«   |   »

Doesn’t Look Good For Health Insurance Reform

by Ben Hoffman

The national survey, conducted from Aug. 14 – 18, involved a random sample of 600 Americans aged 18 and older living in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. Respondents indicated whether or not they believed 19 claims about health care reform, each of which is considered a myth by the White House.

* 67 percent of respondents believe that wait times for health care services, such as surgery, will increase (91 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents).
* About five out of 10 believe the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health care decisions (80 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents).
* Roughly six out of 10 Americans believe taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions (78 percent of Republicans, 30 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents)
* 46 percent believe reforms will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants (66 percent of Republicans, 29 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of Independents).
* 54 percent believe the public option will increase premiums for Americans with private health insurance (78 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents).
* Five out of 10 think cuts will be made to Medicare in order to cover more Americans (66 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 44 percent of Independents).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/majorityofamericansbelievehealthcarereformmyths/majorityofamericansbelievehealthcarereformmyths

The Dems need to streamline the plan so that people can understand it and word it in a way that it can’t be spun by the right-wing, if that’s possible.

Posted on August 25, 2009 at 8:51 AM in Education, Politics   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

7 Comments to “Doesn’t Look Good For Health Insurance Reform”

    
  1. Porkchop
    August 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM

    1) Wait times: if you have the same number of health care workers and and 50 million more people actively using the system, do you think things will speed up?

    2) The feds are already directly involved in making personal healthcare decisions in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    3) American taxpayers already pay for abortions, in the same way your tax dollars are being used to kill Iraqis. The only way to avoid either would be to stop paying taxes.

    4) All illegal immigrants already have state-subsidized health care: who do you think pays for their emergency room use?

    5) That could go either way. If large numbers of people move over to the government system, the overall pool will be smaller and premiums will have to go up. OTOH, if they don’t include language that forces insurance companies to accept and cover people with pre-existing conditions, then premiums may go down as the private insurers reduce their risk by refusing to cover sick or potentially sick people.

    6) Who knows? The money has to come from somewhere, but I suspect Medicare won’t be reduced: old people vote.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM

      Thanks for your response, Porkchop. 🙂

      1. Well, sure, if you have the same number of health care workers, that would be true. They’ll just have to hire more, which will stimulate our economy.

      2. So are private administrators who actually benefit from denying coverage.

      3. It’s against the law to use public funds to pay for abortion, which is wrong.

      4. True, but they won’t be covered under the public option.

      5. It depends on how it’s administered, but when you take the profit out of insurance, that’s a big savings.

      6. There’s no evidence that Medicare will be reduced or anything in any proposals. I doubt it will happen.

      Reply
      • Quin
        August 26, 2009 at 12:58 PM

        1. “They’ll just have to hire more” Yes, well, that sounds like a logical response (too easy answers always do). It assumes that’s possible – like you do have to train these people for quite a long time. The alternative is this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208663/Test-foreign-doctors-coming-practice-Britain-say-GP-leaders.html

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM

        Their “problem” is not necessarily a shortage of doctors. It’s a shortage of doctors who are willing to work evenings and weekends. I can’t see my doctor evenings or weekends, either, so that’s a straw man argument.

      • Quin
        August 27, 2009 at 1:18 AM

        You don’t live there. If you did you’d know that’s BS. It’s the lack of money to employ the doctors and the excessive red tape that then winds up costing even more to use those that will work. It was never a problem until the government started centralising and over controling.

        If you knew what you’re talking about you’d know the government WILL screw up and that’s going to be your problem. Given enough time, bureaucracy can and will screw up ANYTHING.

  2. btchakir
    August 26, 2009 at 6:53 AM

    The best way to honor Ted Kennedy’s memory is to pass a really good Health Care Bill…

    This is the time for Democrats, and Obama in particular, to show the respect that Ted Kennedy deserved for his 42 years in the Senate by passing the one bill that was most important to his life. It seems to me that the final bill, which should also be named after Ted, should give us the real public option that the great majority of Americans want and that Kennedy had not yet managed to get us.

    Ted’s ability to cross the aisle and bring in Republicans… and his support over the years for many of his Republican colleagues on civil legislation… should be stressed by Dodd and the other Senators that Ted trusted with his concerns when the brain tumor kept him out of DC. This is the time to call in the notes that Ted gave out over the years.

    It would be, I think, a tremendous embarrassment to the Republicans, like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley NOT to support a Ted Kennedy Health Care Bill. And though they would probably come out against it, by using Kennedy’s name here, they would also be defeating Republican challengers in man of the 2010 elections.

    I hope Obama realizes the immense opportunity available at this moment.

    Under The LobsterScope

    Reply
    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: