Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-healthcarebre85n01m-20120623,0,2886933.story

Patricia Zengerle

Reuters

12:15 a.m. CDT, June 24, 2012

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.

Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama's reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.

[Shadowflash]

1. Yeah.

I have to wonder how many of the teabaggers are gonna send the rebate checks they are getting back due to the ACA?

You'd think that, Obamacare being communist, socialist and every other 'ist' on the face of the planet, they would return the money back to the insurance company because, well, darn it, we don't want 'big government' in our (lack of) heath care.

I'm guessing that not many checks are going back.

[humbled_opinion]

41. I asked...

I work with a large group of teaheads and you know what they said...

"Sure I will send my check back when Obama shows me a tax return where his rich ass didn't take those deductions that he keeps complaining about, he could have just paid his "FAIR SHARE" don't you know"..

I feel like arguing with them is useless.... but I will admit sometimes I do reflect on things they say and it does lead me to believe that our Democrat Leadership doesn't sell the right message to the people....The rightwing are much better at getting their message out.

[Skittles]

52. Democrat Leadership

[nanabugg]

2. I think this is a big lie pushed by the RW and the media. Who are they asking in these polls.

I live in one of the wealthy suburbs of DC. Haven't met one person who is against the law...most want it to go further. But, I guess we will know the truth in Nov.

[clang1]

49. Ding ding ding ding : big lie pushed by the RW and the media

We have a winner. USA....ONLY country in the WORLD where people don't want universal healthcare. There is no logic to that......IT MAKES NO SENSE

You tell me.

It's insanity. No one is seeing the forest for the trees with anything on this.

Saw a thread on Carpenter's 'They Live', people need to put the glasses on.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Makes perfect sense

Way to go, American people.

[high density]

4. Even Romney likes the provisions

Every time he rails against it, he then says he'll replace it and enumerates similar attributes to those which already exist in "Obamacare."

The media has been railing against this since before it existed... It's no surprise that people hate it because they have no clue what it is other than something that they've been told to fear and hate.

[mother earth]

5. Yeah, what we really want is single payer, reform that will really cut costs. Open the door SCOTUS,

let the real drive for reform go mainstream. End corporate welfare NOW.

[byeya]

6. Cut the insurance completely out of health care.

I wonder how many people love insurance companies compared with the Social Security Administration?

[Xipe Totec]

8. +1 nt

[TBF]

10. We don't need the middle men -

we should simply remove the age restriction from Medicare and presto we have single payer. The insurance company execs (and their lobbies) will fight it but it should have been done a long time ago.

[humbled_opinion]

42. Interesting but

you do understand that Medicare is a ponzi scheme since we all pay in the form of payroll deduction from our very first paychecks for our entire lives, but a majority of us won't live to see a single dime in Medicare benefit, and even after that consideration Medicare is running hundreds of billion in the red every year that gets added to the national debt as defecit...

So to do what you say, you would have to imagine the cost increase that would be required in our payroll deduction...the employers won't cover it I wouldn't be able to handle a massive deduction so how could be sure that it was a progressive tax?

IMO the only way the make single payer work is for the government to control how much the doctors and hospitals can charge for healthcare in the first place.... IOW a massive government healthcare system where the doctors and staffs were government employees under government pay scales kind of like how the military treatment facitilites work....

[TBF]

43. What are you talking about?

If everyone pays in through payroll deduction there will be plenty of money in the kitty - and yes those deducts would go up a bit but we would also not have to pay the outrageous insurance costs we pay now. Currently my family of four pays over $1000/month and that is before all the co-pays for doctor's visits and prescriptions. Of course how much the doctors and hospitals charge would be lowered because the insurance companies don't pay the mark-ups they have now & they sure wouldn't be paid under medicare. And, yes, this takes a lot of the profit out (and that includes the big profits for insurance execs and shareholders), but there would also be a lot of cost savings realized because paperwork can be streamlined - one system. There are many more areas of our economy that need to be nationalized but we can start with this one because it is by far one of the biggest problems.

[humbled_opinion]

44. Sorry maybe you didn't understand me....

I am talking about people that don't pay for insurance now.. Isn't that the whole issue for the mandate in a nutshell?

In case you weren't aware, there are millions without insurance now and the reason is that they can't afford it based on their salary now, otherwise why wouldn't we buy insurance if we could afford insurance? (there is a common sense factor here)

I am very happy that you have a job that pays you well enough to afford $1000 per month for insurance... Of course people like you would want to lower their bills so you can save money, but at whose expense?

Your insurance coverage would consume 60 percent of my wages....

So what kind of progressive tax scale will the new fees be based on? Who will determine that?

Nothing is Free my friend.... So IMO unless the government forces doctors and hospitals to accept an amount of money for service that is equal to what a person can (REASONABLY) afford than it is going to suck for me to pay a large portion of my salary for insurance that I may or may not use until I get sick which may or may not be for a very long time.

[TBF]

46. Why would you assume I would pay less with a high income

and you would pay a larger percentage of yours? Yes, the idea is that everyone would have health care. I know that is a hard concept for some folks to understand.

A job, housing, food, healthcare, education - these are things that every human on this planet should have. Should we tax folks progressively to pay for these things? You bet we should. We should not have billionaires (or millionaires for that matter) on this planet while others are homeless.

Somehow I get the feeling you and I are on opposite ends philosophically - but that is my position FWIW.

[humbled_opinion]

56. No I certainly understand your position

I didn't assume you would pay less, I assumed I would pay more, or did I miss the memo where mine would be free of charge? I pay FICA, MEDICARE and SS out of my check now. Your public option comparison to Medicare just allows my employer to withold more and send it to the Federal govt.....

Again I will say that I think people that are actually paying for insurance albeit a high price are hoping that their amounts will drop considerably under a public option but you have no way to know for sure what your tax will be ...

What I do know is that a public option based on a Medicare scenario means that I will be forced to pay for something that I don't pay for now and that means less money in my pocket...

Philosophically I think we do agree but when it comes to the how we pay for it that we don't agree on sorry but IMO if the government controlled and ran the healthcare system in total than when I got sick I could go get care, same as you and the government would determine the cost of that care based on what I or you could afford at that moment in our lives, don't you think its asinine to pay for something that you may never ever use?

[TBF]

57. We've got two issues going -

1. do we need single payer?
2. how do we pay for it?

My answers would be:
1. yes
2. taxes & payroll deduct (which I would make sliding scale based on income - but I'm a dreamer)

And yes I think it should be something everyone pays - like car insurance. You need a big pool to spread the risk. Maybe you feel like you are young & healthy now and don't necessarily need it - but what if you suddenly got Leukemia and someone needs to pay for that treatment?

The other thing to think about - and it's not my preference but something I would consider - is a 2-tiered system in which there is a basic level of care for everyone and then a for-pay side. That may be an option that would be easier to sell/legislate in this country. Right now it is a mess with folks not going to the doctor and emergency rooms being filled with non-emergency cases. I'd get those folks into preventative care during normal hours and that sort of thing. Maybe that is a compromise that people would go for?

[humbled_opinion]

58. but you never address the underlying problem

COST !!! How do you control the cost? Single payer doesn't solve it...

If you are doing nothing more than paying the inefficient government the same as you pay the ripoff insurance companies where is the benefit?

No my friend the only way to FIX the problems in healthcare is to nationalize it completely, doctors, hospitals, staffs all work for the government on a government pay scale and the governmnet controls the COST... No more overpriced doctors, hospitals etc...

The people pay according to their ability to pay and if that means they can't pay then that is just fine the government can charge the rich people more for their treatment to subsidize and offset the treatment of the poor.

As long as we continue to allow medicine to be privatized we will all suffer the free market principle of GREED.....

Personally I think Cuba has it right.....

[TBF]

59. OK, I was totally reading your

comments wrong. We are definitely on the same page.

Public schools were a great idea (before they decided to axe the budgets and privatize) and public hospitals should be the norm as well.

Cuba has an amazing system as far as I'm concerned - I'm a fan.

[humbled_opinion]

61. Yep Yep Yep....

[NNN0LHI]

11. Who processes the Medicare claims in your state for the Social Security Administration?

Here in Illinois Blue Cross has the contract to do that.

Don

[valerief]

28. That corrupt SCOTUS gotta GOTUS. nt

[polichick]

7. America, land of the idiots...

Just like they hate the gubmint but expect and deserve the services.

[newfie11]

13. LOL Agreed n/t

[raccoon]

16. They think THEY deserve the services, but some "others" don't. nt

[SoutherDem]

24. Hit that nail right on the head.

[polichick]

36. Yep - idiots.

[NickB79]

55. We all want something for nothing. nt

[Canuckistanian]

9. Rachel Maddow said it best

It's like people saying "Oh, I LOVE a wheat crust, tomato sauce, melted cheese and toppings, but I HATE pizza"

[Auntie Bush]

19. Rachael always gets it right and in language

that people can understand...even those less educated right wingers.

Who was the last person on TV to discuss how GOOD the health care law was? All I ever hear is criticism 24/7. No wonder more than half the public are against it. They just quote Rush right wing radio and TV hosts, the Tea Party, and insurance spokesmen.

[onethatcares]

12. most Americans haven't taken

the time to inform themselves of the provisions of the ACA, let alone sit down and think.

[SoutherDem]

27. This includes the "liberal" media

This morning I heard a reporter on NPR say they didn't know what was in the law until it went to the SCOTUS. But I am sure this reporter knew of each and every rant Palin, Limbaugh and FOX made and reported on that many times.

[handmade34]

14. what's not to like??

(except that a "black socialist" is dictating it to us )

12 Reasons to Support Health Care

Our new health care law will have a profound impact on the health and economic well-being of American families, businesses, and the economy. Below are some of the key provisions of the new legislation:

The new health care law will:

-Ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care.
-Create a new, regulated marketplace where consumers can purchase affordable health care.
-Extend much needed relief to small businesses.
-Improve Medicare by helping seniors and people with disabilities afford their prescription drugs.
-Prohibit denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
-Limit out-of-pocket costs so that Americans have security and peace of mind.
-Help young adults by requiring insurers to allow all dependents to remain on their parents plan until age 26.
-Expand Medicaid to millions of low-income Americans.
-Provide sliding-scale subsidies to make insurance premiums affordable.
-Hold insurance companies accountable for how our health care dollars are spent.
-Clamp down on insurance company abuses.
-Invest in preventive care

http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/learn-more/quick-facts/12-reasons-to-support-health-care?gclid=CK-Q8OD25rACFQoHnQodA1p2hA

[dflprincess]

62. The new health care law will: -Ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health c

No it doesn't. It mandates that people have "coverage" it doesn't say that that coverage can't have out of pockets so high that a person still can't afford to see a doctor when they need to. Yes, the bill does cover some preventative and screening procedures but those don't do you a lot of good if you can't afford any follow up. It can cost thousands of dollars to find out the weird spot on the mammogram is benign and, if you have to pay that out of pocket you may not be able to find out just what that spot is - and if you can't afford that, you just might skip the test altogether.

The big winners are the insurance companies who have been handed millions of new victims to cheat; the credit card companies as many of American will try to cover out of pocket expenses with plastic and the bankruptcy lawyers as we remain the only country that allows medical bills to drive people to financial ruin.

[tridim]

15. In the real world, people who oppose the ACA don't have a clue what it is.

They tend to complain about problems the ACA solved.

Heckuva job media.

[marmar]

17. A different poll I read showed that most Americans want to keep the law....

..... but with some revisions.

[olegramps]

18. This situation exists due to the negligence of the major media sources to accurately inform.

The media has focused its coverage on the one controversial element; mandatory compliance. Those who oppose the plan solely because the hate Obama know that without the requirement that everyone purchase insurance the entire program is domed.

For those Republicans and for that matter anyone who opposes the requirement and spews the rhetoric of rugged self sustaining individual, I would hope that they would also repeal any law that requires that medical treatment be given to anyone regardless of their inability to pay. They will quickly realize that a large segment of the working class jerks that support the Republicans and their own destruction will be throw out on the street like garbage to suffer and die. They shouldn't have any problem with those who say they shouldn't have to pay for some lackey that doesn't have insurance with higher premiums and taxes to support hospitals.

Welcome to the New America envisioned by the Conservatives with the whole hearted support of Christian Fundamentalists along with the Catholic bishops who oppose contraceptive health care for women.

[Auntie Bush]

22. Agreed 100%. Where's the seperation of church and state and why do they still get a tax exemption?

We are becoming a Theocracy. Instead of taking the Religious beliefs from one religion...we are getting extremist views from every religion.

[Romulox]

20. MAJOR discrepancy from the story: "Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate."

[SoutherDem]

32. BUT just like the rest of the law I doubt they know what the mandate means to them

Oddly this was the Republican solution to healthcare until the Democrats went to it to make an attempt to compromise by giving up single payer (a better solution in my opinion).

Honestly, if the exact same law was a Republican law these people may like it and we would be screaming that it isn't single payer.

[Romulox]

34. Come on. It means they are FORCED to buy insurance from the same group that's been ripping them off

Oddly this was the Republican solution to healthcare until the Democrats went to it to make an attempt to compromise by giving up single payer (a better solution in my opinion).

How did they trick US into defending it, then? It boggles the mind.

[SoutherDem]

38. Ok, we know you hate the mandate

and most likely the SCOTUS will agree with you.

I said I prefer single payer, so to some extent you are shooting a friend.

But, what I mean is they don't know the penalty if they don't, they don't know what happens if they don't pay the penalty, they don't know the assistance to those of lower income, they don't know the details.

As to giving power to insurance companies. We already have given them the power. As it is you are either rich, pay and insurance company, are financially ruined or simply die if you get sick. At least the other aspects of the ACA does give some restrictions to the insurance companies.

How did they trick us? It was a compromise, an attempt to get something passed since single payer was so hated. This does give absolute proof that Republicans will block even their own ideas if they are picked up by Obama.

[Romulox]

39. It was trick that WRENCHED the debate to the far right. Now we are arguing about how much guaranteed

profit insurance companies "deserve". That's not a "compromise"--it's nonsense. Either insurers are part of the magical "invisible hand" of the market, and therefore earn their profits through competition in the marketplace. Else we admit that the marketplace doesn't work, and therefore private insurers have no claim to attach themselves to this process like a parasite.

But bypassing the market while guaranteeing private profits? It's a bizarre, triangulated mess that pleases nobody but the insurers (who wrote the damn plan in the first instance.)

[nobodyspecial]

21. Most Americans are brainwashed morons

[SoutherDem]

23. This has been driving me crazy since ACA passed.

Where I live I you may hear this discussed while standing in line at a store, being discussed at a restaurant, more or less everywhere you go. Most were discussions on how Obama has/was destroying our country with socialized medicine.

I know not to argue with these "rock for brains" people, who mostly do not look as if they are part of the 1%, or 5% or even 25%. Almost all look like they are lower to middle class, certainly not rich, and would benefit from what the ACA will do/does. So I would approach the situation from another position.

I would start talking about things like preexisting conditions, out of pocket expenses, the way insurance companies could/do drop people once they have cost them too much and how insurance companies are making excessive profits so that in some cases they are paying a lot of premiums for little coverage. Basically pointing out many of the features of ACA without saying so.

Guess what. I haven't talked to even one person who didn't agree with each and every point. I would then say something like "I wonder why they couldn't come up with a law like that?" to which I would be met with total agreement. I would then break the bad news that ACA will do just that when it is fulling in place.

They would then say "I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's healthcare". I would then say you are already doing that. I would point out ways this is already happening.

Long story short. They couldn't come up with even one reason they should not be supporting ACA. But, they still felt it should be ruled unconstitutional.

[Romulox]

26. Forcing people to buy the ones who are ripping them off seems a poor solution though...

The mandate is toxic because people understand that it shifts ALL power to the insurance industry.

[kenny blankenship]

29. But try telling that to someone with rocks for brains.

It goes in, rattles around for a second, and then just falls out again.

Fucking rocks!

[Romulox]

30. They figured it out, this time: ""Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate." nt

[LiberalCatholic]

47. The mandate has worked in Massachusetts.

We have had this for years and the result is that over 95% of Massachusetts residents are covered. This law is a good first step. Next, we need to allow people to be able to choose to buy into Medicare. That will eventually lead to universal healthcare.

[Romulox]

48. "In fact the state (Mass.) has the highest individual market premiums in the country,"

In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522#.T-fAYrWXROo

[Bradical79]

25. It's the individual mandate

Republicans have been able to take that one part in particular and paint it very negatively.

[dkf]

31. Obama didn't used to like the individual mandate either.

That is the main reason I picked Obama over Hillary.

The other reason was I didn't like Hillary's hawkishness on Iran but she is SOS anyway.

Howard Dean says it can be done without a mandate and I would like to see that attempted first. If it became a problem then we should have revisited it.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Since the 1990s, at least eight states have overhauled their insurance laws

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1206/23/hcsg.01.html

So, why does this all matter? I want to tell you a story. I think this is an important context. Since the 1990s, at least eight states have overhauled their insurance laws.

Kentucky is a typical example. In 1994 its new law told insurance companies you have to cover everyone even if they're chronically sick. You can't charge them too much money. Well, it's the same as Obama care but in Kentucky, there was no mandate.

Think of it like this. What if no one bought car insurance until their car was already wrecked on the side of the road? Insurance companies, car insurance companies probably couldn't last and that's pretty much what happened in Kentucky.

Before that law in Kentucky, there were 43 companies selling individual insurance policies. Seven years later there were two. And the law had to be changed, overhauled. It was much the same way in the other states as well.

If the Supreme Court strikes down just the mandate, the whole country now will be in that same boat. Of course, the court could also strike down the entire law or they could leave the entire law intact. Whatever it is, we're going to dig into it next week.

[dkf]

37. Not necessarily true.

If only Kentucky were less profitable then the companies might discontinue services. But if the whole country has the same rules then they either stay or quit the business.

[TheKentuckian]

40. The argument that the poor insurance companies wouldn't be able to make it is not a selling point

For decades the insurance companies haven't given a shit if the people make it and still don't.

They are a criminal cartel and have been nowhere near regulated to the point that you give over the population to them and enshrine them as too big to fail and a de facto arm of the Federal government in exchange for a few pay to play features. To add insult to injury, the overwhelming majority of the population is subjected to an individual mandate, a personal responsibility but our employers decide what we get and how much it costs and as such we are forced to buy from the company store by law.

Advice to the pro crowd though, you are never going to sell the bill by pressing obvious features. That tactic works when you are not required to overcome high levels of negativity in peoples minds, they know it is a hell of a lot more than what the band is beating.
I think the technique has made all the hay it is going to and I don't think it would be a significant difference if the TeaPubliKlans were the ones selling their bill instead of Democrats in net numbers, no doubt many more TeaPubliKlans would magically be okay with it but they would offset by Democrats flipping, no longer with the level of trust on dicey legislation once it isn't their team's plan anymore.

I've opposed the idea for well over a decade, it doesn't matter to me who is selling it or who votes for it. I've offered alternate mandate set ups that I could find tolerable. I've proposed alternative plans of various structures spanning from market based reform to a NHS. I am not married to a particular approach but I am against this one and have been long before hearing of Barack Obama and even supported the reform effort until it came clear that the old Heritage Foundation boondoggle was being resurrected and pushed by Democrats.

[Swede Atlanta]

33. The majority are not opposed to the health care law............

that is a flat-out untruth. What they are opposed to is what they understand the law to be and contain such as death panels, individual mandate that can result in losing your home, your car, your business or incarceration, government take-over of health care, government limiting your choice of doctors, etc., rationing of health care, etc.

The law does none of those things but the public's perception is that it does. That is what is important in this black is white and up is down world in which we live.

Health care is indeed rationed. It is rationed first and foremost to those that can afford health insurance and within that sub-set it is rationed further by corporate bean counters that want to rake in the premiums but pay nothing out in benefits.

[savalez]

50. Yep. I'd like to see the results of a survey

of people who actually know what is in the ACA. Then from that tell us what percentage are for it and against it.

[YOHABLO]

45. Oh It Might Require Readin' and Writin'

Yes, they agree with the idea that a health insurance company can no longer deny coverage based on a preexisting condition, but then being mandated to buy insurance, just like car insurance, is nothing less than Communism. Oh lordy .. the Commies are coming get my gun girl.

[Scootaloo]

51. It's not about the law. it's NEVER been about the law

It's about who came up with and then signed the law.

[AllyCat]

53. It's all how they sell it. Just like "liberal policy", people will say they are conservative

until you ask them pointed questions about what they value in life and in their community...then they are for things that liberals have fought to bring them.

[BEAU1943]

54. American's are an ignorant bunch when it come to the ACA

You like all the provisions but you don't like it. RW media knows all they have to do is say something is terrible over and over again and Americans will vote against their own self interest. This is nuts.









This is my personal poll. I am trying to get as many votes as possible. 183 votes to date. I am trying to get the vote count to 500. Please take a second and vote. Those who have already voted I thank you. You can only vote once in this poll.

http://usworldpolitics.com/#vote



http://usworldpolitics.com/#vote

Your vote is appreciated.

[joshcryer]

60. No shit, they want the cake and want to eat it too.

It's the same fucking reason Obama said he was for universal health insurance but chose a plan that didn't provide it. Smoke and mirrors.