72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[AVG-JOE]

They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.

Social medicine bad.

Social bureaucracy to track payments to private medical professionals good.

-Joe

No. Neither is good. I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes. I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc. which govt run care would produce imo.

I agree. Letting the government run 'health-care' is a bad idea. Letting the government run the bureaucracy to track the premiums in and payments out to that private industry is a smart move. We don't need million dollar executives to track payments. Middle class bureaucrats will do the job for a whole lot less.

Working example: US Social Security. Been tracking premiums in and payments out since 1935 and currently running at an efficiency of less than 1% of premiums for all overhead. (That's less than 1 penny out of every FICA dollar collected for overhead)

-Joe

 

[elvis]

Social medicine bad.

Social bureaucracy to track payments to private medical professionals good.

-Joe

No. Neither is good. I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes. I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc. which govt run care would produce imo.

I agree. Letting the government run 'health-care' is a bad idea. Letting the government run the bureaucracy to track the premiums in and payments out to that private industry is a smart move. We don't need million dollar executives to track payments. Middle class bureaucrats will do the job for a whole lot less.

Working example: US Social Security. Been tracking premiums in and payments out since 1935 and currently running at an efficiency of less than 1% of premiums for all overhead. (That's less than 1 penny out of every FICA dollar collected for overhead)

-Joe

Can't imagine the insurance lobby tolerating that.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No. Neither is good. I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes. I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc. which govt run care would produce imo.

I agree. Letting the government run 'health-care' is a bad idea. Letting the government run the bureaucracy to track the premiums in and payments out to that private industry is a smart move. We don't need million dollar executives to track payments. Middle class bureaucrats will do the job for a whole lot less.

Working example: US Social Security. Been tracking premiums in and payments out since 1935 and currently running at an efficiency of less than 1% of premiums for all overhead. (That's less than 1 penny out of every FICA dollar collected for overhead)

-Joe

Can't imagine the insurance lobby tolerating that.

Fighting it as we speak with every one of our health-care dollars that they can borrow from their friends in the banking industry. Top priority right now is maintain control over Congress and keep the gravy train on the track.

-Joe

 

[Political Junky]

They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.

Social medicine bad.

Social bureaucracy to track payments to private medical professionals good.

-Joe

No. Neither is good. I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes. I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc. which govt run care would produce imo.

Investigate France's system ... No waiting, specialists readily available, most people get a private hospital room, doctors make house calls, Rxs are cheaper, longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. See for yourself.

 

[jreeves]

Social medicine bad.

Social bureaucracy to track payments to private medical professionals good.

-Joe

No. Neither is good. I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes. I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc. which govt run care would produce imo.

Investigate France's system ... No waiting, specialists readily available, most people get a private hospital room, doctors make house calls, Rxs are cheaper, longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. See for yourself.

Investigated....
The French Health Care System
Reimbursement is regulated through uniform rates. The financing is supported by employers, employee contributions, and personal income taxes. The working population has twenty percent of their gross salary deducted at source to fund the social security system.

The State is in charge of protecting patient´s rights, elaborating policies and enforcing them. It is responsible for public safety.
Health authorities plan the size and numbers of hospitals. They decide on the amount and allocation of technical equipment (such as MRI, CT scans…). Through its agencies, the State organizes the supply of specialized wards and secures the provision of care at all times.

In recent years, regional authorities have taken a growing role in policy-making and negotiation.
Healthcare Economist · Health Care Around the World: France
However, France utilizes more market-based ideas than most people realized. Copayment rates for most services are 10%-40%. About 92% of French residents have complementary private health insurance.

In essence, the French system avoids widespread rationing because, unlike true single-payer systems, it employs market forces. Even the OECD says that the “proportion of the population with private health insurance” and the degree of cost sharing are key determinants of how severe waiting lists will be.

Insured. About 99% of French residents are covered by the national health insurance scheme.

Cost. France is the third most expensive health care system (~11% of GDP). While the system has generally been well funded, in 2005 the health care system ran a €11.6 billion deficit and in 2006 the health care system had a €10.3 billion deficit. No centrally planned health insurance system will be immune from occasional (or even frequent) deficits.

Funding. Most of the funding is from a 13.55% payroll tax (employers pay 12.8%, individuals pay 0.75%). There is a 5.25% general social contribution tax on income as well. Thus, there is an approximately a 18.8% on employees for health insurance. There are also dedicated taxes which are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.

Private Insurance. “More than 92% of French residents have complementary private insurance.” This insurance pays for additional fees in order to access higher quality providers. Private health insurances makes up 12.7% of French health care spending. These complementary private insurance funds are very loosely regulated (less than in the U.S.) and the only stringent requirement is guaranteed renewability. Private insurance benefits are not equally distributed so there is, in essence, a two-tier system.

 

[jeffrockit]

Obviously a poll worded in such as way that it is designed to elite a certain response is worthless.

Nevertheless it doesn't take a huge population to get a valid poll if it is done correctly.

FWIW I seldom pay attention to polls since so many of them are designed not to really guage true sentiment, but designed to get an outcome so that its designers can make the 6 o'cock news with a bumpersticker headline.

I just wonder why 28% want the status quo.

It's not the I want the status quo. Healthcare needs a major overhaul as it has many problems. With that being said, government run is not the answer either. Anyone that believes it is going to be free are just wrong. Also I keep hearing about efficiency but not about quality and that is scary. I don't want my healthcare efficient, I want it effective. People need to stop letting the partisan sides blind them.

 

[Maple]

I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.

 

[Political Junky]

I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.

Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.

 

[jreeves]

I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.

Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.

Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....

 

[Political Junky]

I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.

Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.

Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....

I'd certainly believe the NYT over Fox or Newsmax. After all Fox won the right to lie in court.

 

[jreeves]

Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.

Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....

I'd certainly believe the NYT over Fox or Newsmax. After all Fox won the right to lie in court.

Of course....no one mentioned Fox or Newsmax but nice strawman there. Beat the hell out of 'em...

 

[Meister]

Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.

Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....

I'd certainly believe the NYT over Fox or Newsmax. After all Fox won the right to lie in court.

You are kidding right? Because for a minute there I thought you were being serious. Boy, I almost fell for it, that was a good one.

 

[elvis]

Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.

Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....

I'd certainly believe the NYT over Fox or Newsmax. After all Fox won the right to lie in court.

So you believe Judith Miller, then?

 

[Navy1960]

Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.....

The Jayson Blair Project. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

A few years ago, Michael Finkel's journalism career was as dead as yesterday's newspaper because he had lied in an article for the New York Times Magazine. Today, the 36-year-old Bozeman, Mont., resident has banked a half- million dollar advance on his first book, sold its film rights to Brad Pitt's production company and has a year-old marriage with a baby on the way.
After getting fired by the New York Times for lying in print, a reporter stumbled on the story of his life

By Amy Westfeldt, Associated Press

The New York Times' ombudsman said the newspaper should review reporter Judith Miller's journalism practices to address "clear issues of trust and credibility" in her role in the CIA leak investigation. Miller's attorney called the newspaper's recent criticism of her "shameless."

Times Public Editor Byron Calame also said the paper should consider updating its ethics guidelines on using anonymous sources and quoted publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as saying "there are new limits" on what Miller can do in the future.

Calame wrote in a Sunday column that the Times and Miller's Oct. 16 accounts of the reporting that landed Miller in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury "suggested that the journalistic practices of Ms. Miller and Times editors were more flawed than I feared."

Miller went to jail for 85 days rather than testify to a grand jury investigating the leaking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after her source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from a promise of confidentiality.
NYT Updates Its Ethics: “Lie Or Be Fired” | Sweetness & Light

Barbara Stewart, former freelance reporter for The Boston Globe, was dismissed this week after adding fictitious details to a story about events which actually did not occur at the time of her writing. The Boston Globe's Executive Editor Helen Donovan called the incident a "significant breach" and said, "We should have noticed the lack of attribution on a couple of key facts and should have asked questions we didn't ask."

Stewart has been a reporter for The New York Times' Metro Desk between October, 1994 and May, 2004; according to the Boston Herald, the Times denied that Stewart fabricated any parts of stories while she was employed there. This was Stewart's third article for the Globe.

Freelance reporter fired from Boston Globe for adding fictitious details to story - Wikinews, the free news source

So yes, I'd say there is a credibility problem with NYT...

 

[Care4all]

Actually, I'd say they did a FINE JOB, of getting rid of the liars exposed.

 

[Bern80]

You knew of course that The New York Times (unbiased rag that it is), over sampled Obama voters about 2 to 1 right?

Then why don't you understand that when Rasmussen does it?

Maybe you could show a little proof, from a reliable source?

Well you could start with the NY Times themselves. There the ones that admitted as much.

 

[Bern80]

so.. polls don't mean anything when the result is not what you hoped to see?


nice. srsly.

You still don't get the whole, if you're gonna accuse someone of something (i.e. believing in polls when convenient) make sure it's accurate, thing do you.

 

[Political Junky]

Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....

I'd certainly believe the NYT over Fox or Newsmax. After all Fox won the right to lie in court.

So you believe Judith Miller, then?

Nope, she lied and left the NYT after her humiliation.
She works for a conservative think tank now.

Judith Miller
"of course, the whole story turned out to be false. After quitting her job at the New York Times, she joined the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in 2007."

 

[Care4all]

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

You knew of course that The New York Times (unbiased rag that it is), over sampled Obama voters about 2 to 1 right?

Who should the polling have included....? Certainly a poll that had 50% republicans and 50% democrats would NOT have represented the public either...because there are more people voting democratic than there are voting republican so the polling should include more Democratic voting people than Republican voting people....

As much as the nyt did this may not have been called for, but certainly there should have been some weight on the democratic side when polling, to make it a true representation of our society?

care

 

[Navy1960]

Actually, I'd say they did a FINE JOB, of getting rid of the liars exposed.

Well thats one way of putting it Care, I personally like to see it this way, the paper as a whole like all of print media has a problem with competetion with the internet and cable media. So they are having issues keeping readers, that being the case, there are some institutions that are willing to stretch the bounds of truth in order to attract readers to a dying medium. While I won't condemn the entire staff for the serious bad conduct of others, it does bring a negative image to the entire paper that goes right to it's credibility. As it would for any other media outlet.....