Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNN Poll: Support rises (52%) for health insurance mandate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 11:37 AM
Original message
CNN Poll: Support rises (52%) for health insurance mandate
Source: CNN

CNN Poll: Support rises for health insurance mandate


Washington (CNN) - The public is divided over the idea of requiring all Americans to have health insurance, according to a new national survey. But a CNN/ORC International Poll also indicates that support for the proposal, a cornerstone of the 2010 health care reform law, has risen since June.

The survey's Monday release comes as the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law that was passed by a Democratic Congress and championed by President Barack Obama. The justices made their announcement in a brief order issued on Monday. Oral arguments would likely be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June, assuring the blockbuster issue will become a hot-button political issue in a presidential election year.

According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June. The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54% in early summer.

"The health insurance mandate has gained most support since June among older Americans and among lower-income Americans," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "A majority of independents opposed the measure in June, but 52 percent of them now favor it."

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/cnn-pol...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. If they can mandate that I buy it why can't they provide a public option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Because it would not have passed. "Representative" government is not truly representative /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
willhe Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. they never tried
thats what pissed me off about dems. they should put everything to a vote. make the repulsivecons filibuster not just say they are. i would pass a law that the filibustering party has to stay in chamber
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
24. It wasn't just the repukes. The likes of LIEberman, bayh, and other scum would have joined with the
repukes either to see the vote never made it to the floor, or that it lost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
33. The problem was not just every Republican voting "NO" - they did that on the billed that passed
The problem was that more than one Democrat publicly said that they would vote against it. You also saw that it took more than a week to get a vote actually completed - even when it was KNOWN we had 60 votes - as they were willing to waive NOTHING. They had no time to waste before Christmas. They even refused to have votes on Friday - the Friday before Christmas - waiving the time limits when Kerry plead with them to led the staff and have the weekend off - rather than wasted for votes whose outcome was already known.

They were there until Christmas Eve, I think. Had they waited, there would have been no health care bill as Scott Brown likely still would have been elected and it would never have passed the Senate. The entire structure could not be done under reconciliation by all accounts. The fact is that the one thing the RW was correct about was that the structure itself easily lends itself to becoming a back door through which we get a public option or even single payer. Single payer looks like it may well start on a state level (in Vermont). The math is known and that will have to be a major success. How many states will follow to ease their budgets.

I am not deluded that that will happen quickly everywhere - too many Senators have pointed out that too many are ideologically against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Because the insurance/financial industry owns Congress. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DallasNE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. What Is Really Needed Is A Single Payer System
I have a cronically ill 22-year old daughter on my plan and the paperwork associated with her is huge with all the efforts they try in order to disqualify her. The data they keep asking for goes well beyond what is required by law. Since they don't require this data of everybody is represents profiling based on payment history. The cost savings with a single payer system would be huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Sorry to hear about your situation.
I'm paying over $1000/mo for my private health insurance. I'd gladly pay that same amount as part of my taxbill to have a universal federal healthcare plan. Private insurance companies are in the business to delay and/or disallow your claims. The caseworkers are incentivized to avoid payouts and the corporations running it are incentivized to maximize their profits. I'm seriously considering dropping my private insurance because I doubt they'll be there for my family when we need it, based on our past experience on getting them to honor claims. A single payer option for all...if the 1%ers want private healthcare, they are more than welcome to pay for it-after they meet their social obligation. I want the choice to put my money in the program that I think will best look out for my health interests and it sure as hell isn't with for-profit private insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. The cost savings with a single payer system would be huge. Which is why they fight it so strongly
Kill the Parasites
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Support rises for health insurance mandate" Uh....no DUH!
Funny how the more people learn about stuff, the better informed they are.

Sorry GOPBaggers and T.Haters...your campaign of Hate, just ain't gonna work. And your plan,
the "Just Die Quickly" Plan, won't float.

NOW, if the Five Activist Judges on the S.C. will keep their radicalized, extremist hands off of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ship of Fools Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Maybe we'll be able to creep a crawl past our pathetic status quo --
and then, dare I say it? Single payer? Change sure as hell DOES take time...just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yes, we will...But before Single Payer there will be a...
Public Option...The new health care law will continue to evolve toward that ending. My guess is it will move faster the more the insurance companies dick we the people around. So, my guess is the insurance companies will not change their behavior so it will make passing a PO easier with time.

People are starting to see why a mandate is the only option we have besides moving to a true government run plan...The stepping stone to single payer is a PO.

You are 1000% correct change in this country takes time & this is something we all need to understand so that we stay focused & not give in to eating our own when we do not get everything we want in one bill. I know just by saying this I will get beat over the head but it is TRUE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Just for the sake of argument. How is requiring people to pay for a private plan that profits COs
and that they can not afford; to get a plan that they can not afford to use;"The stepping stone to single payer"?
A public option,
administered by the Government,
for the people with the rights to negotiate discounts,
Would be the real stepping stone to single payer.

Why couldn't the DEmocratic leadership put it on the table?
Why weren't the regressive elements in both parties forced to go on the record opposing is?
Because the current political climate is theater to pacify the populace and enrich the economic Royalists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. +1
Well said!

Also, CNN has no credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. It isn't, which is precisely why I believe the corporate supremacist Supreme Court will uphold it.


"Just for the sake of argument. How is requiring people to pay for a private plan that profits COs and that they can not afford; to get a plan that they can not afford to use;"The stepping stone to single payer"?



This will serve to strengthen the inefficient, immoral and redundant for profit "health" insurance industry increasing their profits and thus making it even easier for them to bribe/lobby future Congresses, it all comes full circle.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. How is the mandate a stepping stone to single payer...
Despite what many here on DU claim there is not 75% approval in America for a single payer system right now...It is more like 45% & that was in mid 2009 who knows what that % is after the Conservative propaganda campaign against the new HC Law. Most Americans think the HC Law is a government take over of the health care system when it could not be further from the truth! However, that just goes to show how misguided the majority of Americans are when it comes to the topic of health care in America & how effective the Right in this country is when it comes to creating undue FEAR! So, it will take TIME & small steps to get us to a single payer system.

Most people who have insurance like it & do not want to give it up for a government run plan right now. Especially now after the Right Wing has conned the country into thinking the new HC Law is a government takeover. Most Americans are under the impression established by 30yrs of Conservative propaganda that the government cannot do anything correct...So, it will take the mandate to show or should I say prove to the American people that the "for profit" system will not work. Americans are notoriously HARD HEADED! The next step would be a PO...Hopefully if the PO is run properly it will once again show the American people there is nothing to be scared of when it comes to a government run program. If it is run correctly most people will gravitate to the PO & from there it is not a far jump to single payer.


The new HC Law will allow us to slowly gravitate toward a single payer system but it will take time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. Support is much higher for the public option.
So let's just do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Exactly. and I don't care what the Supremes say -
FORCING citizens to buy a product you can't do without from FOR-PROFIT vampires is NOT ethical or right or moral or even sane, and it sure as hell is not "representative" considering the support for a public option and even for single-payer. And don't give me the car insurance analogy - it's not comparable. In one case you can't or choose not to drive. In the other you die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosopher King Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. "NOT ethical or right or moral or even sane, and it sure as hell is not "representative"
And more importantly, it is not Constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It may well be constitutional (per Think Progress) but the Gang of Five may not care.
Supreme Court Will Hear Health Care Case At Stake Is Whether The Text Of The Constitution Still Matters

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/14/367361/supr... /

The most powerful line in conservative Judge Laurence Silbermans decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is his simple recognition that the laws opponents cannot find real support for their proposed rule in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to follow in Silbermans footsteps considering whether the judiciary can appropriately strike down a landmark health care law despite the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing them to do so.

There can be no question that Silberman is right about what the Constitution has to say about this law. The plaintiffs primary challenge is to the provision requiring most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay slightly more income taxes (there are other issues in this case, which will be discussed in a subsequent post). In their vision of the Constitution, this provision runs afoul of some unwritten rule against being told what to do. The federal government can regulate how people go about the business they are already engaged in, under this vision, but it is utterly powerless to push people to engage in commerce they would prefer to avoid.

There are many, many problems with this theory of the Constitution, but Silbermans rebuttal of it is both the most simple and the most elegant. The Constitution says nothing suggesting that people can immunize themselves from the law by remaining passive, it simply provides that the United States may regulate commerceamong the several states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rozlee Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Might not survive a Supreme Court ruling, but...
I wonder if the states might not take up their own versions of public health care like Vermont and Massachusetts have if it didn't. Some pundits theorized before Obamacare that many would. I imagine a hue and cry will be raised in those two states if the Supremes strike down their public health care laws on the state level as well as the federal as being unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigD_95 Donating Member (728 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
11. I hope the Supreme Court rules
that you can not mandate people buy health insurance from private companies without the option to buy from a public insurance company that run by the government. So then the government has to create their own
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnson20 Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Yes and somehow handle it so
that physicians are required to service patients with it. That will of course never happen and its becoming a big issue around here with Medicare. Fewer and fewer and fewer doctors will take patients with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. It will have to be Affordable! How can someone mandate
something you cannot afford?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hansberrym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. Why not a health care mandate? Why not compel people to provide
health care services for whatever rate of pay Congress decides to give them?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. Krugman: Polls apart. (Support for the individual mandate vs. Newt's rise in GOP polls)
An interesting day for polling. On one side, a majority of Americans now support the individual mandate. Since thats the core of health reform, this basically means that proponents are slowly winning the argument. If we make it to actual full implementation, this reform will be irreversible.

Meanwhile, I told you so; as one commenter at TPM put it, Republicans appear to have had an eTiffany: New National Polls Show Newt Leading In GOP Race.

Im trying to think of something sarcastic to say, but really, how can satire and parody compete with this kind of reality?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/polls-apart...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
25. Doesn't matter. SCOTUS will decide. Thomas and Scalia have already decided I'm sure.
Since they dined last night as guests of honor with the lawyers who will bring the case against the health care plan.
They are apparently immune from any kind of moral or legal limitations to their personal political biases.
Talk about being above the law..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
27. Question: Will the Supreme Court decision affect just the
mandate portion of the Healthcare Act, or will it nullify the entire Act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Corporate Media is selling it as the whole thing, but it is just the mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greymattermom Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. no mandate
and you'll have to put up a bond before getting any care, even in emergencies. Why should hospitals be required to provide care for nothing? They can't and that will be the next legal squabble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Hospitals give care for nothing every day now. It's the law.
Can't turn away dieing people, been that way for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. The Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from just one decision...the only one so far striking down
the mandate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-h...

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obamas signature legislative achievement. The development set the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June, in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The courts decision to step in had been expected, but Mondays order answered many questions about just how the case would proceed. Indeed, it offered a roadmap toward a ruling that will help define the legacy of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Appeals from three courts had been vying for the justices attention, presenting an array of issues beyond the central one of whether Congress has the constitutional power to require people to purchase health insurance or face a penalty through the so-called individual mandate.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from just one decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, the only one so far striking down the mandate. The decision, from a divided three-judge panel, said the mandate overstepped Congressional authority and could not be justified by the constitutional power to regulate commerce or to lay and collect taxes. The appeals court went no further, though, severing the mandate from the rest of the law.

On Monday, the justices agreed to decide not only whether the mandate is constitutional but also whether, if it is not, how much of the balance of the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, must fall along with it.

Interesting that the court agreed to hear only the case in which an Appeals Court struck down the mandate, not any of those where the mandate was ruled to be constitutional. That may be a sign of where the Roberts Court is going with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
32. Forcing people to buy private insurance is a very bad idea.
And it's probably unconstitutional to boot.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. The states already force you to buy private insurance for your car, of course
So there is no question that the states could force you to buy health insurance.

The question is whether the constitution allows the federal government to do the same. I suppose its going to the supreme court for a good reason, as the people who wrote the thing had little idea this would be an issue and its far from clear...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Indeed. The states have greater legislative powers than the federal government.
But even the states, except for Massachusetts, don't force people to buy private insurance, not even for auto liability. No person in the United States, to my knowledge, is forced to drive a vehicle. Thus, no person is forced to buy auto insurance. The individual health care mandate is quite different. If the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act is upheld by the SCOTUS, people will be forced to buy insurance just by the virtue of the fact that they are alive.

In that sense, this law is unprecedented (except, again, for Massachusetts). It's also, imho, a very bad idea.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
34. Not believable to me (like most polls.) IF it's reflective of real responses, I'd say
Edited on Tue Nov-15-11 08:42 PM by BlueIris
that's because the bulk of all Americans still have no idea what the government did to us last year. They have no idea how much they will not get from the insurance industry in response to the government forcing the individual mandate upon us, or how many of their rights will be restricted as a result.

But there's no way I can believe that poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. check your
pm. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Krugman seems to think the rising poll numbers show an increasing understanding
of what ACA does.

"An interesting day for polling. On one side, a majority of Americans now support the individual mandate. Since thats the core of health reform, this basically means that proponents are slowly winning the argument. If we make it to actual full implementation, this reform will be irreversible."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/polls-apart...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. I think more people are seeing loved ones suffer because of health issues
and the longer this goes on the larger the percentage of Americans who will wish that someone they cared for had proper coverage.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 20th 2014, 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC