| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Wall Street JournalSusan Davis reports on the latest WSJ/NBC News poll.
Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe it is extremely or quite important to give Americans the choice between a government-run health care plan and a private plan in any final health care bill, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out later today.
Some 73% said it was important to do so — 45% called it "extremely" important while 27% said it was "quite important."
-----
CoH is enforced here
-----
Just put in in the package and pass it already!
#1 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:44 PM EDTI am handling rattlesnakes and talking in tongues.
Top that!
I am handling rattlesnakes and talking in tongues.
Top that!
I just spit my drink on the screen !
The rest of the article suggests why this is not so cut-and-dried. The "public option" does not have the support of a majority of Americans.
While Americans overwhelming said they should have a choice in the matter, asked whether they favor or oppose the create of a public option to compete with private industry, the response was more divided.
Nearly half, 48%, said they support the public option while 42% said they oppose it. Those numbers aren’t radically different from the August WSJ/NBC News poll, in which 46% favored and 48% opposed—but it could suggest support for the public option is growing while opposition is softening.
Why the disconnect exists between the two points of view is an interesting question.
#2 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:37 PM EDTNot really. I mean think of it. Would you be surprised if two in ten americans were stupid enough to not recognize the public option and an option for government care are one in the same? I wouldn't. Atleast two in ten Americans are stupid.
Scott, they want something for nothing at 73%, but not so sure they want the government to create thenew bureaucracy that would be required to run it.
78% of Americans who wore glasses wanted an "Opti-grab" when it entered the market, but we saw firsthand the negative impact the Opti-grab had on Navin Johnson's life, didn't we?
Hmmmmm.....
The Wall Street Journal is just a liberal rag. Don't take what they say seriously.
(/sarc)
#3 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:04 PM EDTPublic option is a very good thing to give competition and choice to the public. However I do not support the individual states having any say. There is too much bureaucracy costs. Hire more workers straight into the already established medicare-Medicaid systems. Get rid of the "resources" clause and deal first come first served.
#4 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:38 PM EDTThe Opt-Out is a Political situation for the individual politicians.... it isn't anything that we should be worried about at all.. it gives the politician some ammunition for when they go back to their states.. especially for re-election....
Found some other pretty interesting questions and answers digging into the entire poll:
8 What is your preference for the outcome of next year’s congressional electionsa Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?
Republican 38
Democrat 46
Not Sure 10
Thinking about the current level of unemployment, have we pretty much hit the bottom, or is there still a ways to go before we hit the bottom? **
Pretty much hit the bottom............... 27 [226]
Still a ways to go ............................. 63
Hit bottom already (VOL) ............... 7
Not sure........................................ 3
** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
This next one blew my mind, this question is after the question where the majority said the costs would go up:
Do you think it would be better to pass Barack Obama’s health care plan and make its changes to the healthcare system or to not pass this plan and keep the current health care system?
10/09 9/09
Better to pass this plan, make these changes......... 45 45 [231]
Better to not pass this plan, keep current system.... 39 39
Neither (VOL) ...................................................... 8 9
Not sure .............................................................. 8 7
As you may know, the Obama administration has said it will not make a firm decision about whether to send
more troops to Afghanistan until after that country’s upcoming runoff election when the president of
Afghanistan will be determined and the political situation in that country is clearer. Do you support or
oppose this decision? **
Support .......................................... 58 [254]
Oppose........................................... 37
Not sure........................................ 5
** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
#5 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:52 PM EDTWe live in a democracy. If the majority of Americans want a Public Option they should have one, Lieberman and Company notwithstanding.
#6 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:11 PM EDTDo you want a car too? A case of Bud? A rib-eye medium-well with a side of shrimp scampi and a loaded baked potato? A back-rub? The ESPN package on your cable/satellite system?
My dad had a saying (I'm sure he stole it from someone): Wish in one hand and s*&t in the other; see which one fills up first.
As Americans, we work our way through life. Trust me, when the government takes over the health care industry, you'll wish McCain would have won.....
Absolutely Brent!
I mean just look at all those other countries where the government tried to run health care and they ended up reverting back to a system just like the one we have in the US:
there's, ummm...
uh,
there's....
well, what basis is there for making such an argument again?
greck, I can't get a read on either Canada or the UK's health care systems. It's half "the system sucks" and half "I love the system". And I've looked.
I just don't think health care is a right any more than the other things I listed.
If you can get me the details of Obama's plan and some objective stats about the UK and Canada, maybe you can convince me otherwise.
I'm not following an American poll (pick one) and I'm not responding positively to insults from the left when I don't raise my pom-poms and cheer for a plan when nobody even knows what it is yet. ;-)
I can't get a read on either Canada or the UK's health care systems. It's half "the system sucks" and half "I love the system".
I get about the same read, honestly, I think it's mostly just that with any given system you'll get a bell curve of opinions
the telltale sign is that there isn't any push in the UK to change the system, although there is some interest in Canada to inject more competition into the market as a means of improving what ails it.
Here in the US, there is BIG push to change the system, which means it's beyond the normal gamut of opinion.
more appropriately though: people in Swizerland are quite happy with theirs. They are all required to purchase insurance, not through their employers, it's all private companies, the fee schedule is negotiated annually between the doctors and the ins. companies, then approved by the govt.
I think that's about the closest thing out there to what appears to be shaping up here, substituting the "public option" for the govt. approving the fee schedule and allowing for companies to purchase the plans instead of every individual.
Now, if it were up to me, we'd have a system more like Germany, that's tied to a social welfare system that simply won't allow for people to fall below a certain level. The govt. provides a certain level of care for all, and more can be purchased privately on top of that, if desired.
I do think healthcare is a right. It really does come down to that for me. Actually, it's more like: I know it's not a commodity, I know it's not a fair thing to trade in a free market. Once a person is sick, he/she no longer is in a fair position to decline a transaction and thus the market is no longer "free" as the purchasing entity is doing so under duress. A person can decide that he doesn't need a Sony Bravia LCD vs a used trinitron; he'll still live. He can't decide whether or not to get his appendix removed and he's certainly in no position to haggle over the price or comparison shop.
For me its all about the dollar, oh and longevity, but when we spend twice as much per head that's all I need to be convinced to study other ways to do things. Oh and when our health care cost more that the steel in each automobile, another reason to doubt our system.
Maybe that's just the capitalist in me.
Right now, I'm for removing the Insurance industry's anti-trust exemption and opening up the market to enhance competition. I just don't like the idea of a government bureaucracy running either the insurance or health care industry.
I'm not in this debate for insurance companies to make more money, I just don't trust the government to "not screw it up".
I am open to suggestions and subsidizing the poor is a good idea too.
First off - The government will not be running it per se' they will be putting up the first "donation" so to speak to get it going.. it will not be run by the gov. It is a Self Sustaining entity all by itself... that much I learned by listening to the horse's mouth on C-Span.. if anyone really was interested in it.. they would of been watching or still watching it.. because daily that's all they have had... so instead of conjecture one actually hears the words and hear the arguments for and against.. and the description for what it is all about... duh!
The opt-out is a political thing for the benefit of the Congressman so they can enlist the votes from those on the fence so they can Save Face with their electorate.. it isn't a big deal that some people think it is... after one year they can opt-out.. that's fair... see how it goes.. if you don't like it you can opt out of it.. that's more than a car dealership would give you.. or even a banker...
I just don't like the idea of a government bureaucracy running either the insurance or health care industry.
the government runs medicaid and medicare by hiring private companies to manage them. Three of them in my state alone are subsidiaries of United Healthcare. the government then mandates that every state have an independent quality review organization audit the company annually, monitor performance improvement projects, etc. The managed care organization also reports to the state government regarding the terms of its contract.
I can't imagine the public option would be administered any differently.
really, they should just make Medicare available for purchase and fix what's wrong with it.
Brent -- It's not what I want it's what the majority wants, like it or not. Last I knew we live in a democracy. We're not talking about personal toys or clap-trap, we're talking about basic human health-care.
Yada, yada, yada about what the people want. Who do they think represents them, their congresspersons and senators? Hah, that's a laugh. What's important here is what the insurance companies want. After all, they pay for the congresspersons and senators. We wouldn't want them to lose their campaign financing now, would we?
/sarc
#7 - Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:33 PM EDTYou can change that by writing your congressman - developing ways to communicate your thoughts - and push very hard for Public Campaign Funding...
There is a bill H.R. 1826 that would provide voluntary public financing for congressional campaigns. The Fair Elections model is similar to the system already in place in Connecticut, and other public financing systems at various levels of government in N.Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont. The model is designed to leverage small donor contributions by providing a 4 to 1 federal match of contributions below $100.00 from residents from a candidate's state.
What we need to have is Public Campaign funding of the elections.. and I would like to see it go deeper by making illegal any and all Lobbyist, and large business contributions...
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
