poll-majority-of-americans-say-health-care-law-should-stand-or/?a_dgi=aolshare_email
Posts
Tarence Maddox Mugshot Posted
2 minutes ago
19 comments:
Apparently it's not just health care that lefties want to ration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
They want to tell you how much of everything you will be allowed to have.
Actually, it's not a "leftie".
He's a scientist.
oh I see, so since he makes his living in the sciences, he's assumed to be politically neutral?
that's rather naive.
Let's recall that many 'scientists' were caught sending emails instructing and encouraging one another to suppress evidence to advance the 'global warming' political agenda.
Global warming (now known as 'climate change') will never be a scientific concept because it's considered unfalsifiable.
If we have a very hot summer, it's 'due to climate change'.
If we have a cool summer, it's 'due to climate change'.
If we have a very cold winter, it's 'due to climate change'.
If we have a mild winter, it's 'due to climate change'.
If we have a dry period, it's 'due to climate change'.
If we have a stormy period with lots of precip, it's 'due to climate change'.
When any and every scenario is unfailingly attributed to 'climate change' then it's clear that devotion to it is more akin to a religion than to scientific evidence.
It boils down to this (no pun intended), really--forget all the other weather anomalies---both ice caps and all the glaciers are melting and at unprecedented rates, historically, as the scientists have proven.
That's what matters.
Can't leave it alone but repeal is not the answer either. revisit it, make changes and PLEASE...read the darn thing!
Fine, if they have to do anything to it, though, make it tougher. Add the "public option" for insurance, so we lower insurance premiums.
It won't happen but if they're going to mess with it, that's what should happen.
Mo Rage wrote:
"both ice caps and all the glaciers are melting"
Actually, no, they aren't.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-glaciers-growing.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/13798
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
I found these links using a new tool called 'google'. You might try it sometime.
Mo Rage wrote:
"Add the "public option" for insurance, so we lower insurance premiums"
The CBO is on record saying that the public option that the House passed last year would likely have HIGHER premiums than private plans. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf
The likelihood that this was influenced, one way or another, by lobbyists from the health care industry is extremely high.
The fact is, a true "public option" for health insurance is the big "bogeyman" the health insurance industry fears most because it would give them very real competition and require them to not raise their rates and premiums to us, the payers, annually. It would effectively end their endless increases, if executed simply and properly.
For whatever reason--because you're wealthy or an insurance company executive or simply a Tea Party member who buys off on all that corporate nonsense about "big government", the fact is, you won't agree and will continue to a) be sarcastic, b) be against any government intervention and c) tow the corporate line, against the best interests of the middle-and lower-classes but even, in this case, for lowering the health insurance costs of the wealthy, to boot.
Again, so be it.
Do you even understand that the CBO is a nonpartisan governmental office that provides analysis of the costs of programs?
It is recognized as impartial by both parties (If it WERE partisan, then since the Congress is currently Democratic, one would expect it to lean to the left, no?).
Yes, I'm extremely familiar with the CBO.
I'm also familiar with the fact that corporate America virtually owns our government and doesn't want true health care reform.
The Obama bill is corporate welfare big time. You know it. That's why you're not satisfied with it.
The same insurance companies that you've been demonizing, were handed a boatload of money by Obama because now everyone will be REQUIRED to do business with them.
oh the irony. The Great Reformer assimilated by his prey.
Here's an idea. Let's repeal this monstrosity together and start over.
Hey! Whaddya' know? We finally agree on somethings.
I agree with everything you said except the last line. The Repubs would do their level best, then, to give the health care industry even more than what they're getting with this mess. No, thanks.
The conservative approach would be to have insurance companies fight for and earn every dollar that they get, instead of guaranteeing them an income by forcing everyone to do business with them.
You do realize that it's unconstitutional to tax someone for refusing to transact business with a private company don't you?
That's exactly what the health care bill does. If you don't buy insurance, the IRS levies a tax.
Since when did we want the IRS to be the collection agency for private business?
Where is it "unconstitutional to tax someone for refusing to transact business with a private company don't you"?
Besides, I'm not even in that fight. I said here, some posts ago, that the likelihood of that really flying, so to speak, was slim. The fact is, the insurance companies wanted some ways to pay for all the people they would have to give coverage to so the governmnet through that in. It's pretty pathetic. You and I both agreed here, again, some time ago, that this bill stinks. It's just that I think it's a bit of an improvement in some ways--because it is--and you don't at all.
Mo Rage wrote:
"I said here, some posts ago, that the likelihood of that really flying, so to speak, was slim."
Mo, that is in the bill that passed. That is how the individual mandate is enforced. If you don't buy insurance, you are hit with a tax and the enforcement is carried out by the IRS. The penalties for not paying this additional and unconstitutional tax include massive fines and jail time.
Are you unaware of what is in the bill?
Yes, I do know that requirement is in the bill. I say one thing and you infer others, unrelated.
My point is that I knew the requirement to purchase health care wouldn't go over well for at least 2 reasons:
1) If you can't afford health insurance, requiring you to do so doesn't change anything--the requirement doesn't put money in your pocket
2) It was bound to run against the "American spirit", so to speak, of the freedom to do what you wish
Mo Rage wrote:
"Where is it "unconstitutional to tax someone for refusing to transact business with a private company don't you"?
Besides, I'm not even in that fight. "
Yes, you are because that is what the bill requires and it is the issue of constitutionality that is being challenged.
You can pretend that you don't have to deal with that issue, but you do.
HCR is history's largest example of American corporate welfare and it uses the IRS as it's enforcer. Great job Democrats, no wonder no one trusts you anymore. Don't tell me you're 'looking out for the little guy' when you sell us to the very corporations you claim are evil and then use the IRS to cement the deal.
there are some facets of this health care reform though, that are, in fact, good for the working man like taking away the caps on care and pre-existing condition limitations, etc., and we have needed them badly.
I'll say again, you and I agreed it's a screwed-up bill. But if it had nothing good in it for us, the corporations--and their Republican lackeys--wouldn't be trying to take it back.
It isn't great legislation but it's something. It's got some good in it for us, the little guy.
Post a Comment