A Preview of the Coming Failure

[CommonSensor]

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

Now who could have predicted that rates (COSTS) are gonna skyrocket just because we mandate all this coverage (and reform ONLY health insurance, without a mechanism to control costs)? .... uhhh....most of us, that's who.

Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid.

Oh, and lastly, welcome to your new health care costs sheeple. We all deserve it for not being pro-active enough to stop this insanity (you know, the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result).

-sensored

 

[Avatar4321]

here's an idea:

Send them back in the room with the rest of the Senate. Lock the door. Throw away the key and live our life in peace.

 

[Maple]

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

Now who could have predicted that rates (COSTS) are gonna skyrocket just because we mandate all this coverage (and reform ONLY health insurance, without a mechanism to control costs)? .... uhhh....most of us, that's who.

"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Oh, and lastly, welcome to your new health care costs sheeple. We all deserve it for not being pro-active enough to stop this insanity (you know, the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result).

-sensored

What???????????
"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Where in the hell did you get that 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option, no way. That's why it's been sacked. 57% of all Americans oppose the public option. That's why all the outrage at the town halls, and the main reason that 1- 2 million showed up at the D.C tea party. You got your numbers screwed up, check Rasmussen, Gallup or any poll and you will see that a national take over with this public option has very strong opposition with the great majority of americans against it. You must be new to this board and have not been paying attention.

 

[Old Rocks]

A majority of Americans would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll – though many worry that the nation’s economy will suffer if the government were to offer universal health care.

The poll also finds that health care is a major domestic concern for Americans, second only to the economy.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage. While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move.

Poll: Majority Would Pay Higher Taxes For Universal Health Care - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Check the polls yourself. And even by Fox's numbers, only 75,000 showed up for that tepid tea party. Outrage at the Town Halls? A bunch of crazies bought and paid for by the very people that have been ripping off Medicare for billions.

 

[CommonSensor]

What???????????
"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Where in the hell did you get that 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option, no way. That's why it's been sacked. 57% of all Americans oppose the public option. That's why all the outrage at the town halls, and the main reason that 1- 2 million showed up at the D.C tea party. You got your numbers screwed up, check Rasmussen, Gallup or any poll and you will see that a national take over with this public option has very strong opposition with the great majority of americans against it. You must be new to this board and have not been paying attention.

Oh, Maple....your ignorance never ceases to amaze me... (and I say "ignorance" in the observation that you "ignore" what you don't agree with). The 57% you speak of refers to those against the senate's bill. AND I'M ONE OF THEM....BECAUSE IT NO LONGER HAS THE PUBLIC OPTION...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html

Times Poll: Public Leans Toward Obama Over Republicans on Health Care - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

Poll: Support for Public Option Grows - CBS News

Think Progress » New poll finds that 77 percent of Americans still support the public option.

Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance Option | TPMDC

Poll: Public Option in Health Care Backed by American Majority

p.s., I have a couple hundred more if you need...

-sensored

 

[xsited1]

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

...

I'm not a registered member of the NY Times so I can't read the link you posted.

 

[CommonSensor]

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

...

I'm not a registered member of the NY Times so I can't read the link you posted.

Sorry Xsited. I'm not a member either. Wonder why I could view it, and you couldn't. I'll post it here...

Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan

By KEVIN SACK
Published: March 15, 2009

BOSTON — Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.
Skip to next paragraph

Douglas Healey/Associated Press
Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts hopes to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control the state’s runaway health costs.
The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the state’s pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.
Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.
With Washington watching, the state’s leaders are again blazing new trails. Both Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romney’s Democratic successor, and a high-level state commission have set out to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.
They want a new payment method that rewards prevention and the effective control of chronic disease, instead of the current system, which pays according to the quantity of care provided. By late spring, the commission is expected to recommend such a system to the legislature.
If Massachusetts becomes the first state to make this conversion, health policy experts argue that it would be as audacious an achievement as universal coverage. The state faces several hurdles, including securing federal permission to impose the changes on Medicaid, a shared state and federal program, and more unusually on Medicare, which is financed entirely by Washington.
Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent — doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups — would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said.
Now those stakeholders and the state government have a huge investment to protect. But the task of cost-cutting remains difficult in a state with a long tradition of heavy spending on health care. Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any state, Boston is home to some of the country’s most expensive academic medical centers, and a new state law requires comprehensive benefits like prescription drug and mental health coverage.
Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980.
“Just as this may have been the easiest place to do coverage, it may be the most difficult place to do cost control,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
But Mr. Patrick has shown signs of playing tough with the state’s hospitals and insurers. Responding in January to a series in The Boston Globe that exposed how the state’s most influential hospitals negotiate high reimbursement rates, Mr. Patrick announced that he would explore whether the state could regulate insurance premiums.
“Frankly, it’s very hard for the average consumer, or frankly the average governor, to understand how some of these companies can have the margins they do and the annual increases in premiums that they do,” Mr. Patrick said in an interview. “At some level, you’ve just got to say, ‘Look, that’s just not acceptable, and more to the point, it’s not sustainable.’ ”
The threat seems to have been heard. Insurers seeking to participate in the state’s subsidized insurance program, Commonwealth Care, recently submitted bids so low that officials announced last week that they would keep premiums flat in the coming year. That may provide cover for the program as the state seeks ways to fill a nearly $4 billion gap in its 2010 budget.
The state expects to spend $595 million more on its health insurance programs this year than in 2006, a 42 percent increase. But about 432,000 people have gained coverage, leaving only 2.6 percent of the population without insurance, according to a recent state survey. At only one-sixth the national average, that is by far the lowest rate in any state.
Massachusetts achieved its high coverage rates by mandating in its landmark law that almost every resident have health insurance, and that all but the smallest businesses make some contribution toward their employees’ costs. Those who do not enroll but are deemed able to afford insurance can be fined up to $1,068 in the 2009 tax year.
To make the mandated insurance affordable, the state subsidizes premiums for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four. Massachusetts already had a law requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health status.
Although nearly 60 percent of the newly insured are covered by public programs, Massachusetts also seems to be a rare state where the percentage of employers offering health benefits is actually growing. And the state government has realized substantial savings, worth about $250 million last year, from lower payments to hospitals for uncompensated care for the uninsured and underinsured.


---------------end

 

[Political Junky]

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

Now who could have predicted that rates (COSTS) are gonna skyrocket just because we mandate all this coverage (and reform ONLY health insurance, without a mechanism to control costs)? .... uhhh....most of us, that's who.

"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Oh, and lastly, welcome to your new health care costs sheeple. We all deserve it for not being pro-active enough to stop this insanity (you know, the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result).

-sensored

What???????????
"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Where in the hell did you get that 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option, no way. That's why it's been sacked. 57% of all Americans oppose the public option. That's why all the outrage at the town halls, and the main reason that 1- 2 million showed up at the D.C tea party. You got your numbers screwed up, check Rasmussen, Gallup or any poll and you will see that a national take over with this public option has very strong opposition with the great majority of americans against it. You must be new to this board and have not been paying attention.

Link?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

...

I'm not a registered member of the NY Times so I can't read the link you posted.

Sorry Xsited. I'm not a member either. Wonder why I could view it, and you couldn't. I'll post it here...

Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan

By KEVIN SACK
Published: March 15, 2009

BOSTON — Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.
Skip to next paragraph

Douglas Healey/Associated Press
Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts hopes to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control the state’s runaway health costs.
The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the state’s pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.
Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.
With Washington watching, the state’s leaders are again blazing new trails. Both Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romney’s Democratic successor, and a high-level state commission have set out to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.
They want a new payment method that rewards prevention and the effective control of chronic disease, instead of the current system, which pays according to the quantity of care provided. By late spring, the commission is expected to recommend such a system to the legislature.
If Massachusetts becomes the first state to make this conversion, health policy experts argue that it would be as audacious an achievement as universal coverage. The state faces several hurdles, including securing federal permission to impose the changes on Medicaid, a shared state and federal program, and more unusually on Medicare, which is financed entirely by Washington.
Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent — doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups — would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said.
Now those stakeholders and the state government have a huge investment to protect. But the task of cost-cutting remains difficult in a state with a long tradition of heavy spending on health care. Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any state, Boston is home to some of the country’s most expensive academic medical centers, and a new state law requires comprehensive benefits like prescription drug and mental health coverage.
Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980.
“Just as this may have been the easiest place to do coverage, it may be the most difficult place to do cost control,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
But Mr. Patrick has shown signs of playing tough with the state’s hospitals and insurers. Responding in January to a series in The Boston Globe that exposed how the state’s most influential hospitals negotiate high reimbursement rates, Mr. Patrick announced that he would explore whether the state could regulate insurance premiums.
“Frankly, it’s very hard for the average consumer, or frankly the average governor, to understand how some of these companies can have the margins they do and the annual increases in premiums that they do,” Mr. Patrick said in an interview. “At some level, you’ve just got to say, ‘Look, that’s just not acceptable, and more to the point, it’s not sustainable.’ ”
The threat seems to have been heard. Insurers seeking to participate in the state’s subsidized insurance program, Commonwealth Care, recently submitted bids so low that officials announced last week that they would keep premiums flat in the coming year. That may provide cover for the program as the state seeks ways to fill a nearly $4 billion gap in its 2010 budget.
The state expects to spend $595 million more on its health insurance programs this year than in 2006, a 42 percent increase. But about 432,000 people have gained coverage, leaving only 2.6 percent of the population without insurance, according to a recent state survey. At only one-sixth the national average, that is by far the lowest rate in any state.
Massachusetts achieved its high coverage rates by mandating in its landmark law that almost every resident have health insurance, and that all but the smallest businesses make some contribution toward their employees’ costs. Those who do not enroll but are deemed able to afford insurance can be fined up to $1,068 in the 2009 tax year.
To make the mandated insurance affordable, the state subsidizes premiums for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four. Massachusetts already had a law requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health status.
Although nearly 60 percent of the newly insured are covered by public programs, Massachusetts also seems to be a rare state where the percentage of employers offering health benefits is actually growing. And the state government has realized substantial savings, worth about $250 million last year, from lower payments to hospitals for uncompensated care for the uninsured and underinsured.


---------------end

Ah yes....the Ted Kennedy (read Obama) health care plan.....AKA another Big Dig....

 

[CommonSensor]

Ah yes....the Ted Kennedy (read Obama) health care plan.....AKA another Big Dig....

Not quite....add the public option, and then yeah,,,,the Kennedy plan. As is, it's the Mitt Romney plan....doomed from the start.

-s

 

[Navy1960]

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

Or when one survey finds that 55 percent of Americans support the public option, while another says 79 percent favor one — but also notes that only 37 percent people surveyed actually knew what “public option” meant?
Health care polls leave pols dizzy - Andie Coller - POLITICO.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office recently griped about an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that asked whether Americans favor a public option that would compete with private insurance companies, rather than asking how important they felt it was to have the “choice” between a public option and private insurance, as they had before.


The wording tweak left the impression that support for the public option had dropped from 76 percent to 43 percent since June, critics argued.


Others have complained about a New York Times/CBS News poll that used a word with positive associations — “Medicare” — to describe the public option.


And an ABC News summary of the results of eight polls from late July through mid-August on “the public option” found that support for a public option ranged from 43 percent to 66 percent
Health care polls leave pols dizzy - Andie Coller - POLITICO.com

Just 41% of likely voters say they favor the reform proposed by President Obama and Democrats. 56% of respondents are opposed.

Americans are split on whether they expect the legislation to become law. 46% believe it will, while 47% do not.
Poll: Lowest support yet for healthcare - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Guess it depends on where you get your poll info from I suppose, so I would be careful when I went around saying that 60 plus percent of the people favor the "public option", especially when it comes from the NYT and CBS. That might be true when you survey the staff of CBS and the NYT but is hardly a true representation of the true feelings of Americans.

 

[CommonSensor]

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

Welcome to the conversation Navy! and thanks for the perspective. I agree polls can be manipulated to show just about any result you want. I would say though, with all the research I've been able to come up with, I've yet to find one (credible) report that showed a less than 50% favorable opinion specifically concerning the "public option". I used the 60% figure purely as a "median". I'm sure it's not "exact".

But I think the point is, we (as Americans) DO favor a public option. Other figures in this thread represent opinions on the currently proposed legislation. In their infinite wisdom, the "committee" has produced a plan that takes 50% of our current health care issues (COST), and makes it exponentially worse. We all know that providing all this additional access will result in dramatically higher costs, and the plan does little or nothing to control those costs. The "net" effect will be much the same as is currently happening in Massachusetts. The bottom line....it's NOT acceptable, and as it stands now, the REASON only 43% are in favor of the "president's plan", is a direct result of the above, NOT because they don't favor a "public option".

Or when one survey finds that 55 percent of Americans support the public option, while another says 79 percent favor one — but also notes that only 37 percent people surveyed actually knew what “public option” meant?
Health care polls leave pols dizzy - Andie Coller - POLITICO.com

First, agreed. 63% of us have NO IDEA what the public option really is. So, what I'd really be curious to see is, of those 37% that know, what percentage were in favor. While it's "subjective" to hypothesize, I'd be willing to bet big money that the vast majority of those were in favor. Please prove me wrong.

And secondly, you'd have to agree that 37% is probably a high percentage as compared to other "issues being understood". It's my opinion that our government "relies" on that ignorance to push through whatever the hell they want to, depending on how affluent the "special interest" is. This legislation is just another "example".

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office recently griped about an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that asked whether Americans favor a public option that would compete with private insurance companies, rather than asking how important they felt it was to have the “choice” between a public option and private insurance, as they had before.

The wording tweak left the impression that support for the public option had dropped from 76 percent to 43 percent since June, critics argued.

a very valid argument, and VERY misleading.

Others have complained about a New York Times/CBS News poll that used a word with positive associations — “Medicare” — to describe the public option.

Of course there ARE valid comparisons, but differences too. I think the point is, Medicare IS a valid comparison in terms of how industry CAN compete successfully with government (in other words, without "driving anyone out of business), much like the post office and others. In short, it's "just another competitor". The differences, Medicare is only an "option" for seniors, and really isn't an "option" at all, considering all other companies force you to accept it (don't offer coverage over 65). There are, of course, "wrapper" types of policies you can purchase that augment Medicare, but none you can buy that preclude the need to have it.

And an ABC News summary of the results of eight polls from late July through mid-August on “the public option” found that support for a public option ranged from 43 percent to 66 percent
Health care polls leave pols dizzy - Andie Coller - POLITICO.com

Great article! Thanks. I still would love to know what percentage of the "37%" favor the option =).

Just 41% of likely voters say they favor the reform proposed by President Obama and Democrats. 56% of respondents are opposed.

It "should be" 100% opposed (MHO). Does nothing but make the existing problem worse.

Americans are split on whether they expect the legislation to become law. 46% believe it will, while 47% do not.
Poll: Lowest support yet for healthcare - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Who cares. meaningless question.

Guess it depends on where you get your poll info from I suppose, so I would be careful when I went around saying that 60 plus percent of the people favor the "public option", especially when it comes from the NYT and CBS. That might be true when you survey the staff of CBS and the NYT but is hardly a true representation of the true feelings of Americans.

I don't want to re-hash what I wrote earlier, so I'll just say this...I used the 60% option in a "rational" way, after a lot of research, and so I'm VERY confident using it. If anything (again my opinion), it's a conservative estimate.

-sensored

 

[Ame®icano]

A majority of Americans would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll – though many worry that the nation’s economy will suffer if the government were to offer universal health care.

The poll also finds that health care is a major domestic concern for Americans, second only to the economy.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage. While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move.

Poll: Majority Would Pay Higher Taxes For Universal Health Care - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Check the polls yourself. And even by Fox's numbers, only 75,000 showed up for that tepid tea party. Outrage at the Town Halls? A bunch of crazies bought and paid for by the very people that have been ripping off Medicare for billions.

Something's telling me you are not one that will be paying.

 

[Fatality]

here's an idea:

Send them back in the room with the rest of the Senate. Lock the door. Throw away the key and live our life in peace.

give them a 357 with 6 shots and a couple bottles of jack

 

[Navy1960]

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

Welcome to the conversation Navy! and thanks for the perspective. I agree polls can be manipulated to show just about any result you want. I would say though, with all the research I've been able to come up with, I've yet to find one (credible) report that showed a less than 50% favorable opinion specifically concerning the "public option". I used the 60% figure purely as a "median". I'm sure it's not "exact".

But I think the point is, we (as Americans) DO favor a public option. Other figures in this thread represent opinions on the currently proposed legislation. In their infinite wisdom, the "committee" has produced a plan that takes 50% of our current health care issues (COST), and makes it exponentially worse. We all know that providing all this additional access will result in dramatically higher costs, and the plan does little or nothing to control those costs. The "net" effect will be much the same as is currently happening in Massachusetts. The bottom line....it's NOT acceptable, and as it stands now, the REASON only 43% are in favor of the "president's plan", is a direct result of the above, NOT because they don't favor a "public option".

Or when one survey finds that 55 percent of Americans support the public option, while another says 79 percent favor one — but also notes that only 37 percent people surveyed actually knew what “public option” meant?
Health care polls leave pols dizzy - Andie Coller - POLITICO.com

First, agreed. 63% of us have NO IDEA what the public option really is. So, what I'd really be curious to see is, of those 37% that know, what percentage were in favor. While it's "subjective" to hypothesize, I'd be willing to bet big money that the vast majority of those were in favor. Please prove me wrong.

And secondly, you'd have to agree that 37% is probably a high percentage as compared to other "issues being understood". It's my opinion that our government "relies" on that ignorance to push through whatever the hell they want to, depending on how affluent the "special interest" is. This legislation is just another "example".


a very valid argument, and VERY misleading.



Of course there ARE valid comparisons, but differences too. I think the point is, Medicare IS a valid comparison in terms of how industry CAN compete successfully with government (in other words, without "driving anyone out of business), much like the post office and others. In short, it's "just another competitor". The differences, Medicare is only an "option" for seniors, and really isn't an "option" at all, considering all other companies force you to accept it (don't offer coverage over 65). There are, of course, "wrapper" types of policies you can purchase that augment Medicare, but none you can buy that preclude the need to have it.


Great article! Thanks. I still would love to know what percentage of the "37%" favor the option =).



It "should be" 100% opposed (MHO). Does nothing but make the existing problem worse.

Americans are split on whether they expect the legislation to become law. 46% believe it will, while 47% do not.
Poll: Lowest support yet for healthcare - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Who cares. meaningless question.

Guess it depends on where you get your poll info from I suppose, so I would be careful when I went around saying that 60 plus percent of the people favor the "public option", especially when it comes from the NYT and CBS. That might be true when you survey the staff of CBS and the NYT but is hardly a true representation of the true feelings of Americans.

I don't want to re-hash what I wrote earlier, so I'll just say this...I used the 60% option in a "rational" way, after a lot of research, and so I'm VERY confident using it. If anything (again my opinion), it's a conservative estimate.

-sensored

First, thank you for the thread welcome, however while I am sure your confident in your 60% figure and I'm equally sure that you have a passion for the "public option". In the end that figure is a ghost and only represents the true feelings of the people polled by the organizations that do the polling. In fact these polls depending on who you poll generally average 50/50. Let me give you an example, The CBS poll substituted "public option" with the word Medicare and of course your going to get a higher percentage of people favoring Medicare. So what happens then? Those that favor a public option take from that x amount of Americans now favor the "public option". It's the same with the poll that basically asked Fox watcher's Do you favor "Govt. run healthcare" and you get a low number. These polls are not a true reflection of what Americans favor, but if I were to guess, I would say this, the majority of Americans favor some form healthcare reform, and while most democrats favor the so called "public option" most republicans do not. So given that and the results of the last elections you basically back to around 50/50. While we will agree to disagree on this one, these polls especially on issues like this are generally reflective of the polliong company that takes them,