who cares about bipartisanship!!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
July 9, 2009 5:59pm CST
Here is the link for a recent poll about health care reform which shows that the PEOPLE - those people who Representatives and Senators actually work FOR - overwhelmingly support a government sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, also known as a "public option" to health care reform. Below are some highlights in "quotes" from the article and poll for which I've provided that link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml
"A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans."
This is a no-brainer for me; if we could trust the insurance companies to keep costs down would we be paying the high costs we're paying today to begin with? Would there be as much of a NEED for the government to step in and see to it that everyone had access to affordable health care?
"More generally, 64 percent of Americans say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. Just 30 percent think this is not its responsibility. Those percentages have been stable for many years."
64% is a bigger majority than any political party has had in my memory!
"When presented with the option of a government-administered health insurance plan similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance companies, 72 percent are in favor and just 20 percent oppose. Even 50 percent of Republicans favor that option."
Do the Republicans particularly in the Senate CARE about those 50%?
"Americans have more defined views on whether insurers should cover anyone who applies for coverage, regardless of whether they have a pre-existing medical condition or a prior illness, with 75 percent approving of this proposal and just 17 percent disapproving. Even if the cost of their health insurance rose, 56 percent would still approve of this measure.
Overall, 57 percent of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans would have health insurance they can’t lose. Majorities of Democrats and independents are willing to pay higher taxes, but two thirds of Republicans are no.
However, when a specific dollar amount is included in the question, support drops. Just 43 percent of Americans would be willing to pay $500 a year more in taxes to pay for universal health care."
I can understand that, $500 more a year in taxes is a substantial amount! However, I'd like to see the results of a poll asking how they'd feel if their total output for taxes plus health care expenses remained close to the same, how would they feel then? In my opinion, if everyone were covered and everyone were able to get the preventative care they need and if nobody were forced to use their local ER as their "primary physician" and then couldn't pay the much higher bill than an actual family doctor would have been it would save money in the long run.
"One in five report they or someone in their household have had to go without a test, treatment or procedure that their doctor recommended because their health insurance plan wouldn’t cover it. Among those with health insurance, 15 percent say they have gone without medical treatment."
Can anyone here actually DEFEND that? Some people say they're concerned that the "government" will get between them and their doctors. For years it's been the insurance company bureaucrats who have done exactly that! THEY don't have to worry about losing votes or the support of constituents, all THEY care about is profits!
The insurance company bureaucrats couldn't care less whether the people they're denying treatment to are Democrats or Republicans. The 40, 50 or however many million Americans without health insurance sure don't care what party those who vote for or against a health care plan are from. The families of the approximately 20,000 people per year who die because they don't have health insurance aren't thinking a whole lot about "bipartisanship" nonsense right now!
No matter which side you're on in this debate, here's a link where you can find out how your Representative or Senator feels about this issue and an easy form for you to contact him or her to make your thoughts known!
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5831/t/4603/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2801
My personal message to President Obama and all the Democrats in the Senate is simple...
WHO CARES ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP!!
Annie
2 people like this
9 responses
@katran (585)
• United States
10 Jul 09
Annie, I can tell you from experience that you can talk until you are blue in the face, but unfortunately this will still be a primarily partisan issue. I wish it wasn't that way. I really wish it wasn't. As a conservative and a Republican I have been so angered by the conservative attitude toward health care reform that I can hardly see straight sometimes. The ignorance just astounds me. ASTOUNDS me. Anyone who did a single bit of research on health care in other countries would know that health care reform does NOT mean socialism, nor does it have to lead to socialism, nor does it mean that the government will control any hospitals or any doctors.
Sometimes I think people have never had an experience with an insurance company in this country. They act like the "free market" is flawless while the government is evil. Yeah frickin right. I think part of the reason my father ended up dying was because the insurance company made him switch doctors from a really good one to one who was absolute crap. Personally, I think it's time we cut them down to size. I don't want ANYONE deciding the fate of my health care, and that includes both corporations and the government. But anyone who does any research will find that the freedom of health care in other countries is astounding.
Personally, I am appalled and disgusted that there are actually people who think health care is not a basic human right. Ever heard of Maslow's heirarchy of needs? If we don't have health, it is impossible to grow as a society or as individuals.
1 person likes this
@grammasnook (1871)
• United States
10 Jul 09
Weird thing is Annie not to long I responded to a post that was making accusations that Obama's plan would be killing the elderly I know you remember that one right.
They talked about hip replacements and such which is not life threatening when a person has an internal disease. Yet every single day we hear horror stories of people that suffer and die because their health insurance will not cover tests and medicines,
Give me a damn break and tell me who are the ones that are tearing down this country? If a Parent does not have health that means the children suffer it is definately a domino effect. The big businesses of insurance now makes the decision who can live and who can die. Who shall keep their home and who shall lose it.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
9 Jul 09
LOL, first Bipartisanship is just a joke, everyone talks about it, but they really don't mean it. Remember in 2000 when Bush ran as a uniter, or last year when Obama said he would work on a bipartisain bases. They all just say this to get elected, and then do what they want to do. And to all of you complaining about Democrats, remember that Republicans have a history of doing the same thing.
I want to find one person on here that thinks that our health care system is perfect. I also would like to find one person who thinks that we can't do better then what we have. I think that we ALL can agree that our system is broken, and needs to be fixed. So if you think that Universal Health care is wrong, then give me a better idea.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Jul 09
They don't HAVE a better idea, that's the problem! The funny thing is, if they'd had a better idea wouldn't they have proposed it and PASSED it during the time they were in power? The truth is they don't want to rock the boat for the insurance companies. It's easier to deny there are so many people who are actually dying due to lack of health care or to simply take the attitude that those who can't afford health insurance don't "deserve" good health.
Annie
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Jul 09
Talking in general terms (as evidenced by the word "generally" in what you quoted) it may be true that Americans favor some kind of government sponsored insurance "option".
However, when you get to specifics, a Rasmussen poll shows a different picture for Obama's health care plan in particular.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of U.S. voters at least somewhat favor the Democrats’ health care reform plan, while 45% are at least somewhat opposed.
While the overall numbers favor the plan, those with strong opinions tilt the other way. Twenty-four percent (24%) strongly favor the plan, but 34% are strongly opposed."
When you also consider that in rating the top issues that concern them, Americans put health care at 7th spot and the economy, overwhelmingly, came in at number 1, with 81% of Americans saying it was the issue they were most concerned about.
However, when it comes to handling the economy, only 30% of Americans trust Obama to solve the economic crisis, 56% feel the economy is getting worse and 61% feel America is on the wrong track.
While Rasmussen finds that 63% support making affordable insurance available to all Americans, there is simply no overwhelming support for Obama's health plan nor do Americans feel that health care is important enough to continue endangering the economy.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers2/by_the_numbers
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Jul 09
Yeah, you're right. These guys at Rasmussen just fill out the questionnaires themselves.
Note that my quote references the "Democrats' health care reform plan". If Obama doesn't support this plan, which one is he pushing? Which health care plan has he said has to be pushed through right away with no time to lose? If he doesn't have a health care plan, what was he talking about all that night he had ABC network to himself?
People would like to see affordable health insurance. They would just like to see unemployment numbers go down, the end to the housing crisis and the repair of the economy more. They don't want to pay the taxes, but more than that, they know they can't afford to pay them.
It does depend how the questions are asked, and it seems that the poll you quoted asked if people would like to see a government sponsored option for health insurance. That's fairly vague and you'd be hard pressed to find many people who would say they don't want everyone to have health insurance coverage. There may be one or two people who are curmudgeonly enough to say "nah, let them die" but they probably wouldn't even show up in poll numbers.
On the other hand, asking people what they think is the most pressing issue confronting the country isn't easily manipulated. People want to see the economy fixed first and they aren't in favor of spending more money if it means the economy will get worse.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Jul 09
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. I was going by this part that you wrote near the end of your response: "While Rasmussen finds that 63% support making affordable insurance available to all Americans, there is simply no overwhelming support for Obama's health plan nor do Americans feel that health care is important enough to continue endangering the economy."
I also didn't mean to say the Rasmussen pollsters "write their own answers in". I simply meant to point out that there are different polls for just about everything and it's common to get different results. I know from experience how some pollsters ask the questions compared to others. I don't know exactly how the questions were worded so maybe I shouldn't pass judgment. I still believe that when pressed the majority of people would consider saving lives as important enough to take some risks for. I know I do. Thank you for taking the time to give such thoughtful responses here even if we aren't in total agreement.
Annie
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Jul 09
Just to clarify, Rasmussen is not owned by Fox News and is used as a resource by many news media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, CNN and NPR.
Do you know the old joke about statistics? It states that 80% of all statistics are made up but luckily only 20% of the public believe in them.
We agree now and then, Annie.
@grammasnook (1871)
• United States
9 Jul 09
Annie
You are absolutely right when it comes to the insurance companies. I slipped and fell at work from the very begining the doctors have said I needed surgery, putting in requests left and right to the workers comp insurance co. Well here it is 13 months later now not only do I have a collapsing spine I also have permanent nerve damage. Their board (which are not doctors) have the right to trump my doctor. IMAGINE THAT. Because my situation worsened over time for lack of treatment I ended up losing my job along with my job went my health insurance for my family. My income is dropped 1300 a month monetary and now I do not have health insurance for myself and my husband. I was able to get some for my children, which I am paying for. I could not afford it for myself and husband though. It would cost an additional 300 for myself and husband. So I am beggin for the extra 500 a year in taxes because I can indeed afford that for the health insurance. But I will also state that if I still had health care through my company that I would not oppose the tax to make sure other Americans had health insurance either. I have been there and doing that. If something happens to my husband or myself that needed medical treatment chances are we would lose our house.
Actually the health care package would give the economy a HUGE boost. How many jobs would be created because we now have 60 million more people going to the doctors? To me this is nothing but a win win situation.
As for Bipartisanship I think Obama has gone up and beyoung trying to do things right. They are pushing him into a corner. All the repubs voted no for stimulous but most of them had their hands out and added pork to the package to get it passed.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Jul 09
Grammasnook, thank you so much for sharing your story. I have to say, I'm one of the lucky ones who has good health insurance, although I've been the "victim" of the insurance companies regulations when they refused to cover an MRI on my back until I wen through a full series of physical therapy, which made my condition worse just like my doctor feared it would but I've gotten away from the subject a bit. What I started out to say is I'm covered and unless something changes with my husband's benefits with the state I'll be covered for life but I still would have no problem with paying higher taxes if it meant everybody was covered and nobody would have to suffer or die needlessly or lose everything they worked their entire lives for. We liberals are supposedly the ones with no moral values, so they say, but I think we're on the right side on this one.
Annie
@Barbietre (1438)
• United States
11 Jul 09
I am fortunate and have good coverage from my husband's job before he retired, but if the company and union do not agree at bargaining time it all could be lost. But for now we are fine. But I have a brother who is a mechanic, a hard worker his whole life and has NO health coverage whatsoever he has not been to a doctor since he was young. My neice is in PA and works but also has no coverage technically but because she is single and has a child she and her daughter are covered under that state's law. Is that fair?? Heck no.
Something surely has to be done and neither party has an answer yet, so should my brother go on welfare? Do not think he has not thought about it, but he likes working and doing wat he does, so that will not happen. He is 58 so maybe if he does not get ill before he will make it to the age to get Medicare, that is if it stil exists.Changes needs to be made and I do not care who makes them.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Jul 09
PA is one state where they've at least done a little to help lower income residents and especially children get affordable coverage but we still have a ways to go. My husband hasn't retired yet but as it stands now when he does we'll still both have coverage. Obviously, that could change at any time. I'm on disability so I'm also eligible for Medicare even though I'm not yet 65. I still care deeply about those who aren't so fortunate and think it's a disgrace.
"Changes needs to be made and I do not care who makes them." Dittos! You know, politicians from both parties from time to time bring "real people" into their rallies or press conferences and sometimes there may be a suspicion of it being "staged" but sometimes an issue isn't real to those who haven't lived through it until they see a "real person" in the flesh telling their story. If the woman who spoke at Obama's town-hall meeting about her health care problems happened to have been a campaign worker or volunteer, WHO CARES? Maybe she worked for him because of her health problems thinking he'd help her and others in her situation. Even if it turns out that every single little detail of someone's story isn't exactly accurate I still DON'T CARE because I know true stories exist from what I've read here and from people I've known and known of personally. I lives are saved I don't care what lying, corrupt politicians make it happen, I just want SOMEONE to make it happen.
Annie
@KLVentures (119)
• United States
9 Jul 09
These polls are basically worthless because they are dealing in hypothetical plans without any real numbers. You can take a poll and find that 60% of Americans support a manned mission to Mars within 10 years but when you add in that we would need a 10% tax increase to pay for it the numbers would change dramatically.
This is the problem with universal coverage. It sounds good in general but the problem is in the specifics. What will be the tax implications of this program? What type of coverage will be offered?
I live in Maine which requires universal coverage and preexisting condition coverage from all medical insurance companies. Our rates are more than double that of neighboring NH who does not have these requirements.
All of the existing proposals do not cover everyone and the costs are still staggering. Once real numbers start to filter out of Washington at about the same time that Obama's tax hike talk begins to heat up, I think there will be a real shift in public opinion.
I do however agree with you about bipartisanship. I think that congress works best when there is real nasty partisanship. It helps to prevent them from passing any real legislation to "help" us out.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
9 Jul 09
Not that I'm trying to argue about the actual numbers... but if it's a Times poll, they have a habit of only polling people who voted for Obama; i.e. support their agenda.
There have been 2 polls previously that, while they showed huge support for government-sponsored programs, were comprised of a vast majority of Obama supporters.
I personally cannot believe that so many Americans feel as if health insurance is something they're "entitled" to. And if it is true, what else do these Americans feel they're "entitled" to? Homes? Cars? Jobs? College?
When freedom isn't enough...
At this rate, we'll never get out of recession.
I agree some of the healthcare system needs to be fixed. But I don't trust a Times poll citing that so many want the government to do it.
Maybe they only polled UE New York.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Jul 09
Nah. I wouldn't "battle" with someone offering an honest opinion. I just happen to disagree.
I'm not against healthcare being fixed. Not at all. And if it takes the government to fix it, I'm all for it to an extent. If you look at the number of uninsured Americans, over a third make $50,000 annually. So that leaves the poor, immigrants (illegal mostly... they're counted in this big 'plan'), and people who choose not to have healthcare or don't know how to get it.
Only a few million people in America are so poor and/or without insurance. 250 MILLION are insured. The people dying every day from lack of insurance is misleading. People with health insurance also die every day.
No one is turned away from hospitals.
But the system still does need fixing. That's plain to see.
However, once you start "giving" things to people, when does it stop? The thought that just because you're in America you're entitled to healthcare is a fine thought. But an entitlement is productivity's greatest enemy.
Look at it on a small scale: The boy who's set to inherit daddy's money and the boy who grew up meek, knowing he'd have to work. Which is better for America?
Where does it stop? Having a right to be healthy in a free America is iffy at best. Becuase the simple fact of the matter is a lot of sicknesses come from people not taking care of themselves. A lot of injuries are preventable. How do you create separation, or do you at all? See how this entitlement gets tricky? ... It could very well lead to less healthcare; a rationing system.
I'm mostly afraid that if we demand the great government's assistance with healthcare, it's not going to stop there. People will then decide they have the "RIGHT" to things, like receiving loans regardless if they have means to repay, free college educations (which makes a college education invalid in the workplace), jobs without applying and competing, a place to live no matter what, etc, etc.
I just happen to be against these things. "Battle" or not, I know that America cannot be utopia. It comes from the sweat of a select few.
Those who are truly unable to provide for themselves will be taken care of. America is a capitalist society with a heart. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Jul 09
"No one is turned away from hospitals."
This is true to a certain extent and it's one of the right's favorite argument against the need for universal health care. Sure, if someone goes to the hospital with an imminently life-threatening condition they can't be turned away. However, if it's something that's going to kill them but not IMMEDIATELY they can - and do - refuse to treat those who can't pay. People die everyday because they can't afford lifesaving surgeries, chemo-therapy or medications.
Annie
