 |
|
Daylife/Reuters Pictures used by permission
|
| Obama addresses a meeting of millionaires |
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better…
 |
|
Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
| Congressional Republicans say “NO” |
Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.
But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats…
They clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.
Why should anyone have confidence in insurance companies? Is there anyone left who hasn’t been screwed by their automobile insurance, homeowners coverage, medical insurance company? We all know these slimeballs would steal their mother’s purse if they could skive another 5% from a settlement.
How is attack by germ, virus or trauma any different than attack by foreign army? (other than the obvious)
We have a pentagon for the latter and you’re on your own in the US for the formers. But not in most of the rest of the world.
It’s time we joined the world on this one.
As usual, NYT gets it wrong. No wonder they are gong BK…
Most Voters Say Health Insurance Should Not Be Mandatory
http://tinyurl.com/myrq5h
Americans Evenly Divided Over Urgency of Health Care Reform
http://tinyurl.com/n6ek83
I keep hearing crap like “We don’t want a bureaucrat between you and your doctor”. How is that any different than an insurance agent between them now?
The sad fact is, our insurance based medical system is fundamentally flawed. All you have to do is read the stories of the people who were insured, and then retroactively cancelled because they had made the mistake of actually getting sick, to understand that insurance companies are not structured to benefit us.
I’d like all of these so-called wise republicans to try to buy health insurance when they are 45 and have had colon cancer in the past. Good luck. Even if you could find a company who would issue a real policy, it would costs over $2000 a month.
If people are so damn worried about illegal aliens getting free medical care, then (a) realize they already so via emergency rooms (b) demand Medicare member cards to authenticate valid beneficiaries.
Alfred1:
Can you point to a single health insurance company in the world that is successful at delivering affordable health care and that doesn’t ration health care, especially to seniors?
Also, please name one developed nation that has gone bankrupt due to public health care cost.
#6 We have the only health care system that is ‘bankrupting’ a country. Canada and Norway aren’t bankrupt because of their health care system (the financial collapses lately aren’t because of foreign healthcare, but because of American greedy pig f**ker companies that pushed risky home mortgages to make more money than was safe). We do have “one of” the most high tech health care systems in the world! Good for us! Yet some of THE WORST results! Horrible life span, infant mortality, obesity, cancer rates, etc. For paying as MUCH as we do, for the high tech system we created, how come our health is SO bad?
There is one glaring omission here: 99% of subjects have not experienced Govt. controlled/run/meddled health care. What they want is some utopian idea. If passed, what they’ll get is quite cold reality.
#10 Most voters rejects Obama’s HC plan anyway. As documented above.
Other results of the same poll:
Question: “If the government were to guarantee health insurance for all Americans, what effect would that have on the national economy?”
Answer: 28% say “improve economy,” while 37% say “hurt economy”
63% are concerned that if the government were to create a national healthcare system, the quality of their own care would be hurt.
68% are concerned that if the government created a national healthcare system, access to tests would become more limited than it is now.
There are four sides to every story:
1 – Yours.
2 – Mine.
3 – The truth.
4 – Statistics.
10,
The NEJM did a study on prevention costs and found it debatable that it saved anything.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
I know that you don’t read and comprehend very well, so I’ll synapse it for you…
“Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).”
14,
So, private insurers never reject someone due to age, disease or “profitability”?
I don’t know much about health care issues, but I doubt that the government can do anything right.
#19 these measures have lead to an acute physician shortage in UK & Canada, France is now facing same…
#20 – Actually, the US is facing a similar shortage.
20,
US facing doctor shortage… approaching critical levels…
http://upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/27/US-faces-growing-doctor-shortages/UPI-50441240832817/
DUN DUN DUN!!!
[Please drop the WWW from URLs as WordPress doesn’t display it properly… plus it’s unnecessary. Named, you know better!- ed.]
NY Times poll – unbiased?
Does anyone, except for the far left, really believe anything printed by that rag.
# 23 Named said, “DUN DUN DUN!!!”
Right, I read about this and the effect that gov HC pgms Medi-care, etc. have had on this problem. Interesting and good point.
Quick question for anyone:
Doesn’t Congress have free, universal health care for themselves and their families, for the rest of their lives, all at taxpayer expense?
If I’ve been misinformed, I apologize for mentioning it. I’m just trying to disprove or confirm a rumor I heard.
26,
True.
25 Paddy-O
Yes, its terrible that physicians have more clients. Absolutely the worst thing to happen to a doctor is gaining more clients. That might make them more money.
I have lived in a social-medicine state. In fact, one of my daughters was born in the US, another in Germany. There was a world of difference in paperwork, cost, experience, and environment. I have yet to find a person who experienced both EU and American systems who favors the US way.
29,
Smartalix, meet Paddy-O. He believes he’s a world traveler and has experienced everything first hand. He likes to be called Patrick now. I believe its due to getting a lock for his basement door and therefore, his maturity. Soon, he might move out of his mothers basement entirely!
I have lived in a social-medicine state. In fact, I moved my entire family to England for 2 years. There was a world of difference in the service and quality of work.
After watching the Brits in my town begging to be treated by the local dentist, the lack of hospital rooms, and the incredible fiscal problems the necessary tax burden created on the economy, I have yet to find a person who experienced both EU and American systems who favors the EU way.
Watch out for the doctors with legs in both private consultancies and government hospitals, flipping off unprofitable patient cases to the state run institutions while creating waiting lists for public hospitals which force the very ill to seek private medical care.
I’d like to see health care reforms and the end to employer + insurance companies ties.
I hope whatever is done is done right and gently.
“The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance”
Of those polled – how many actually pay federal taxes?
And of those who do actually pay taxes – if it had been explained that the real costs would require a 50% increase in taxes – would they be so willing to pay, then?
If we taxed all the people on the Forbes 400 richest people list, at 100% (taking all their income as well as all their money, assets, property, etc) we’d have enough money to run the health care system for a year. Then how do we pay for next year?
We have nationalized health care in Canada. The only reason it “works” is because we pay substantially higher taxes adn we live next door to the U.S. where we can go for real emergencies and pay $$.
To Buzz and others. Anybody that thinks that most of the rest of the world has free medical care is to ignorant for mere words to describe.
Governments are not a source of wealth. Anything they give they have to take first.
If you want high end medical insurance you could buy it or you can simply have them take the cost out of the private sector by taxation. You are still going to end up paying for it. The fact that it comes out of your pay check every time you buy something and as income tax doesn’t change the fact that you will pay for it.
Please get this through your thick heads. You can have the government run your insurance agency or somebody else do it but you will still get to pay for it. Nobody is going to give you free anything.
#1 Alfred1 said “Not credible: rasmussenreports.com…..”
What does he have against the Rasmussen Reports?
35,
“Please get this through your thick heads. You can have the government run your insurance agency or somebody else do it but you will still get to pay for it. Nobody is going to give you free anything.”
Absolutely. But, when 300 million people pay into a system, it will be cheaper than when 1 million pay into it.
That’s why you get SO MUCH for so little tax.
We have a government run health care system now…Medicare. It is only for people over 65. It is well run and doesn’t bankrupt anything. Let’s just extend that system for all.
Any chance insurance would act as insurance against a major medical problem, and not paying for every little cost?
Any chance people without insurance won’t be charged 3 times as much as people with insurance?