72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Bern80]

What makes you think you aren't already? Surely you don't think the insurance agencies absorb the costs of others? you're already getting the bill with an added layer of expense. Enjoy.

Wow you are predictable. How did I know this was gonna be your argument? You are familiar with the concept of a consenting contractual agreement aren't you?

I am. Are you aware that the majority of the American people would like the option of consenting to a better deal? See, where there is an actual choice, there is informed consent. Where there is a cabal setting prices for the higher prices of a given industry, there is no choice beyond pay up if you can or go without. The insurance industry is a cabal. If they can compete with the public option so be it. If they can't, millions of uninsured and under insured Americans are under no obligation to keep these paper pushing middle men in business or their stockholders in profit.

My point is, through your employer or however you choose to do so, you have the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance or not. I disagree with government involvement in running health care on many fronts and have mostly talked about the practical aspects. There is the unconstitutionality of it (not that we pay much attention to that document anymore).

How much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have a risk free life? Because Obama has said if the government does this than EVERYONE has to do it. You don't have a choice. And when choice is eliminated, freedom is eliminated. Maybe I don't WANT insurance. Maybe I'm happy with my employer's plan. Maybe I choose to fund my health care costs through and HSA. Even going with my employer option, by taking the coverage, i am agreeing to their terms.

You did mention competition within the insurance industry. Well, lets make them compete for starters and see what that does. We don't need to run rough shod into government running the show. Make insurance companies compete on a national, or hell, global level, instead of these groups of a few states in place now.

The most concerning thing about all of this to me is, even with their track record, so many people want to by pass a lot of good options and just let government take care of it.

 

[Barb]

Wow you are predictable. How did I know this was gonna be your argument? You are familiar with the concept of a consenting contractual agreement aren't you?

I am. Are you aware that the majority of the American people would like the option of consenting to a better deal? See, where there is an actual choice, there is informed consent. Where there is a cabal setting prices for the higher prices of a given industry, there is no choice beyond pay up if you can or go without. The insurance industry is a cabal. If they can compete with the public option so be it. If they can't, millions of uninsured and under insured Americans are under no obligation to keep these paper pushing middle men in business or their stockholders in profit.

My point is, through your employer or however you choose to do so, you have the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance or not. I disagree with government involvement in running health care on many fronts and have mostly talked about the practical aspects. There is the unconstitutionality of it (not that we pay much attention to that document anymore).

How much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have a risk free life? Because Obama has said if the government does this than EVERYONE has to do it. You don't have a choice. And when choice is eliminated, freedom is eliminated. Maybe I don't WANT insurance. Maybe I'm happy with my employer's plan. Maybe I choose to fund my health care costs through and HSA. Even going with my employer option, by taking the coverage, i am agreeing to their terms.

You did mention competition within the insurance industry. Well, lets make them compete for starters and see what that does. We don't need to run rough shod into government running the show. Make insurance companies compete on a national, or hell, global level, instead of these groups of a few states in place now.

The most concerning thing about all of this to me is, even with their track record, so many people want to by pass a lot of good options and just let government take care of it.

How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.

 

[editec]

I am. Are you aware that the majority of the American people would like the option of consenting to a better deal? See, where there is an actual choice, there is informed consent. Where there is a cabal setting prices for the higher prices of a given industry, there is no choice beyond pay up if you can or go without. The insurance industry is a cabal. If they can compete with the public option so be it. If they can't, millions of uninsured and under insured Americans are under no obligation to keep these paper pushing middle men in business or their stockholders in profit.

My point is, through your employer or however you choose to do so, you have the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance or not. I disagree with government involvement in running health care on many fronts and have mostly talked about the practical aspects. There is the unconstitutionality of it (not that we pay much attention to that document anymore).

How much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have a risk free life? Because Obama has said if the government does this than EVERYONE has to do it. You don't have a choice. And when choice is eliminated, freedom is eliminated. Maybe I don't WANT insurance. Maybe I'm happy with my employer's plan. Maybe I choose to fund my health care costs through and HSA. Even going with my employer option, by taking the coverage, i am agreeing to their terms.

You did mention competition within the insurance industry. Well, lets make them compete for starters and see what that does. We don't need to run rough shod into government running the show. Make insurance companies compete on a national, or hell, global level, instead of these groups of a few states in place now.

The most concerning thing about all of this to me is, even with their track record, so many people want to by pass a lot of good options and just let government take care of it.

How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.

We're you not aware, Barb, that listening to Rush Limbough for a few hours makes one a qualified constitutional scholar?

That's why so many here describe themselves as strict interpretors of the US Constitution...people who are all more qualified than the Supreme Court to explain to us what the Constitution really means.

I know it's somewhat amazing that this board is rife with Constitutional scholars, but apparently it must be true.

 

[Political Junky]

I am. Are you aware that the majority of the American people would like the option of consenting to a better deal? See, where there is an actual choice, there is informed consent. Where there is a cabal setting prices for the higher prices of a given industry, there is no choice beyond pay up if you can or go without. The insurance industry is a cabal. If they can compete with the public option so be it. If they can't, millions of uninsured and under insured Americans are under no obligation to keep these paper pushing middle men in business or their stockholders in profit.

My point is, through your employer or however you choose to do so, you have the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance or not. I disagree with government involvement in running health care on many fronts and have mostly talked about the practical aspects. There is the unconstitutionality of it (not that we pay much attention to that document anymore).

How much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have a risk free life? Because Obama has said if the government does this than EVERYONE has to do it. You don't have a choice. And when choice is eliminated, freedom is eliminated. Maybe I don't WANT insurance. Maybe I'm happy with my employer's plan. Maybe I choose to fund my health care costs through and HSA. Even going with my employer option, by taking the coverage, i am agreeing to their terms.

You did mention competition within the insurance industry. Well, lets make them compete for starters and see what that does. We don't need to run rough shod into government running the show. Make insurance companies compete on a national, or hell, global level, instead of these groups of a few states in place now.

The most concerning thing about all of this to me is, even with their track record, so many people want to by pass a lot of good options and just let government take care of it.

How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Bern80]

How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.

Simple. if it is not enumberated in the constitution then the Fed has no authority to it. You may choose another way, but if you are choosing Obama's way you are taking away my choice. That seem okay with you?

 

[Bern80]

My point is, through your employer or however you choose to do so, you have the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance or not. I disagree with government involvement in running health care on many fronts and have mostly talked about the practical aspects. There is the unconstitutionality of it (not that we pay much attention to that document anymore).

How much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have a risk free life? Because Obama has said if the government does this than EVERYONE has to do it. You don't have a choice. And when choice is eliminated, freedom is eliminated. Maybe I don't WANT insurance. Maybe I'm happy with my employer's plan. Maybe I choose to fund my health care costs through and HSA. Even going with my employer option, by taking the coverage, i am agreeing to their terms.

You did mention competition within the insurance industry. Well, lets make them compete for starters and see what that does. We don't need to run rough shod into government running the show. Make insurance companies compete on a national, or hell, global level, instead of these groups of a few states in place now.

The most concerning thing about all of this to me is, even with their track record, so many people want to by pass a lot of good options and just let government take care of it.

How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.

We're you not aware, Barb, that listening to Rush Limbough for a few hours makes one a qualified constitutional scholar?

That's why so many here describe themselves as strict interpretors of the US Constitution...people who are all more qualified than the Supreme Court to explain to us what the Constitution really means.

I know it's somewhat amazing that this board is rife with Constitutional scholars, but apparently it must be true.

Wasn't Rush really. It was reading the 10th ammendment and passing high school level civics.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

So where exactly are the powers granted to the Fed by the constitution. That would be Article 1, Section 8

Section 8: The Congress shall have power:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The founders were nice enough to make the document pretty simple with respect to the Feds power. If it isn't there they can't do it (even though it has been ignored from time to time). It gets made more complicated by 'scholars' for the purpose of rationalizing things they want to justify government doing that arent really there.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

a total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....


So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of this plan.

you're only saying that cause the poll didn't work out in your favor. By your philosophy ALL polls are BS cause they all have about 1,000 people

 

[Bern80]

a total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....


So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of this plan.

you're only saying that cause the poll didn't work out in your favor. By your philosophy ALL polls are BS cause they all have about 1,000 people

the poll was BS (the NY Times admitted as much) not due to the sample size, but due to an over sampling of Obama voters.

 

[chanel]

Yep yet that 72 percent bogus figure is being tossed around. Most people would agree that the system needs reform (cost conyainment) but very very few want the govt to spend a trillion dollars rationing care. In fact maybe I'll start a poll with that question "Should the govt DICTATE medical decisions and make working people pay for the illegals?" I bet I'd get 95 percent no's. The other 5 percent believe Obama will be doing their proctology exams himself. And they'd dig that.

 

[jreeves]

Bullshit.

Life threatening cases get MRIs immediately in Canada.

And if you can't afford healthcare, you NEVER GET AN MRI!

Sure Chrissy...
Obamacare meets the reality of nationalized health care: Rationing and long lines | Washington Examiner
President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the legions of liberal political activists trying to ramrod nationalized health care through Congress face an insurmountable obstacle in the Internet. There are mountains of data available today regarding the decades of experience with similar systems in Canada, Great Britain and elsewhere, and the facts about that data are within a few mouse clicks of every American. As the debate in Congress and the nation’s public policy forums heats up, key facts gleaned from that abundance of data are becoming ever more prominent.

Take, for example, the report out last week from the Wait Time Alliance (WTA), a group of 13 Canadian medical groups, including the Canadian Medical Association. For cancer patients, the report found that “the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks.” That figure exceeded the recommended maximum wait time of one month. Note, too, that as a median figure, there were just as many patients who waited longer than seven weeks as who waited less than seven weeks. The WTA report also found unacceptably long delays for people seeking emergency room treatment, with an average of nine hours for patients who were treated and released. The average for patients who needed to be treated and admitted to the hospital was 24 hours! And patients needing psychiatric care for major depression are being forced to wait up to six weeks before starting treatment, according to the WTA report.

Long waits for critical treatment are inevitable in government-run health care systems for one simple reason: Making health care “free” creates an infinite demand for medical services. But no country can satisfy an infinite demand, so government bureaucrats always end up rationing health care. Long lines of people waiting for services are the result. It’s the same process that produced long waiting lines for decades in the Soviet Union for basic necessities like bread and housing.

Obamacare advocates can only hope their friends in the mainstream media do a better job of carrying their water for them in the weeks ahead than The New York Times and CBS with their latest poll. Using a sample with exactly twice as many Obama voters as McCain voters, the Times/CBS pollsters got a result in which 57 percent of their respondents said they would pay higher taxes “so that all Americans have health insurance that they can’t lose no matter what.” But, as anybody who has taken a basic statistics course knows, a warped sample and an “apples-to-oranges” comparison has zero credibility.

There are 50 million Americans that do not have to worry about wait times. They don't have medical insurance, so they go to the emergency room after the situation is out of hand.

No, it is not a warped sample. As more people have the experiance of being unemployed and uninsured, that number will rise. Not only that, when people change jobs, and suddenly find themselves paying extra for pre-existing conditions, they will learn the reality of how much our present system sucks.

That is a lie...there is not 50 million Americans without health insurance, 10 million of your 50 million aren't even Americans. Others have declined health insurance through their employers, a good deal expect to get health insurance in the next 6 months, others make over 75 K a year...etc.....this is all part of the susposed 50 million Americans who can't get health insurance....

 

[Chris]

a total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....


So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of this plan.

you're only saying that cause the poll didn't work out in your favor. By your philosophy ALL polls are BS cause they all have about 1,000 people

the poll was BS (the NY Times admitted as much) not due to the sample size, but due to an over sampling of Obama voters.

Most voters are Obama voters.

 

[Bern80]

you're only saying that cause the poll didn't work out in your favor. By your philosophy ALL polls are BS cause they all have about 1,000 people

the poll was BS (the NY Times admitted as much) not due to the sample size, but due to an over sampling of Obama voters.

Most voters are Obama voters.

Not by a rate of a little over 2 to 1 they weren't. Had it been by percentage it should have been about 55-45 at best. It was more like 70-30.

 

[Chris]

the poll was BS (the NY Times admitted as much) not due to the sample size, but due to an over sampling of Obama voters.

Most voters are Obama voters.

Not by a rate of a little over 3 to 1 the weren't. Had it been by percentage it should have been about 55-45 at best. It was more like 70-30.

You are on the losing side of history.

Everyone in the world gets it except for the right wing in America.

That is why America is going broke.

High energy costs, high healthcare costs, all because of the right wing nuts.

 

[elvis]

Most voters are Obama voters.

Not by a rate of a little over 3 to 1 the weren't. Had it been by percentage it should have been about 55-45 at best. It was more like 70-30.

You are on the losing side of history.

Everyone in the world gets it except for the right wing in America.

That is why America is going broke.

High energy costs, high healthcare costs, all because of the right wing nuts.

Wait, you just said in another thread that history doesn't matter.

 

[Bern80]

Most voters are Obama voters.

Not by a rate of a little over 3 to 1 the weren't. Had it been by percentage it should have been about 55-45 at best. It was more like 70-30.

You are on the losing side of history.

Everyone in the world gets it except for the right wing in America.

That is why America is going broke.

High energy costs, high healthcare costs, all because of the right wing nuts.

Yeah you're right Chris, if you consider a bit over a 50-50 split being 'almost everyone', to paraphrase Mark Twain, at least try to get your facts right before you try to distort them.

It's really funny listening to a lib talk about how we are going broke. Please explain to all of us how taking more money from people in the form of taxes and the government spending more and getting into deeper debt will make us less broke.

 

[Chris]

Not by a rate of a little over 3 to 1 the weren't. Had it been by percentage it should have been about 55-45 at best. It was more like 70-30.

You are on the losing side of history.

Everyone in the world gets it except for the right wing in America.

That is why America is going broke.

High energy costs, high healthcare costs, all because of the right wing nuts.

Yeah you're right Chris, if you consider a bit over a 50-50 split being 'almost everyone', to paraphrase Mark Twain, at least try to get your facts right before you try to distort them.

It's really funny listening to a lib talk about how we are going broke. Please explain to all of us how taking more money from people in the form of taxes and the government spending more and getting into deeper debt will make us less broke.

It is funny to hear a rightie talking about debt.

It was the derivative bubble brought on by Phil Gramm's deregulation of the financial industry that destroyed the American economy.

A single payer healthcare system is more efficient than paying overhead and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Everyone knows this except you and your friends. That is why the rest of the world's businesses are kicking our ass, because they don't have to pay for healthcare and their healthcare cost HALF as much per capita.

 

[HUGGY]

72% of Americans support government run healthcare


Well 100% of the insurance companies don't!!! So there...stick that in your pipe and smoke it. And fox news doesn't support it...so there! And at least 15 democratic senators are being paid off by the stinking insurance lobby so they know where thier bread is buttered....so there! Maria Cantwell you stinking douschebag...We are watching you. If you do not vote with the people you will not keep you senate seat! So there!

 

[KittenKoder]

72% of Americans support government run healthcare


Well 100% of the insurance companies don't!!! So there...stick that in your pipe and smoke it. And fox news doesn't support it...so there! And at least 15 democratic senators are being paid off by the stinking insurance lobby so they know where thier bread is buttered....so there! Maria Cantwell you stinking douschebag...We are watching you. If you do not vote with the people you will not keep you senate seat! So there!

... and you support robbing the rich and ruining our economy ... so fucking there.

 

[manu1959]

72 % of americans are going to be pissed off........

 

[elvis]

You are on the losing side of history.

Everyone in the world gets it except for the right wing in America.

That is why America is going broke.

High energy costs, high healthcare costs, all because of the right wing nuts.

Yeah you're right Chris, if you consider a bit over a 50-50 split being 'almost everyone', to paraphrase Mark Twain, at least try to get your facts right before you try to distort them.

It's really funny listening to a lib talk about how we are going broke. Please explain to all of us how taking more money from people in the form of taxes and the government spending more and getting into deeper debt will make us less broke.

It is funny to hear a rightie talking about debt.

It was the derivative bubble brought on by Phil Gramm's deregulation of the financial industry that destroyed the American economy.

A single payer healthcare system is more efficient than paying overhead and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Everyone knows this except you and your friends. That is why the rest of the world's businesses are kicking our ass, because they don't have to pay for healthcare and their healthcare cost HALF as much per capita.

of course, chrissy lewinsky is going to leave out the part where Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall act.