72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[toomuchtime_]

As it is, Medicare is funded 100% from the Medicare Trust Fund which is funded by a separate tax which is so small most people don't even know that they pay it and Medicare premiums paid for by retirees from their social security benefits. Medicare does not receive any general tax revenues.

Knowing the shit-pile of money We, The People were able to accumulate and stash between 1935 and now for Social Security using the FICA tax (compare that to your Federal Withholding), I can only imagine the trust fund We could establish if we were to pool the health-care premiums that we and our employers pay into a similar fund.

Take out of the equation the dollars skimmed off of our health-care spending used for profits, executive bonuses, advertising and government lobbying efforts and it is no wonder the owners of the private insurance bureaucracies are spending a few billion to keep that gravy train to themselves.

-Joe

The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

In fact, it doesn't depend on revenues from its special tax, either. It has been charging artificially low taxes and premiums knowing that no matter how badly it mismanaged its finances, taxpayers would bail it out.

For most Americans the point is not to have a public plan regardless of how badly it will be mismanaged or how much it will ultimately cost. If they support it at all, it is because they believe they will get more for their money from it. But if a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly on health insurance that will either raise our health insurance premiums, raise our taxes, increase our deficits every year or reduce our coverage.

 

[Meister]

As it is, Medicare is funded 100% from the Medicare Trust Fund which is funded by a separate tax which is so small most people don't even know that they pay it and Medicare premiums paid for by retirees from their social security benefits. Medicare does not receive any general tax revenues.

Knowing the shit-pile of money We, The People were able to accumulate and stash between 1935 and now for Social Security using the FICA tax (compare that to your Federal Withholding), I can only imagine the trust fund We could establish if we were to pool the health-care premiums that we and our employers pay into a similar fund.

Take out of the equation the dollars skimmed off of our health-care spending used for profits, executive bonuses, advertising and government lobbying efforts and it is no wonder the owners of the private insurance bureaucracies are spending a few billion to keep that gravy train to themselves.

-Joe

The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.

 

[Meister]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Congressional Budget Office projection
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019
By Kate Randall
17 June 2009

The Obama administration responded Tuesday to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that health care legislation being drafted by a Senate committee would leave 37 million Americans uninsured while costing $1 trillion over 10 years.
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019

Chrissy...it's not all what it's cracked up to be.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

In fact, it doesn't depend on revenues from its special tax, either. It has been charging artificially low taxes and premiums knowing that no matter how badly it mismanaged its finances, taxpayers would bail it out.

For most Americans the point is not to have a public plan regardless of how badly it will be mismanaged or how much it will ultimately cost. If they support it at all, it is because they believe they will get more for their money from it. But if a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly on health insurance that will either raise our health insurance premiums, raise our taxes, increase our deficits every year or reduce our coverage.

I'm not following you regarding the "taxpayers will bail it out" thing.

If it is a program that is funded by a special tax, then that is what it is - tax payers pay for it because its a tax. We are not going to raise general revenue tax on ourselves to 'bail out' a program funded by a dedicated tax... if needed we would just raise the special tax that funds the program in the first place.

Please be careful how you throw around phrases like "all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly" without backing that up with a few examples of those experiences. As far as I can ascertain, we are in fairly uncharted water here, with the possible exception of Social Security, and that program is extremely efficiently run at less than 1% of FICA taxes being spent on all overhead, and by no means can it be spun as a 'monopoly' on retirement and disability programs.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.

Starting in 1984 all newly hired Federal Employees, including CongressCritters, were covered by Social Security and the 'special' program for federal public servants, Civil Service, began to be grandfathered out. As the Ted Kennedys on the payroll are replaced by younger public servants, repair of Social Security will gravitate toward the front burner.

If We, The People don't demand it, shame on us for being lazy.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Congressional Budget Office projection
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019
By Kate Randall
17 June 2009

The Obama administration responded Tuesday to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that health care legislation being drafted by a Senate committee would leave 37 million Americans uninsured while costing $1 trillion over 10 years.
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019

Chrissy...it's not all what it's cracked up to be.

Don't blame Chris... Blame the Insurance Lobby and WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS and demand better.

If you don't like what's happening in this country, it's your own fucking fault. Quit your bitching and discuss solutions that you would be willing to pay for.

-Joe

 

[IHL]

I'll tell you why 72% of Americans approve of Government run health Care. It's because
72% of Americans want something for free and feel entitled to things other people work for. This is the new America that will go no where but down hill. Guilty white elitist liberals are the origin of this ideology. It will work but only for the very few connected government officials and leaders. Thats how socialism always turns out.

 

[IHL]

I'll tell you why 72% of Americans approve of Government run health Care. It's because
72% of Americans want something for free and feel entitled to things other people work for. This is the new America that will go no where but down hill. Guilty white elitist liberals are the origin of this ideology.

 

[Meister]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Congressional Budget Office projection
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019
By Kate Randall
17 June 2009

The Obama administration responded Tuesday to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that health care legislation being drafted by a Senate committee would leave 37 million Americans uninsured while costing $1 trillion over 10 years.
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019

Chrissy...it's not all what it's cracked up to be.

Don't blame Chris... Blame the Insurance Lobby and WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS and demand better.

If you don't like what's happening in this country, it's your own fucking fault. Quit your bitching and discuss solutions that you would be willing to pay for.

-Joe

Joe...take a damn chill pill. What makes you think I don't write my senators, and congressman? Don't tell me not to bitch...I will bitch whenever I feel like it, and at who I feel like...until your Obama changes that part of the amendments. Problem is we have a thing called lobbyists that have a lot more say, and bend a lot more ears than you and I do. I was hammering on Chris, because he thinks as long as obama gets something passed, it will be a good thing. It's not, and I"M BITCHING about it. When are people like YOU going to figure out that the politicians don't give a damn so much about us, but more about the power of the government???? WAKE UP JOE!!!!!!!

Just a side note Joe....I don't want people to pay for my insurance, and I don't want to pay for theirs. That's my solution.

 

[IHL]

The solution is to live clean and sober lives. Put down the hamburgers, sugar, beer and the carnitas and join the gym. This will keep most people out of the Dr's office and the hospital consuming the resource and making it scarcer raising the cost for the other unavoidable sickness. Everyone wants the government to solve this problem but if we just do the above this problem would be greatly mitigated.

 

[Meister]

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.

Starting in 1984 all newly hired Federal Employees, including CongressCritters, were covered by Social Security and the 'special' program for federal public servants, Civil Service, began to be grandfathered out. As the Ted Kennedys on the payroll are replaced by younger public servants, repair of Social Security will gravitate toward the front burner.

If We, The People don't demand it, shame on us for being lazy.

-Joe

You do realize that the healthcare won't be the same for the politicians as it will for us don't you? They get and will get in the future the Bentley of healthcare, while we get the Jetta of healthcare. Write all you want to your politicians.....DEMAND all you want from your politicians....it ain't going to change.
The politicians of this country are not servants to us....they are in the business of reelection. The government has raided the SS kitty so much, that it's in the sick state as it is. Kennedy answer to the problem is that in 2045 people will get about 75% of what they're getting now. That's the solution that they have, and your dreaming about it getting on the front burner....it's not going to happen.

 

[Meister]

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

In fact, it doesn't depend on revenues from its special tax, either. It has been charging artificially low taxes and premiums knowing that no matter how badly it mismanaged its finances, taxpayers would bail it out.

For most Americans the point is not to have a public plan regardless of how badly it will be mismanaged or how much it will ultimately cost. If they support it at all, it is because they believe they will get more for their money from it. But if a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly on health insurance that will either raise our health insurance premiums, raise our taxes, increase our deficits every year or reduce our coverage.

I'm not following you regarding the "taxpayers will bail it out" thing.

If it is a program that is funded by a special tax, then that is what it is - tax payers pay for it because its a tax. We are not going to raise general revenue tax on ourselves to 'bail out' a program funded by a dedicated tax... if needed we would just raise the special tax that funds the program in the first place.

Please be careful how you throw around phrases like "all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly" without backing that up with a few examples of those experiences. As far as I can ascertain, we are in fairly uncharted water here, with the possible exception of Social Security, and that program is extremely efficiently run at less than 1% of FICA taxes being spent on all overhead, and by no means can it be spun as a 'monopoly' on retirement and disability programs.

-Joe

That is skewed as far as how they audit Social Security. Having said that, SS is in a big mess....and it's run by the government, and they don't have a clue on how to repair it. The government screws up anything that it touches....except for the military. That's the bottom line.

 

[Meister]

I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe

In fact, it doesn't depend on revenues from its special tax, either. It has been charging artificially low taxes and premiums knowing that no matter how badly it mismanaged its finances, taxpayers would bail it out.

For most Americans the point is not to have a public plan regardless of how badly it will be mismanaged or how much it will ultimately cost. If they support it at all, it is because they believe they will get more for their money from it. But if a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly on health insurance that will either raise our health insurance premiums, raise our taxes, increase our deficits every year or reduce our coverage.

I'm not following you regarding the "taxpayers will bail it out" thing.

If it is a program that is funded by a special tax, then that is what it is - tax payers pay for it because its a tax. We are not going to raise general revenue tax on ourselves to 'bail out' a program funded by a dedicated tax... if needed we would just raise the special tax that funds the program in the first place.

Please be careful how you throw around phrases like "all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly" without backing that up with a few examples of those experiences. As far as I can ascertain, we are in fairly uncharted water here, with the possible exception of Social Security, and that program is extremely efficiently run at less than 1% of FICA taxes being spent on all overhead, and by no means can it be spun as a 'monopoly' on retirement and disability programs.

-Joe

If this happens, and very well could...it would be considered a monopoly.

But the insurance industry and others wary of too much government intervention vehemently oppose the idea. They say the heavy hand of the government will eventually push out the private insurers, leaving the government option as the only option. That is why the industry seems unwilling to give ground on the issue, even while making other concessions to national health reform — like the industry’s announcement on Tuesday that it might be willing to stop charging sick people higher rates than healthy customers

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/health/policy/25medicare.html?fta=y

 

[Political Junky]

In fact, it doesn't depend on revenues from its special tax, either. It has been charging artificially low taxes and premiums knowing that no matter how badly it mismanaged its finances, taxpayers would bail it out.

For most Americans the point is not to have a public plan regardless of how badly it will be mismanaged or how much it will ultimately cost. If they support it at all, it is because they believe they will get more for their money from it. But if a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly on health insurance that will either raise our health insurance premiums, raise our taxes, increase our deficits every year or reduce our coverage.

I'm not following you regarding the "taxpayers will bail it out" thing.

If it is a program that is funded by a special tax, then that is what it is - tax payers pay for it because its a tax. We are not going to raise general revenue tax on ourselves to 'bail out' a program funded by a dedicated tax... if needed we would just raise the special tax that funds the program in the first place.

Please be careful how you throw around phrases like "all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly" without backing that up with a few examples of those experiences. As far as I can ascertain, we are in fairly uncharted water here, with the possible exception of Social Security, and that program is extremely efficiently run at less than 1% of FICA taxes being spent on all overhead, and by no means can it be spun as a 'monopoly' on retirement and disability programs.

-Joe

If this happens, and very well could...it would be considered a monopoly.

But the insurance industry and others wary of too much government intervention vehemently oppose the idea. They say the heavy hand of the government will eventually push out the private insurers, leaving the government option as the only option. That is why the industry seems unwilling to give ground on the issue, even while making other concessions to national health reform — like the industry’s announcement on Tuesday that it might be willing to stop charging sick people higher rates than healthy customers

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/health/policy/25medicare.html?fta=y

If the private companies can't, or won't compete with a public plan then let them go under.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.

It's pathetic to see republicans still questioning how polling is done. They don't seem to be so dubious about polls that lean toward how they feel.

It's pathetic to see leftists so blindly hypocritical about responses to polls. They don't seem to notice how dubious THEY are about polls that lean away from what they want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it sounds to me like whoever wrote that headline (and the OP of this thread) deliberately misinterpreted the poll results, and I would be VERY interested to find out exactly what the questions were, word for word. If you read the entire article, it sounds more like what these people were saying was that they wanted to increase current government programs to help the poor and elderly, rather than wanting the government to simply take over providing healthcare to everyone. And I'm guessing they only feel that way at all because they've been filled up on misinformation about scads of apocryphal people twisting in the wind with no way of getting health care.

 

[editec]

So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.

Hard to believe that one can fathom American public opinion by polling such a small number of people, isn't it?

Nevertheless that's the way that math works, not just for this poll, but for all polls.

 

[editec]

FYI, of the private HC insurance premiums paid, 25% of it goes to profits, and expenses including advertising and amdinistration.

That means about 75% of those premiums goes to paying HC providers.

FYI, of Medicade dollars, 98% goes to Hc providers and about 2% goes to administrative costs. Obviously there are no profits or advertising costs associated with Medicare.

Anyone who automatically believes private insurers are "more efficient" than government simply isn't looking at the real numbers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers? | KeithHennessey.com

There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.

* Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

* Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.

* Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.

* Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.

* Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.

* The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:
U.S. citizens;
with income below 300% of poverty;
not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

So it seems to me that in 2007 there were only 10.6 million people who were actually uninsured because the rest were eligible for government aid or were earning enough to buy insurance if they chose to do so.

That 46 million figure is a flat out lie.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Congressional Budget Office projection
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019
By Kate Randall
17 June 2009

The Obama administration responded Tuesday to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that health care legislation being drafted by a Senate committee would leave 37 million Americans uninsured while costing $1 trillion over 10 years.
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019

Chrissy...it's not all what it's cracked up to be.

Don't blame Chris... Blame the Insurance Lobby and WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS and demand better.

If you don't like what's happening in this country, it's your own fucking fault. Quit your bitching and discuss solutions that you would be willing to pay for.

-Joe

Joe...take a damn chill pill. What makes you think I don't write my senators, and congressman? Don't tell me not to bitch...I will bitch whenever I feel like it, and at who I feel like...until your Obama changes that part of the amendments. Problem is we have a thing called lobbyists that have a lot more say, and bend a lot more ears than you and I do. I was hammering on Chris, because he thinks as long as obama gets something passed, it will be a good thing. It's not, and I"M BITCHING about it. When are people like YOU going to figure out that the politicians don't give a damn so much about us, but more about the power of the government???? WAKE UP JOE!!!!!!!

Just a side note Joe....I don't want people to pay for my insurance, and I don't want to pay for theirs. That's my solution.

Sorry dude. You're right - you absolutely have the right to bitch whenever and however you want. I just get frustrated when ALL I see is bitching and there seems to be no discussion, especially with regard to solutions. All the back-stabbing, name calling, bitching, whining and finger pointing while the money behind the lobbying laughs at us is embarrassing.

When are we going to figure out that if the politicians don't give a damn so much about us, but more about the power of the government, it is OUR own fucking fault, because we are squandering the best tool democracy has had available since the printing press was invented whining about what weenies the idiots on the (right / left) are instead of using these message boards to discuss options and promote solutions???

You say you don't want to pay for other peoples insurance and you are not looking for anyone to pay for yours. I appreciate that. That is a start of a discussion. I, too am self sufficient enough to pay for my own health-care, and not in a financial position to be of much help to anyone else.

How do you feel about private insurance companies? Is your position on the health-care debate that things are fine and you want them left just as they are? Would you prefer steep and deep regulation of the private bureaucracies to a Social Security styled public bureaucracy to track health-care payments? I assume from your willingness to "pay for your own insurance", that you are not one of those guys who prefers to simply pay cash for the health-care you need when you need it, is that correct?

If you have read my posts you should know by now that I am a proponent of a public bureaucracy for tracking health-care payments, simply because I am VERY impressed with the efficient running of Social Security, in spite of congress' running of it. I am open to private payment tracking bureaucracies in the American market place, but I wouldn't own stock in them should they have to compete against a public bureaucracy, even if the public one had the burden of covering the poor, especially if it were run like Social Security.

What would YOU like to see as a health-care payment tracking bureaucracy in America?

-Joe