You Know, Had Democrats Used The Republican Health Care Reforms, Almost Everyone Would Be Happy–UPDATED

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

You Know, Had Democrats Used The Republican Health Care Reforms, Almost Everyone Would Be Happy–UPDATED

Written By : Melissa Clouthier

At the moment, it looks like no health care bill will pass. It’s a debacle from top to bottom and no one wants to be hung with this noose.

President Obama is the biggest loser. Which is why he is doing this.

Had the Democrats pushed a real reform plan such as the Republicans had been pushing–a few laws that would ease access, level the playing field and create more competition–everyone but the hard left would be happy.

Instead, the Democrats went for the whole enchilada–a path to single payer plans, a path to socialized medicine, a path no one but socialists want. There are still not enough socialists in America to pass that sort of legislation so the Dems thought they could bluff and abuse the language (calling it reform, for one) to get to their goal.

This isn’t over quite yet. But health care reform could have been a triumph of bipartisanship, President Obama’s ability to “bring people together”, and, dare I say it, good legislation that Americans like. You know, health care reform could have been helpful. Instead, the desires of the far left were indulged, again, and to the Democrats’ demise.

I’m thinking that the Democrats could redeem themselves even still, if they jumped on some of the reforms Republicans proposed. Maybe. But they’d rather rot and not get reelected than do something like that, I think.

UPDATED:

Well, Ace seems to think something will pass and says this:

If they do cut a deal — which I?expect they will — there still will be a lot of additional spending and a lot of new debt and a lot of harm to the economy. I guess we’re just hoping now that the damage is kept to as low a level as possible. But that level will not be all that low, either.

Ace also notes the left’s hypocrisy on “purity tests”. He also sees a scripted dance going on for political reasons.

Yeah, well, I keep thinking the Dems are smarter than they turn out to be. Maybe they are actually orchestrating a finely tuned win for the President. We’ll see.

Robert_Ingersoll

Ah, all the old tired ideas they couldnt pass when they had control. Those ideas?
http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

Me, I don;t want govt involved in Healthcare at all! In fact, I’d like to see most of what govt does right now eliminated, not grown in any way whatever.
Mike_M

The Dems already sprung their biggest bait and switch by “dumping the public option” and turning it into a huge expansion of Medicare. Fortunately nobody is being fooled by their shabby parlor tricks.

The whole bill is a sham though. They could cut out $400 billion of Medicare spending, spend nothing on providing any new insurance, and it would still be unacceptable because of the ream after ream of new restrictions and controls on the medical industry. No version is acceptable. It must be defeated.

Changing a couple line items doesn’t change the fact that this is a government takeover bill and would be toxic for healthcare in America.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Democrats would not have been happy with reform, because reform is not what they’re after: it’s control.
whats_up

Posted by CavalierX
2009-12-14 15:27:00

Conservatives didnt even try reform though Cav, but of course you dont think that there is a problem do you?
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Posted by whats_up
2009-12-14 15:32:19

Well there is no problem that govt can fix by getting MORE involved. Maybe if Congress would quit trying to fix problems that always create more new problems, or make them worse we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Conservatives didnt even try reform though Cav

Conservative reform would be dropping ridiculous Federal regulations (like those preventing competition across state lines), tort reform, and weaning the younger folks off the government teat before they even get started. Come to think of it, that closely resembles the Conservative fix for just about every bloated, bankrupt Federal program in existence.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

you dont think that there is a problem do you?
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-14 15:32:19

You got Nixon’s proof yet bitch?
wylie_e_coyote

Great article in NRO that debunks the common leftist/DNC talknig pointand myths about HC designed to fuel the a fake sense of “crisis” and envy among citizens:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZThiZjBhOThhOGY2YWI1ODdjODY2OGNlODJkMjdlNDg=

Here is just one of the several addressed as it was throw out today:

“Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), for example, said during floor debate that the uninsured impose a “hidden tax” of more than $1,000 per person. That claim, as regular readers of NRO already know, originated with a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The Congressional Budget Office has joined in the debunking.”

I would add that I think this “D Senator WH meeting” is part of the pre-arragned drama.

I said long ago that Obama would emerge and tell D to “accept the bill” w/o government option or such in “the sprit of bipartisan progress” or some crap like that!

Again, they just need the individual mandate, the regularoty control, and the taxes/subsides this go around….

It will break the HC system as cost will skyrocket beyond control – free market will be blamed and 5 to 10 years its single payer!

This is the danger we face today – its critical to keep the pressure on these skunks!
wylie_e_coyote

Here is a good article about the core elements of the takeover – much more then simply medicare/medicade expansion and a new government insurance entitlement:

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2U4NmM3MGRiNzZmN2JkYTE0NzhhYTVjY2QwNTViMWI=

“What is fascinating (to me anyway) is that the Left could have had health-care socialism passed on a bipartisan basis months ago, if only they had suppressed their hubris. Republicans were (and remain) perfectly willing to approve community-rating and guaranteed-access regulations for private insurers; and if those were implemented, no one would need a government option or any of the other nostrums: Coverage would be transformed into a public-utility-type service, the insurers would remain “private” in only the most superficial of senses, and the government control and wealth transfers that represent the Holy Grails of the Left would be achieved.

But . . . no. Nancy and Harry and the others simply couldn’t stomach a few compromises that would have proven meaningless in the larger context of massive adverse selection and government takeover. They had 60 votes, and they just could not resist the temptation to shove it all down our throats. Now they may get nothing except collapsing prospects for the 2010 elections. Life is wonderful.”

I think the author and many others are far to premature in celebrating CrappyCare’s demise!

Yes, I think there is much drama going on – right now its to fuel the KOSer left into think that the D leadership did “all the can” before all variations of the government option is dropped!

Look for a “dramatic leadership” by Obama telling the libs to take “half-a-loaf” to “help” the american people ie individual mandates only – then a quick ping pong!

I dont trust the ultra libs at all when they say “Government Option or Nothing”

Nor do I trust Nelson, Liberman not to drop opposition once the government option charade is played out…..

I hope I am wrong but its lining up all too strangely right now to what I predicted – at least its worth a “shout out” fax or email tonight to all these Senators to keep the heat on – tell them NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!
D-Vega

The people voted for the Democratic reforms.

Even today, polls show strong support for a public option, just not the way its outlined in this bill.

If people would have voted for Reps overwhelmingly, then you would have had the oppty. But they didn’t, and Reps did diddly-squat when they had an oppty.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Even today, polls show strong support for a public option, just not the way its outlined in this bill.

Proof of this, please. And not that proof you failed to invent about McVeigh.
D-Vega

Nixon,

A) CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 4-8, 2009. N=1,031 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

“Would you favor or oppose the government offering some people who are uninsured the choice of a government-administered health insurance plan — also known as a ‘public option’ — that would compete with private health insurance plans?”

12/4-8/09
Favor – 59%
Oppose – 29%
Undecided – 12%

B) Bloomberg Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Dec. 3-7, 2009. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

“Generally, do you favor or oppose the proposals now in Congress to create a government-sponsored insurance program giving people an alternative to private health insurance — a so-called public option?”

12/3-7/09
Favor – 46%
Oppose – 45%
Undecided – 9%

C) CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 2-3, 2009. N=1,041 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”

12/2-3/09
Favor – 53%
Oppose – 46%
Undecided – 1%
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

CBS samples almost all Democratic. The other two polls show 46% and 45% opposition. Maybe that is overwhelming support where you live. Plus thw wording on CBS is significantly different in the questions you cited. Any explanation?
D-Vega

Nixon, the CBS sample is 59%, the Bloomberg is 46% and the CNN is 53%.

All of them ask about the public option, and all of them favor it.

Even in the prior polls from November, the result is the same.

The public favors a public option. Obama ran on the public option and won. The public wants a public health insurance to compete with the private companies. Every election, and poll, confirms that.

What the polls show also is that the public doesn’t like this bill, but it ain’t because of the public option, its because of all the other crap in it.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Every election, and poll, confirms that.

Your opinion.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Probably the public would have liked the plan more but it wouldn’t serve the purpose of pushing the nation to the left, toward socialism. The whole point is to get to socialized medicine, and if it has to be done one step at a time, well they’ll do it.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

All of them ask about the public option

Do you have any results from honest polls that asked the question “Do you favor total Federal government control over your personal healthcare decisions whether you like it or not?” Because that would be more honestly worded that your “offering some people who are uninsured the choice” CBS bullshit poll.
CoolCzech

But they didn’t, and Reps did diddly-squat when they had an oppty.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-14 16:54:36

Ahhh, yes, well don’t look now, D-Vega, but your pals the Democrats aren’t exactly batting a 1,000 at the moment. Are they?
rmiller

The whole point is to get to socialized medicine, and if it has to be done one step at a time, well they’ll do it.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-12-14 17:44:14

You seem to imply that this may be wrong. One step at a time toward socialized medicine may be the way to go.

Seems like a good strategy, if it succeeds. You imply that there might be something wrong with that strategy.
CoolCzech

What the polls show also is that the public doesn’t like this bill, but it ain’t because of the public option, its because of all the other crap in it.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-14 17:19:01

Which I guess is why it would appear the Democrats will drop the public option and pass “all the other crap in it” into law.

The bottom line is, this ENTIRE bill is pure crap is it’s very possible – heck, at this point likely – the whole thing will go down in flames like the Hindenburg on a bad day.
rmiller

But health care reform could have been a triumph of bipartisanship, President Obama’s ability to “bring people together”, and, dare I say it, good legislation that Americans like.
Melissa Clouthier | 2:55 pm | Permalink

LOL….OK, I can understand that different people have different interpretations of what might be right….

BUt don’t insult my intelligence that you think that there was a bipartisan solution to the health care issue. There was NO way Pres. Obama could have carried any Reps…or conservatives.

Conservatives are in no way interested in “bipartisan” solutions…because that would mean compromise. And that is something they are not interested in.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Conservatives are in no way interested in “bipartisan” solutions…because that would mean compromise. And that is something they are not interested in.

Posted by rmiller
2009-12-14 18:17:39

Explain how compromising on a $2 trillion dollar increase in the national debt is something good.
CoolCzech

Well, it lopks official: “public option” and expanded Medicare are dead.

I guess that means the rest of this dog of a bill are gonna pass, unfortunately. But I’m pretty happy with the outcome, really much better than could be expected. What’s left are Death Panels and hundreds of billions of cuts to Medicare.

If running against Death Panels ain’t a political gift from heaven for Republicans, what is??
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

The people voted for the Democratic reforms.

Well it’s a shame the Democrats aren’t actually making any reforms then.

Even today, polls show strong support for a public option, just not the way its outlined in this bill.

Um, yeah, that’s kind of our entire point.

The American people are okay with the idea of a “public option”. What they’re not okay with is the total takeover of the healthcare system that Barack Obama and the Democrats are trying to pass.

Thank you for proving the very point we have been arguing this whole time. You have been very helpful to the conservative cause.
rmiller

Explain how compromising on a $2 trillion dollar increase in the national debt is something good.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-12-14 18:58:33

I can’t. I am a fiscal conservative. I don’t like the way our budget is going.

But health care is a large part of our federal budget. And unless the American people come to grips with health care costs the budget will continue to be out of control.

I know conservatives do not like socialized medicine, but unless an arguement is made that emergency rooms should turn away people, then socialized medicine is part of the equation we need to talk about.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

I can’t. I am a fiscal conservative. I don’t like the way our budget is going.

Sure thing sparky.
rmiller

Sure thing sparky.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-12-14 19:12:58

You think that emergency room visits aren’t socialized medicine?
CoolCzech

RMiller, don’t you think what we REALLY need is putting the insured in charge of their insurance (i.e.,moving away from employer-based insurance), and above all avoiding another doomed- to-bankruptcy “poliyical third rail” entitlment, like the “public option” would have been?
rmiller

Posted by CoolCzech
2009-12-14 19:19:03

Yes I do. That would mean giving those who can an affordable health plan.

I don’t see that on the horizon. Not all who can feed their families are able to afford the insurance premiums for them.

Now, I can see the arguement where that SHOULD be the case. And certainly there are plenty of people who would be able to afford insurance for their families, if they only made the correct choices.

But there are also plenty of families who play by the rules who are unable to afford the insurance premiums that are necessary.

I know that the ‘public option’ is a bugaboo for conservatives.
But I wonder why…especially if the public alternative is going to be so much more inefficient than the private sector.

Wouldn’t the private sector step in and convince the people on the public dole that they have policies more efficient and affordable than the public offering?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

You think that emergency room visits aren’t socialized medicine?

No, child, emergency room visits are not socialized medicine. I am utterly at a loss as to how you could conclude that.
CoolCzech

Wouldn’t the private sector step in and convince the people on the public dole that they have policies more efficient and affordable than the public offering?
Posted by rmiller
2009-12-14 19:33:05

Inefficient as it is, rmiller, government has one power the private sector can’t compete with: the ability to subsidize policies with tax dollars, and to force doctors and hospitals to accept unrealistically low payments that they then have to slough off on the privately insured. That’s what made talk of “competition” between a “public option” and private insurers so unrealistic.
rmiller

Posted by CoolCzech
2009-12-14 19:44:15

Have to admit…it makes sense. Wouldn’t want the private sector having to compete with tax subsidized public insurance.

But I think that begs the question: what about those who cannot afford the private sector premiums? Those who work for minimum wages. They will rely on emergency room care for basic needs.

Where’s the compromise for those who want to play by the rules but can’t afford to? What is their option?
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

You think that emergency room visits aren’t socialized medicine?

Posted by rmiller
2009-12-14 19:15:24

Are you retarded?
CoolCzech

Look rmiller, if it came down to it I would prefer to just flat out giving certain people below a certain threshold an outright subsidy to go out and buy private insurance to letting the government control everything.

Thing is, insurance itself could be made much, much more affordable by, for starters, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.
rmiller

Are you retarded?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-12-14 19:57:12

Nope. What about the federal government paying for emergency room visits by uninsured people is not socialized medicine?
rmiller

Posted by CoolCzech
2009-12-14 20:09:02

I’m not in favor of gov’t control of health insurance either. I happen to think that our current system of gov’t subsidising is the most inefficient possible.

Whatever reforms that make private policies more affordable should be enacted.

And all individuals and families should pay for some kind of health insurance….

But also, there are people that the private insurance companies won’t insure. That may be a matter of reform, but I think that the only motivation for the private companies to insure those individuals might be gov’t interference.

What about those that private plans won’t insure?
CoolCzech

I think the Democrats NOW have the opportunity, if they truly care about “bipartisanship,” as opposed to ramming things thru, ti have a meaningful dialogue with Republicans about REAL reform instead of just destroying out country with yet another mountain – hell, a deadly asteroid – of debt.

But tell you what – anyone that thought “death panel” rhetoric was overheated should go to Gateway Pundit and learn that since that idiot government “death” panel said women shouldn’t get mammograms until age 50, twenty states have stopped paying for mammograms for low-income women under the age of 50. That means some of those women will DIE, that simple.

And THAT, I truly believe, is the essence of government control and rationing. Not on purpose, but because government can never afford to pay for the full entitlements it would be obligated for with “public options” of whatever sort without something like that happening.

That’s something people that throw around accusations that conservatives want people to die should think about.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

What about the federal government paying for emergency room visits by uninsured people is not socialized medicine?
Posted by rmiller
2009-12-14 20:09:46

The Fed doesn’t pay for those, other patients do, just like we pay for the under coverage that Medicare doles out to the doctors and hospitals. Does that give you a clue as to why we and insurance companies pay so much.
CoolCzech

Private plans that won’t insure?

Well, first of all, the question is WHO won’t they insure? Someone that is young and healthy and gambles they won’t get sick but loses their gamble?

Well, let me ask you: what about personal responsibility? Can we really “idiot proof” society?

But how many cases like that are there, really? As opposed to those that may have a true affordability issue?
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

You seem to imply that this may be wrong. One step at a time toward socialized medicine may be the way to go.

Not only is that unconstitutional, but its so much a failure in nations who have tried it for decades they are trying to get away from that system. It doesn’t deal with the real problem of cost and it degrades the quality of care. But who cares about all that, right? It makes you feel good.

And honestly, if you want socialized medicine, why the lies and deception?
wylie_e_coyote

Even without a “Government Option” Obamacre is still Nationalization!
Posted by RR on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:05:54 PM
This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this “public option” provision everyone keeps fixating on! Here are the essential elements of the health care Nationalization in what might now be called Obamacare 2.0 or Obamacare lite after the so-called “public option“ is dropped:

(a) Federal Government Regulatory power over all Health Insurance companies/Comparative Effectiveness Boards aka HEALTH EXCHANGE CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates to force everyone to buy a government specified Health Insurance plan AKA UNIVERSAL COVERAGE

(c) Massive Government Subsidies to middle class citizens to purchase the mandates insurance AKA MEDICAL WELFARE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

Basically, the Federal government will be controlling the Health Insurance industry just like it controls the Banks and Auto Companies who received bailout money. While it will still technically be true that health insurance companies are “private” companies, they will be only in the same sense that GM, CITIGROUP, etc are still “private” companies. Since the Federal government has provided most of the funding and dictated all the terms of business, politicians and technocrats will really be calling the shots. Essentially, all health insurance companies in the country will be quasi-governmental agencies that simply get to stay in business to administer the National Health insurance program on a small for-profit basis.

So please don’t be confused into thinking that much in the way of any meaningful substance has changed once the “public” option as been dropped.
rmiller

I think the Democrats NOW have the opportunity, if they truly care about “bipartisanship,” as opposed to ramming things thru, ti have a meaningful dialogue with Republicans about REAL reform instead of just destroying out country with yet another mountain – hell, a deadly asteroid – of debt.
Posted by CoolCzech
2009-12-14 20:23:14

I know you think that…but really…what kind of dialogue is there between the parties?

There are no Republicans playing the bipartisan game. Just as there will be no Dems playing in 2010. You and I both know there is no bipartisanship.

No use pretending. As to deadly asteroids… you’re playing into one of my passions. An asteroid will collide with the Earth before Dems and Reps. agree on any social legislation.
rmiller

And honestly, if you want socialized medicine, why the lies and deception?

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-12-14 21:04:24

I don’t think we are engaged in lies and deception. And socialized medicine has many things going for it in developing countries. All one has to do is look at statistics developed by the OCED countries.

We lag behind pretty well of other ’1st’ world countries. Not that I expect conservatives to accept those figures…just saying.
rmiller

Well, first of all, the question is WHO won’t they insure? Someone that is young and healthy and gambles they won’t get sick but loses their gamble?
Posted by CoolCzech
2009-12-14 20:26:58

I now forgive you CC.

Insurance companies won’t insure those who need it most…those who have the most need of insurance…
those with…..

previous conditions.
rmiller

conservatives are kidding about their protests about the previous conditions, right?

You’re not really that, shall we say, naive?

Though other words do come to mind.
RWDavidD

OK, so after the 2012 elections, will a Republican-controlled Congress with a Republican president pass healthcare reform that includes interstate competition and tort reform? If Conservatives and Independents are 80% of the electorate, who could stop it?
no_hope_lotsa_change

What about the federal government paying for emergency room visits by uninsured people is not socialized medicine?
Posted by rmiller
2009-12-14 20:09:46

My daughter had to go to the ER last year due to complications with the flu and I footed the entire bill. No federal ‘help’ came my way. Not that I would have accepted it anyway.
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

“All one has to do is look at statistics developed by the OCED countries.”

miller – you need to find a better source of information. Not much more than a week ago, those precious OECD figures you tout were used to great effect to point out that the NHS in the UK, arguably the most socialised of the socialised medicine programmes in the world, lags behind the OECD average in many treatments. Oh, and as an added bonus, look which nation leads the world in both of the examples cited. Why it’s the evil ol’ US.

Here’s a few of the facts for you if you’re too lazy/threatened/stupid/drunk to follow the link:

Breast Cancer Survival Rates – measured by the percentage still alive after 5 yrs. 2002/7

US – 90.5%
Iceland – 88.3%
Canada – 87.1%
Sweden – 86.1%
Finland – 86%
Netherlands – 85.2%
France – 82.6%
Denmark – 82.4%
New Zealand – 82.1%
Norway – 81.9%
OECD Avg. – 81.2%
UK – 78.5%
Ireland – 76.2%
S Korea – 75.5%
Czech Republic – 75.4%
Poland – 61.6%

Note: these figures suggest that during the time period cited, for every 1000 breast cancer cases diagnosed, 93 more women survived 5 years than the OECD average. And 120 more American women survived than UK women. In real numbers, based on 1,000,000 cases of BC, that’s 93,000 more American women living than the OECD avg and 120,000 more American women living than their UK counterparts. Why that’s equal to a decently-sized town.

Bowel Cancer Survival Rates – same measure as above

US – 65.5%
Finland – 62.0%
New Zealand – 60.9%
Canada – 60.7%
Sweden – 60.1%
S Korea – 58.1%
Netherlands – 58.1%
Norway – 57.8%
OECD Avg. – 57.9%
Denmark – 54.4%
Ireland – 52.3%
UK – 51.6%
Czech Republic – 46.8%

You can do the maths for any comparison you wish on your own, but in the US, 76 more people will survive than the OECD average per 1000 diagnosed cases. Again, using 1,000,000 cases, that’s 76,000 people saved.

The OECD report is really full of interesting tidbits like that, miller. You should acquaint yourself with them. The US doesn’t lead in all categories, and yes, we do have issues and problems with which to contend. But, overall, we stack up extremely well against the OECD average, and we positively trounce the world model for socialised medicine, the NHS. Those are the facts borne out of OECD’s own report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234276/Britain-sick-man-Europe-Heart-cancer-survival-rates-worst-developed-world.html

Do we need reform? Sure we do. Do we need the government to take over the management of health care funding? Absolutely not. The data from around the world support the clinical outcomes-based reasons why not.
belacuse

With regard to the polls D-Vega linked above – excuse me if I take CNN/NYT/CBS polls with a pinch of salt. While I am sure those fine news organizations have an excellent reputation for fairness and unbiased opinions *snicker*, I think I’ll go with rasmussen and zogby:

From Rasmussen:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition found – reached three times before – in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.

From Zogby:

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=18967

The year’s biggest survey on healthcare reveals most Americans oppose the very reforms that President Obama is trying to push through Congress.
By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters say they are against the healthcare bill introduced July 14 to the House of Representatives, a new Zogby International poll reports.

Now, it’s just possible that despite overwhelming opposition for the healthcare monstrosity that voters still prefer the public option portion (just apparantly not the rest?) as the polls Vega linked suggest, but that does seem extremely unlikely.
CoolCzech

We lag behind pretty well of other ’1st’ world countries. Not that I expect conservatives to accept those figures…just saying.
Posted by rmiller
2009-12-15 01:30:35

Nonsense; an excellent measure of quality of healthcare are comparative cancer survival rates and the US is head & shoulders above the rest of the world.

Child mortality rates only appear better in Europe, because their mortality is so high they don’t even bother counting the deaths of premature babies as the death of children. Many of the statistics proponents of Socialized Healthcare point to as supposedly proving the superiority of Europe’s systems really are measures of the results of cultural differences in lifestyle – and while those can indeed affect statistics, they really tell you very little about the relative effectiveness of healthcare systems. (For example, the Japanese eat far less fat & much more seafood than Americans, resulting in fewer heart attacks and longer lifespans… that’s great, but socializing medicine will hardly change that).

Simply put, there are NO anecdotes about Americans going overseas for healthcare they can’t receive at home. There is no piggybacking off the Canadian pharmaceutical industry in America (not least of all because there effectively is no Canadian pharmaceutical industry at all).
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Insurance companies won’t insure those who need it most…those who have the most need of insurance…
those with…..

previous conditions.
Posted by rmiller
2009-12-15 01:49:05

So a person who voluntarily does not have medical insurance suddenly develops cancer. Should that person pay the same premium and get the same benefits as the person who had insurance all along?
D-Vega

Medicine is already socialized. Been that way for years.

What the real issue is here is what sam said:

What they’re not okay with is the total takeover of the healthcare system that Barack Obama and the Democrats are trying to pass.

And that is NOT what is being proposed. That is an outright lie.

Private companies stand to benefit more than anyone here.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Private companies stand to benefit more than anyone here.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-15 09:56:55

HAHAHAHA!
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Private companies stand to benefit more than anyone here.

Sure, all they have to do is give the government full operational control. Then the government will continue to pretend the companies are privately run — and even competing against each other! — while forcing every American who makes over 50K to buy insurance from them. The companies will then become a permanent part of the Federal government’s infrastructure.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

We lag behind pretty well of other ’1st’ world countries.

Surely you don’t mean these countries?

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

And that is NOT what is being proposed.

Denial does not make it so, D-Vega.
tblrk2006

And that is NOT what is being proposed. That is an outright lie.

Private companies stand to benefit more than anyone here.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-15 09:56:55

Why? Just b/c the govt will make it law that everybody must purchase a (govt approved) plan? In your simple mind you think that equals profit to the entity “selling” the plan? Please tell me you have a desire to look a little deeper than just what the obama tells you.
Living_Right_in_CA

Sorry guys, but I am siding with D-Vega. We must only make our decisions based upon polls. Since I will concede that some polls show a support for the public option then it must be part of the reform.

And I hope in this spirit of understanding DV will stand with me to request, no make that demand that Obama be impeached. I mean since he is not supported by a majority of Americans, we must get rid of him.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

I don’t think we are engaged in lies and deception.

You? NO you’re being up front about your support for violating the constitution, bankrupting the country, and destroying the finest health care system in the world. Its the guys in congress and president that are being sneaky and underhanded, that are lying about it.

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN