Poll: U.S. Wants More Health Reform, Not Less

orogenicman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
734
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/25/politics/main6899989.shtml?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

(AP) President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture's not that clear-cut.

A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.

"I was disappointed that it didn't provide universal coverage," said Bronwyn Bleakley, 35, a biology professor from Easton, Mass.

More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured. Bleakley, who was uninsured early in her career, views the overhaul as a work in progress.

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.

The AP poll was conducted by Stanford University with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral.

Those numbers are no endorsement for President Obama's plan, but the survey also found a deep-seated desire for change that could pose a problem for Republicans. Only 25 percent in the poll said minimal tinkering would suffice for the health care system.

Brian Braley, 49, a tech industry worker from Mesa, Ariz., wants Washington to keep its hands off. "I think it's a Trojan horse," Braley said of the health care law. "It's a communist, socialist scheme. All the other countries that have tried this, they're billions in debt, and they admit this doesn't work."

It may well satisfy people who share Braley's outlook if Republicans succeed in tearing out what they dismiss as "Obamacare" by the roots. But GOP leaders would still find themselves in a quandary.

Republicans "are going to have to contend with the 75 percent who want substantial changes in the system," said Stanford political science professor Jon Krosnick, who directed the university's participation.

"Republican legislators' passion to repeal the legislation is understandable if they are paying attention to members of their own party," Krosnick added. "But if they want to be responsive to all Americans, there are more Democrats and independents than there are Republicans."

The poll did find some agreement among people who think the law should do more and those who think government should get out.

Broad majorities of both the "get-outs" and "do-mores" said medical care, health insurance and prescription drugs cost too much. And most said the system should aim to increase the number of people with insurance and enable Americans to get the care they need, while improving quality.

The differences emerge when it comes to the means:

• Only 25 percent of the "get-outs" favor requiring health insurance companies to sell coverage to people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, while 54 percent of the "do-mores" support it. The law requires insurers to cover children regardless of health problems starting this year, and that protection is extended to people of all ages in 2014.

• Among those who want a law that does more, 68 percent favor requiring medium to large companies to provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine; that stands at 28 percent among those who want the government out. The law does not require employers to offer coverage, but it hits companies that have 50 or more workers with a penalty if any full-time employee gets a government subsidy for health insurance.

• The "get-outs" overwhelmingly reject the health care law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance starting in 2014. But the "do-mores" are split, with 34 percent favoring the mandate, 33 percent opposing it, and 32 percent neutral.

Tom Gergel, 45, of West Chester, Pa., said he supports the health care law because it moves toward coverage for all and does away with denial of coverage to people in poor health. But he doesn't think it's perfect.

"Is this program going to make it more expensive?" asked Gergel, who sells computer software for engineers. "The jury's still out versus where we are now. We have the best health care in the world for those who can afford to pay for it, but it doesn't work for everyone."

The survey was conducted Aug. 31 to Sept. 7, and involved interviews with 1,251 randomly chosen adults nationwide. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

The survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which first chose people for the study using randomly generated telephone numbers and home addresses. Once people were selected to participate, they were interviewed online. Participants without Internet access were provided it for free.

Stanford University's participation in the project was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

____________________________________

Actually, France has the best healthcare system in the world. The U.S. is ranked 37th.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
 
Werbung:
it didnt do anything to contain costs but will actuallly increqase them dramatically and cover none that are not alreaqdy covered today (by various indigent means).

some legislation. I think we could do much better.
 
it didnt do anything to contain costs but will actuallly increqase them dramatically and cover none that are not alreaqdy covered today (by various indigent means).

some legislation. I think we could do much better.

Repeating an untruth doesn't make it true. The GAO hs said that it will cover up to 30 million additional Americans who don't now have it. As to whether or not it will increase costs is yet to be seen. But just to clarify that issue, any increases (which occur every year regardless) will have to be shown to have been a direct result of the bill before you can say "I told you so". That said, I think the costs will rise anyway. The question is by how much compared with if there had been no reform.

Healthcare reform had to happen. Whether you are for or against Obama as president, everyone knows that something had to be done, because the cost of not reforming it were just too high in human terms as well as financial.
 
I am glad you like France health care system but you are missing the simple fact that I don't think I should be obligated to pay for anyone's health problems but my own and my family. any one who knows me knows i'm a giving person..

I simply do not subscribe to the wonderful utopia that I am my brother's keeper. I am nothing of the kind; I owe no duty to anyone in this regard.

So once you understand that, I say go live with the french or the sweeds who apparently buy into that bullsiht. Or go live in canada. But don't come sneaking over the boarder from your waiting list of elective surgery and show up at a Michigan hospital with abdominal pain for a known 3.5 cm known aortic aneurysm just so you can get a competent and immediate surgery. That is gaming the system.

In this country we do not have a broad based tax system. The brunt of tax is paid by just the top 15% and under obama that goes to 90% of all tax collected. So why should just 15% of the population pay for the healthcare of 85% of the population? Fk that. I am not that generous and I am not that good hearted and more importantly I don't owe my brothers anything.

The whole socialist message and experience is wasted on me since I am the guy that gets stuck paying for it. And why? What earthy notion gives you the idea you can steal from me with impunity. If you tried to break into my house to steal from me, I would disable you beyond human recognition. Yet you think the gov has the natural law right by plurality to vote to steal from me and split the proceeds of the theft. And as long as you garnish the theft with some sort of do gooder idea that healthcare is a right... then you justify a fully immoral act of the theft.

I am here to tell you, the only God given right is to life you have no right to a big screen, or anything else beyond what you earn. You can be lazy and starve to death; I don't care, otherwise you can survive like any other human by your willingness to work for it. But don't come to me telling me I owe you a living, or healthcare; I owe you nothing and that is the only acceptable relationship. IMO of course

regards
doug
 
The WHO rankings have been criticized for a long time. They are biased in their underlying assumptions toward statist systems. One thing they've wildly distorted is infant mortality. The US counts the death of any infant, even those extremely premature, as an infant death, while some eurostatist countries don't count such deaths unless the infant lived a certain legth of time before dying. Voila, instant low infant mortality rates.

Here's a CATO study of how it's rigged - read up.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
 
Thanks for starting the thread.

Do you have any polls to support that position that were not taken by the AP and not at Stanford? Too much bias there.
 
The WHO rankings have been criticized for a long time. They are biased in their underlying assumptions toward statist systems. One thing they've wildly distorted is infant mortality. The US counts the death of any infant, even those extremely premature, as an infant death, while some eurostatist countries don't count such deaths unless the infant lived a certain legth of time before dying. Voila, instant low infant mortality rates.

Here's a CATO study of how it's rigged - read up.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

I agree that those rankings are just plain old bull.

The best ranking would simply be: if you get sick, in which country are you most likely to get better. And that country is the US.
 
Repeating an untruth doesn't make it true. The GAO hs said that it will cover up to 30 million additional Americans who don't now have it. As to whether or not it will increase costs is yet to be seen. But just to clarify that issue, any increases (which occur every year regardless) will have to be shown to have been a direct result of the bill before you can say "I told you so". That said, I think the costs will rise anyway. The question is by how much compared with if there had been no reform.

Healthcare reform had to happen. Whether you are for or against Obama as president, everyone knows that something had to be done, because the cost of not reforming it were just too high in human terms as well as financial.

Of course you are very correct that predictions about it increasing costs are not known until after the fact. But it is a pretty well accepted position that it will increase costs more than if we just left things they way they are.

Health care reform did need to happen but not because the human costs were too high. There are a lot of people who do not have insurance (a fact that makes insurance companies unhappy) but there are actually no people in this country that do not have a means to access health care. Sadly the ones whose health care is substandard are the ones who receive gov health care.
 
Repeating an untruth doesn't make it true. The GAO hs said that it will cover up to 30 million additional Americans who don't now have it. As to whether or not it will increase costs is yet to be seen. But just to clarify that issue, any increases (which occur every year regardless) will have to be shown to have been a direct result of the bill before you can say "I told you so". That said, I think the costs will rise anyway. The question is by how much compared with if there had been no reform.

Healthcare reform had to happen. Whether you are for or against Obama as president, everyone knows that something had to be done, because the cost of not reforming it were just too high in human terms as well as financial.



there is no health care reform in it, that's the issue.

does something need to happen ? YES. but this does nothing but create an enormous bureaucracy that has to be ;paid for. it would have been cheaper to just buy private policies if your goal was to give out insurance cards. all those people already have health care access.
 
"The GAO hs said that it will cover up to 30 million additional Americans who don't now have it. As to whether or not it will increase costs is yet to be seen."

IF those 30 million did not have health care the math would look like this:

30 mil X the average cost of insurance = new costs.

Since the average cost of an insurance policy in the US is $4,824 (in 2006) then the cost of insuring those people each year would be 144,720 million. Meanwhile based on the Democrats data Obamacare will cost 87 billion per year to run. And since all gov programs cost three times as much as predicted...

I was going to go on and make some financial conclusoins but I am out of time. I guess you all will have to draw your own conclusions.
 
Canada 30th? :eek: Their Heath system is FREE!!!! You never have to pull out your visa or master charge to get fixed up. Heres how to lower prescription cost. Lift the ban buying drugs from Canada and allow people buy prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico. That would make Drug companies lower their cost.And allow Americans go across state lines to find a cheaper hospital and buy cheaper health insurace. Force big business employers to provide Heath Insurance to employees.
 
Werbung:
Canada 30th? :eek: Their Heath system is FREE!!!! You never have to pull out your visa or master charge to get fixed up. Heres how to lower prescription cost. Lift the ban buying drugs from Canada and allow people buy prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico. That would make Drug companies lower their cost.And allow Americans go across state lines to find a cheaper hospital and buy cheaper health insurace. Force big business employers to provide Heath Insurance to employees.


You are right and I agree that we should lift the ban that tells American citizens that they cannot by a product from another country. We pay higher costs AND lose a freedom when we could pay lower costs and have more freedom.

But (and this is really just a technical point) health care in Canada is not free. It is paid for by the people of Canada through their taxes. And like us they too have lost a freedom since taxes are not voluntary. So they get lower quality care than they could get AND they lose a freedom when they could get better care and have more freedom. (I don't know what their constitution says about their freedoms so if they want to go that way so be it. But in the states we are not supposed to be losing these freedoms)
 
Back
Top