Americans now favor Obamacare 50-35% !!!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cruztbone, Jul 29, 2010.

  1. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    the Kaiser foundation/washington post poll now says public opinion has shifted in favor of the Obama health care plan, as i predicted it would. Americans are finally realizing that all the noise from the tea party and the right wing and the health care industry was a big fat lie. Once again, the Obama message is resonating with the American people. Not even Fox news can defeat it.

    God bless our courageous president who not only speaks well but takes appropriate action despite corporate liars and their selfish whores in congress and the media.:biggrin1:
     
  2. Industrialsize

    Industrialsize Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    23,646
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cape Cod, Ma USA
    A link for you: Americans view Democrats’ signature health reform bill more positively now than at any point since it was signed into law, a new poll found Thursday. 50 percent of the public say they view the new healthcare law favorably, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that has been tracking public opinion about the legislation since it became law. 35 percent of adults said they view the law unfavorably, while 14 percent had no opinion. The July numbers mark the strongest support for reform since it reached a low in May, when the Kaiser poll found the public opposed the law 44-41 percent. Support for health reform reaches high in Kaiser poll - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
    http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm
     
  3. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,207
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    This is exactly what the opponents feared. They know government programs for the people once implemented are difficult if not impossible to dismantle. So it's very very important to squash them before they start.
     
  4. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    3
    Why the switch? Is it just that people are starting to get what it means, or is there more to it? I will say this. Not seeing bloody red hands and get off my Medicare and Obama's a witch doctor signs every day have made me more of a happy camper; that's for sure.
     
  5. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I still hate the mandatory insurance, that part is pure BS shoehorned in by the insurance industry. I'm praying it gets removed but somehow I doubt it.
     
  6. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,097
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    It has not done anything yet. what is the big stink over it one way or the other?
     
  7. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,613
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think Obama is going to keep moving till his term is up.
    And peeps will be surprised at all the major legislation he will have had passed by then.
    And he'll be re-elected comfortably.
    There's something about him that 's hard to connect with. Too much gloss. Too little real sense of visceral passion.
    But this is just an unfortunate matter of personal style and vibration.
    He's a formidable leader, and he will take the U.S. very far down certain paths.
    And history's eye will view him very favorably ... as will, short term, the electorate in 2012.
     
  8. Industrialsize

    Industrialsize Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    23,646
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cape Cod, Ma USA
    And along the same line I believe this legislation has been filed:
    Facing Steep Odds, 128 House Democrats Revive the Public Option
    Democrats Aim to Galvanize Progressives and Cut Budget Deficit

    "Armed with a new line of attack aimed at soothing deficit fears, Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and Pete Stark (Calif.) last Thursday unveiled a bill that would offer consumers the choice of a “robust” government-run insurance plan alongside the private plans in the law’s exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill, which has gained 128 co-sponsors, will reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion between 2014 and 2020. "

    Facing Steep Odds, 128 House Democrats Revive the Public Option
     
  9. StudUgly

    StudUgly New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
  10. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I saw that, I'm hoping it passes. It needs to.
     
  11. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,207
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Without it being a mandatory requirement then you run the risk of only the sick seeking coverage which then of course drives up the cost of insurance for all which then means more people may elect to not get coverage then before you know it you're in a death spiral.
     
  12. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I live in a state where it's already mandatory, and it didn't lower costs one bit. In fact they've risen just the same. Without a true public option or really low cost, comprehensive plan all this does is give insurance companies a huge guaranteed customer base, or more money for the government.

    Mandated Health Insurance Squeezes Those in the Middle - WSJ.com

    Three years after Massachusetts's ambitious universal-coverage law went into effect, two-thirds of its previously 600,000 uninsured residents have coverage, according to state data. It has the lowest rate of uninsured in the country -- about 3% according to a state survey, compared with 15% nationwide. But the remainder -- many younger, male and fairly healthy -- has proved tougher to cover.

    Costs to expand insurance coverage in the state are growing rapidly because of higher-than-expected enrollment in free and state-subsidized plans, and rising health-care costs. Critics say the Obama plan could face similar problems, contending it doesn't do enough to control costs."
     
  13. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    So the "Public Option" is starting to reemerge, eh?
    Can't say that I'm surprised. Many naysayers on HCL back when it passed thought that there wouldn't be any motions to revise or add more to the bill as we went forward. Perhaps this is proof that the game is far from over. Getting the bill as it was signed was a step forward and this could be step number two.

    Let's just hope sensible people who want health care reform remember this during the midterms and in 2012.
     
  14. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,207
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I do apologize but anything from the WSJ is just not something I can seriously consider.

    I stopped reading them once I put together all the anti-Obama articles they ran. I finally stopped.

    08/26/08 WSJ The Racism Excuse
    08/26/08 WSJ Hillary's Missed Moment
    08/25/08 WSJ The Democrats Field a Liberal Dream Team
    08/25/08 WSJ Obama's Cheney
    08/25/08 WSJ Say, It's Joe. So?
    08/22/08 WSJ Washington Is Quietly Repudiating Its Debts
    08/21/08 WSJ Obama's Health-Care Tipoff
    08/21/08 WSJ We Can't Tax Our Way Out of the Entitlement Crisis
    08/20/08 WSJ McCain Is the Pro-Choice Candidate
    08/20/08 WSJ Obama's Abortion Position?
    08/20/08 WSJ White Fright
    08/20/08 WSJ Democrats Move Left on Abortion
    08/20/08 WSJ A Closer Look at Senator Obama's Tax Proposals
    08/20/08 WSJ Democrats and Drilling
    08/19/08 WSJ Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan
    08/18/08 WSJ Obama on Clarence Thomas
    08/18/08 WSJ Why So Slack, Barack?
    08/17/08 WSJ Darragh vs. the Obama Bots
    08/17/08 WSJ The Clinton Coup
    08/15/08 WSJ Obama's Abortion Controversy
    08/14/08 WSJ Too Eloquent and Idealistic
    08/14/08 WSJ The Obama Tax Plan
    08/08/08 WSJ Barack and the Buck
    08/07/08 WSJ Obama's Commodity Play
    08/06/08 WSJ How Might Sen. Obama's Policies Change Economy?
    08/04/08 WSJ Obama's Drill Bit
    08/04/08 WSJ What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
    08/04/08 WSJ Obamanomics
    08/02/08 WSJ Does Sen. Obama Transcend Old Paradigms of Race?
    08/01/08 WSJ Robbing Peter to Pay Peter
    08/01/08 WSJ Obama's Bad Turn
    08/01/08 WSJ Pelosi's Energy Stonewall
    08/01/08 WSJ Democrats Get Drilled
    07/31/08 WSJ Jesus Christ, Superstar
    07/31/08 WSJ Obama's Iraq Fumble
    07/30/08 WSJ Barack Obama, Shaman
    07/29/08 WSJ Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
    07/29/08 WSJ Obama Should Stand Up to Russia's Regime
    07/29/08 WSJ The Berlin Obama Didn't See
    07/29/08 WSJ The Obama Principle
    07/25/08 WSJ Obama and the German Question
    07/24/08 WSJ Obama's Experience Doesn't Match Up
    07/22/08 WSJ Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama
    07/18/08 WSJ What Would Obama Die For?
    07/18/08 WSJ Obama's 'Judgment'
    07/17/08 WSJ Who Obama Should See in Iraq
    07/14/08 WSJ Obama's Bear Market?
    07/12/08 WSJ Obama's Liberal Shock Troops
    07/12/08 WSJ Praising Himself
    07/11/08 WSJ Obama Doesn't Have to Run as a Liberal
    07/11/08 WSJ Obama The Blur
    07/10/08 WSJ Obama Loses a Running Mate
    07/10/08 WSJ Will Obama Let the Sunshine In?
    07/09/08 WSJ Obama's Next Pivot?
    07/08/08 WSJ The Department of Racial Development
    07/08/08 WSJ Obama's Nixon Reprise
    07/07/08 WSJ Obama: Equality Rather Than Growth
    07/03/08 WSJ The Keepers of Clintonism
    07/03/08 WSJ Obama Should Embrace His Muslim Heritage
    07/03/08 WSJ Can Barack Buy the Presidency?
    07/01/08 WSJ Dissecting Barack Obama's Social Security Proposals
    07/01/08 WSJ Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates
    06/30/08 WSJ Name Change We Can Believe In
    06/30/08 WSJ Obama's Dry Hole
    06/27/08 WSJ Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates
    06/26/08 WSJ It's All About Obama
    06/25/08 WSJ Obama's Social Security Fine Print
    06/23/08 WSJ 'Did I Mention He's Black?'
    06/21/08 WSJ Sen. Obama and Economics 101
    06/20/08 WSJ Farewell, New Democrats
    06/20/08 WSJ Hillary for Veep? Check Back Later
    06/20/08 WSJ Obama Turns FDR Upside Down
    06/19/08 WSJ Mrs. Obama and the Tuskegee Superstition
    06/21/08 WSJ Sen. Obama and Economics 101
    06/20/08 WSJ Farewell, New Democrats
    06/20/08 WSJ Hillary for Veep? Check Back Later
    06/20/08 WSJ Obama Turns FDR Upside Down
    06/19/08 WSJ Barack of Arabia?
    06/19/08 WSJ Mrs. Obama and the Tuskegee Superstition
    06/19/08 WSJ Obama and McCain Spout Economic Nonsense
    06/17/08 WSJ Why Iraqis Back McCain
    06/12/08 WSJ Leaving Obama
    05/30/08 WSJ The Obama Gaffe Machine
    05/29/08 WSJ Obama's Revisionist History
    05/23/08 WSJ The Obama Learning Curve
    05/12/08 WSJ Obama and the Values Question Mark
    05/08/08 WSJ It's Obama, Warts and All
    05/05/08 WSJ Why Obama's Fans Seemed Scarce As Things Got Hot
    05/02/08 WSJ Obama's Other Radical Friends
    05/01/08 WSJ Wright Is Right
    05/01/08 WSJ Pastor Millstone
    05/01/08 WSJ Where Were Obama's Friends?
    04/30/08 WSJ The Wright Side of the Brain
    04/29/08 WSJ Yeah, Wright
    04/24/08 WSJ Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
    04/23/08 WSJ Don't Call Me a Protectionist
    04/23/08 WSJ Obama's Media Army
    04/22/08 WSJ The Obama Quarantine
    04/18/08 WSJ A 'Bitter' Misstep
    04/18/08 WSJ Bad Night for Barack
    04/18/08 WSJ Obama's Tax Evasion
    04/15/08 WSJ Obama's Flaws Multiply
    04/15/08 WSJ The Wright Stuff and Senator Obama
    04/14/08 WSJ Are You Bitter Off?
    04/09/08 WSJ Obama's Minister Problem
    04/05/08 WSJ Obama's Capital Loss
    03/27/08 WSJ Where Does Obama Invest His Money?
    03/21/08 WSJ Democrats Are Still Weak on Security
    03/20/08 WSJ Obama and the American Flag
    03/13/08 WSJ Obama and the Race Card
    03/04/08 WSJ Obama's Border Incident
    03/03/08 WSJ Obama and Chicago Mores
    02/27/08 WSJ Obama's 'Patriot' Act
    02/27/08 WSJ Obama Inspires Many to Participate in Politics, but on His Terms
    02/22/08 WSJ Obama's Cash Games
    02/21/08 WSJ Obama's New Vulnerability
    02/21/08 WSJ Obama's Teamster 'Diplomacy'
    02/21/08 WSJ Obama and Race
    02/18/08 WSJ Has Obama Crested?
     
    #14 sargon20, Jul 29, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
  15. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Regardless, the numbers say the costs went up more than ever with everyone on insurance. People can't afford insane premiums, so they get government help.

    That's what will happen nationwide unless we get a real public option.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...2009/09/23/mandatory_insurance_yes_its_a_tax/

    Whatever it’s called, it hasn’t transformed Massachusetts into an Eden of universal coverage. According to the Department of Revenue, nearly 200,000 state taxpayers remained uninsured at the beginning of 2008. And the individual mandate hasn’t made insurance in the Bay State more affordable: Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation.

    Better?
     
    #15 MercyfulFate, Jul 29, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
  16. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    People always tend to fear the unknown. The main thing with this plan is to look at who or whom will lose money if it is in fact implemented. One of the provisions is that there will be no more denial of benefits for pre-existing conditions. Obviously insurance is to insure against risk. They want to only insure healthy people and this is why in spite of all of their complaints that their profits have soared. Pharmaceutical giants fear it because it may bring about an examination of their policies and the out and out fraud that is rife within their industry. Always remember that if you are a pharmaceutical giant that there is no profit in a "cure" we want to have a "chronic but manageable" condition which will require a lifetime of expensive medications to extract the most profit. Again a carefully audited system will begin to uncover this behavior. If we are lucky it will be brought out into the open where everyone can see it for the parasite it is.

    There are a number of things I want to see in this and I am hopeful that over time this will happen.

    Pharmaceutical manufacturers in the United States manufacture drugs for a world wide market. Drugs manufactured in South Carolina or Georgia are sold in Mexico, Europe, Canada, South America, Africa and the Asia. The packaging and language of the packaging changes depending on the destination of the batch. However the price schedules under which these drugs are sold worldwide vary on both a wholesale and retail level. I have relatives who retired from this business and I know this to be the truth. Some American companies are now importing drugs from manufacturers in India and other third world Countries because it costs less to make them in these locations. They don't tell you because there is no law in place that says that they have to tell you where a drug was manufactured. Again, good or bad under audits in a good national health care system this will or would be uncovered and exposed.

    The United States as of right now remains the only world wide health care system with few checks and balances in place.

    Eventually and I would give an estimate of about 10 years we will probably springboard this into a single payer nationalized health care system. It will happen in stages and repeated audits of greedy and crooked private corporations placing outrageous profits to shareholders over patient care will over time expose this private system as a failure.

    I am for private enterprise unless private enterprise proves that it is operating outside the "public interest", and this has been the case for decades.

    Obama's health care plan is horrifically flawed. Democrats needed to get an alterable framework passed and conservatives wanted to deliberately sabotage this framework to turn people against universal health care it is that simple.

    Right now we as a family are watching this "scamming" first hand. We are dealing with cancer of the tongue in our 23 year old. Cost of "cat scan" with a total time in the scanner of less than 20 minutes was $3,500.00. Pet scan with contrast total time in the scanner again less than 15 minutes $3,800.00. We have not even done anything about the cancer yet and we and the insurance company are already in this $7,300 and counting.

    In 2001 I watched an HMO deny care entirely to my then 80 year old Mother and this resulted in her death. After a heart attack they refused to pay for CCU, they instead sent her to a convalescent home in horrific shape where she was not properly regulated on medication resulting in her death from that attack one week later. It was horrific abuse and was a direct cause of death.

    Remember there are different sets of rules here. If your Mother has a heart attack and dies in your home the Coroners Office will investigate YOU for wrong doing in that death. If an Insurance or Health Care provider denies care nobody even takes a second look at it unless the denial of care is so blatant that it is offensive. Then they usually place a dollar value on the life that they knowingly and willingly took and have you as the "injured and bereaved" sign a non-disclosure statement absolving them of any wrong doing. After they pay off the people to shut them up with regards to the "truth" they simply consider these pay outs for negligent care a "cost of doing business" and pass them along to others paying insurance premiums.

    If you really want to be insulted look at the salaries of the Board of Directors of these Insurance and Health Care Corporations.

    Though it is unrelated to medicine, just watch what the "severance package" ends up looking like for the outgoing head of BP. I think it disgusting that Government should ever have to interfere in private industry. Yet, the whole mess has become so "one sided" that we have no choice. As disgusting as it is and I hate every moment of it, there is zero ways to reign this back in without Government participation and or regulation.
     
  17. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male


    The "mandatory insurance" part is an absolute "joke". Those authoring the bill knew it would not fly from the beginning. The reason that this was included was to "quiet down" the insurance carriers who are all sitting like the greedy vulchers they are and making them think that they are going to get some kind of "gift" in that huge customer base.

    This will be the turning point in and of itself as investigations for price gouging begin to take place that not only revives the public option but in fact may simply move the entire nation over to "medicare" which is already in place. We have the ability to do this right now and to make it work. Medicare is "broke" because of mismanagement of funds by Dems and Conservatives alike. If it is the singular national health care system and even the U.S. Military and all of your Senators and Congressmen are covered under it as well, you can then bet that then they will start caring.

    I stand on one premise. If you want Universal Health Care to work you get rid of all of the "cushy" health care plans currently offered to ALL of your Politicians and place THEM and their families under the plan. I can guarantee you that it will then work just beautifully!
     
  18. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,097
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    WSJ=FAUX NEWS in print. Good ol Rupert.
     
  19. scotchirish

    scotchirish New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    We won't really know the success or failure of this healthcare plan until a few years down the road. Personally, I'm a big proponent of requiring a 5 year (or so) pilot period in which states vote independently to implement the federal policy. That way you can see the successful and failures of the policy before it become practically irrevocable or un-editable.

    Then if you have issue with the way your state votes on the policy you can move to a state you agree with and not forfeit any of your rights. This would complicate things a bit more but I think in the long run it would be more effective. And I think this should be done on all policies that create so much controversy.
     
  20. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Those numbers are reported in more places than the WSJ. Mandatory insurance doesn't make premiums go down, they can rise just the same. It's just more money for the insurance companies.