Reconciliation...

[del]

Yea ia , you said no problem for 65 bucks you can go to any wal marty, not in this state you can't but then again when you are used to the vet, what can you say

nothing coherently, by all appearances.

did you have a bad reaction to your flea collar?

 

[Vanquish]

@boedicca: No it's to put more controls into the system and even create a government-run market actor who can compete with the private sector. The private sector will do fine because, just like private colleges do in the university market, they can build a brand, offer better service, more coverage, and a host of other improvements when compared to the government system that people will still pay for.

Murf76 Ok, lets see here

1. Insurance companies are making pitiful profits
2. Lawyers raise the price of coverage
3. Insurance doesnt add to the price of services
4. Freedom of contract
5. Overbloated government agencies can't run anything right

How's my reading comprehension so far?

In no certain order

4. Freedom of contract - yes, lol, I understand contracts. Consumers are free to enter into them and leave them at will. Ohhhh wait. That's right. The inordinate power and money of insurance companies means that people are dropped for fraudulent reasons, inequitable reasons, and just plain breaches of contract by the insurance companies - and they have to hire lawyers to take the insurance companies to the mat. The companies have the power, the consumer does NOT. What part of that don't you understand.

I live in a moderate-sized town where we have our share of mom & pop insurance companies. Sure they get re-insured by the big boys, but you want to know why they survive? It's because the mom & pop agents fight the status quo of screw the little man when we have the advantage that's par for the course at larger insurance companies.

You're also forgetting that for economic reasons some people HAVE to go with their employer's insurance negating choice altogether. You can get your own insurance and get off the employer's insurance, but when it's a benefit built into your package...you don't really have that option.

2. Lawyers raise the price of treatment (aka "we need tort reform")

You can guess where I am on this one. Dude, let me tell you...the lawyers are evil schtick gets old. Even as an aggregate group, we're good guys. We're problem solvers. We're Saul dividing the baby.

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

5. Bloated government

Normally my response would be that Medicare's overhead is lower than private health insurance. Of course the right has tried to debunk that by saying it's an apple-to-oranges comparison that, when done right proves insurance = better. I'll go ahead and assume you're at least that smart.

Here's my reply:
CAHI's claim of Medicare's hidden administrative costs | Physicians for a National Health Program

That's a paper that re-proves that when you add in the hidden costs...yes medicare is more efficient.
We can go back and forth on this, but there you go.

1. Pitiful profits

Insurance Co. Profits: Good, But Not Breaking Records | FactCheck.org

Your response is to either cite to a different source, negate my source, or both. This boils down, not to the actual issue, but to a discussion of standards for vetting information.

That's enough for now.

EDIT: Realized I left out the most contentious point. Have to get back to work, but I'm sure we can discuss it later.

 

[Meister]

No. You're not bad or evil, simply conservative. The principles (the Mission Statement) of our country is written very clearly in the preamble to our Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Conservatives care not for the essence of these words, they (you) focus only on that which supports your ideology, which may be summerized by this: I've got mine, screw you!

85% of "We the People" are happy with their healthcare, wry.
over 50% of "We the People" do not want this particuliar healthcare bill.

I can't make it any simpler for you, wry. Please take off your partisan glasses for 15 seconds and try to understand what "We the People" really want.

85% are happy? I doubt that, but giving your statistic the benefit of the doubt, that leaves 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Forty-Five Million living in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And that's just fine in you opinion?

You were talking about "We The People", weren't you? I was pointing out what "We The People" actually want. It's not this half assed bill the the democrats are shoving on us.
To fix what's wrong doesn't need all that much government intervention, wry. They can fix most of it through mandates. Please don't make us pay for all the illegals that you seem to want to sign up for the welfare. sheesh (you sure can tell that your one of those california nuts)

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Actually, I previously posted the average cost for a doctor at a clinic is between 60 and 200dollars. The average visit to an emergency room is just over a thousand dollars and if you are between 45 and 65, it's just over $1,500.

Oh, and the average cost for one day in the hospital is $4,700.

and you ass clowns bitch about insurance companies!!!????

What a joke!!!!!

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

You're saying insurance companies are raising the prices at hospitals...you're sadly mistaken. I hope you don't own a business.....Christ...next thing you'll say small business owners had to raise the price of your Ring Ding's, Yodels and Devil Dogs because the Chinese raised the price of Tupperware.

and you're so anti-corruption??? Why don't you write The Barry and tell his dumb ass to get rid of the 500 billion dollars of fraud in Medicare before handing another 1 trillion dollars to the fraudsters.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You're also forgetting that for economic reasons some people HAVE to go with their employer's insurance negating choice altogether. You can get your own insurance and get off the employer's insurance, but when it's a benefit built into your package...you don't really have that option.

This is a complete fabrication....when ANY COMPANY HIRES YOU...health insurance is offered as an OPTION and it IS NOT MANDATORY that you take it. Why exactly do you think we have 31 million uninsured Vanquish.....16 million of those uninsured OPTED OUT of employee coverage so they could buy that Hummer!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.

and if Doctor's didn't give you every unecessary test under the sun every time you went to the hospital I wonder what those figures would be...better yet I wonder what the cost of defensive medicine has on tort reform and our overall healthcare system.

 

[Murf76]

4. Freedom of contract - yes, lol, I understand contracts. Consumers are free to enter into them and leave them at will. Ohhhh wait. That's right. The inordinate power and money of insurance companies means that people are dropped for fraudulent reasons, inequitable reasons, and just plain breaches of contract by the insurance companies - and they have to hire lawyers to take the insurance companies to the mat. The companies have the power, the consumer does NOT. What part of that don't you understand.

No... they don't HAVE to hire a lawyer if they don't want to. There's no law that says you can't sue somebody without paying a lawyer to do it for you. The court doesn't turn you away. It's a professional service that people engage of their own free will when it comes to civil matters. It's expensive though.

Hey! Here's an idea. Why don't we make LEGAL SERVICES more affordable through onerous regulation and government insurance plans.

I live in a moderate-sized town where we have our share of mom & pop insurance companies. Sure they get re-insured by the big boys, but you want to know why they survive? It's because the mom & pop agents fight the status quo of screw the little man when we have the advantage that's par for the course at larger insurance companies.

No one's holding a gun to Mom&Pops' head. They're there because they CHOOSE to be.

You're also forgetting that for economic reasons some people HAVE to go with their employer's insurance negating choice altogether. You can get your own insurance and get off the employer's insurance, but when it's a benefit built into your package...you don't really have that option.

Which doesn't explain why you libbies are trying to MANDATE that employers do more of it. You know it drives up prices because it distorts the laws of supply and demand, and yet you exacerbate the problem instead of solving it.

2. Lawyers raise the price of treatment (aka "we need tort reform")

You can guess where I am on this one. Dude, let me tell you...the lawyers are evil schtick gets old. Even as an aggregate group, we're good guys. We're problem solvers. We're Saul dividing the baby.

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

I actually don't believe in broad tort reform at the federal level. IMO, the only cases it should apply to would be interstate and federal cases. But I do think the States should take it up. And I think there might be a constitutional argument to be had against "punitive damages" altogether. It seems unreasonable to me that people be "punished" by a court of law, when they've been convicted of no crime.

I also think that States would be wise to put in "loser pays" systems, albeit based on normal and customary legal fees. We shouldn't have one poor old grannie picking up the tab for a big company fielding a dozen 3-piece suits. But just think of the incentive for lawyers, who often work for judgements, to spend time in consideration of the true merits of their case before wasting our court resources upon it.

Litigation IS the quality control mechanism on our healthcare system. We should continue to have that option. But do not bother denying that we pay extra for that quality, because it's not a logical argument.

5. Bloated government

Normally my response would be that Medicare's overhead is lower than private health insurance. Of course the right has tried to debunk that by saying it's an apple-to-oranges comparison that, when done right proves insurance = better. I'll go ahead and assume you're at least that smart.

Here's my reply:
CAHI's claim of Medicare's hidden administrative costs | Physicians for a National Health Program

That's a paper that re-proves that when you add in the hidden costs...yes medicare is more efficient.
We can go back and forth on this, but there you go.

Medicare is GOING BANKRUPT. That's all one needs to know about Medicare. It doesn't pay for itself and it, along with other entitlements, are chowing down two-thirds of the federal budget.

1. Pitiful profits

Insurance Co. Profits: Good, But Not Breaking Records | FactCheck.org

Your response is to either cite to a different source, negate my source, or both. This boils down, not to the actual issue, but to a discussion of standards for vetting information.

That's enough for now.

Did you even bother to read your "source"?

Here ya go... PolitiFact put it more succinctly:

We found Obama was wrong when he said in the news conference that health insurance companies are making record profits. He earns a False .

PolitiFact | Obama wrong about health insurance profits

 

[Meister]

I'm seeing terms like "typically", "normally" and "generally". What is actually being violated here?

For the love of God, Erik......This IS What The Nuclear Option Was Set Up For.
Stop your damn spinning on it. Like I said, it has never been used beforeon bills like this, and it wasn't set up for legislating a bill like this.
This is the reason that level headed democrats aren't buying into the reconcilaiation, they understand and you don't.


You wanted the rules, and I've shown you the rules......and it was about budgetary items only, they didn't write anything more broad than that. So if your looking at what's in the 4 borders of the paper, it's not for legistlating the healthcare bill.

What was Medicare Part D?

Please tell us what your talking about, EriK. Cloture on it was invoked by the Senate with a70-29 vote. So please explain what you are asking.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

@boedicca: No it's to put more controls into the system and even create a government-run market actor who can compete with the private sector. The private sector will do fine because, just like private colleges do in the university market, they can build a brand, offer better service, more coverage, and a host of other improvements when compared to the government system that people will still pay for.

... snip ... .

Those who run the Universities don't have the power to write the rules that says the private collages cannot change their curriculum or change their tuition costs or be faced with having their student population be removed and registered in the nearest University. And barring any violation of those rules, the Universities are not able to register these students after 5 years anyway.

Those are precisely the "rules" for private insurance that were written into the 2400 pages of the socialized health care bill.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

@boedicca: No it's to put more controls into the system and even create a government-run market actor who can compete with the private sector. The private sector will do fine because, just like private colleges do in the university market, they can build a brand, offer better service, more coverage, and a host of other improvements when compared to the government system that people will still pay for.

... snip ... .

Those who run the Universities don't have the power to write the rules that says the private collages cannot change their curriculum or change their tuition costs or be faced with having their student population be removed and registered in the nearest University. And barring any violation of those rules, the Universities are not able to register these students after 5 years anyway.

Those are precisely the "rules" for private insurance that were written into the 2400 pages of the socialized health care bill.

Not only that but private Universities receive GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES and their prices are astronomical compared to State run Colleges. Comparing private university's costs to private health care insurance costs is like admitting that you are an advocate of government subsidies paid directly to insurance companies to lower costs.....which is as we see with any subsidies program...is total horse crap. Vanquish sounds like a Wilsonite progressive.

 

[Murf76]

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.

and if Doctor's didn't give you every unecessary test under the sun every time you went to the hospital I wonder what those figures would be...better yet I wonder what the cost of defensive medicine has on tort reform and our overall healthcare system.

I have to get out of here for a few.. but before I go, let me just share my last experience at the ENT's office.

I went in because my ear was itching and giving my a little bit of pain, so I wanted to rule out infection and see if there was maybe something in the ear canal. I had no loss of hearing whatsoever. And yet, they whisked me into a booth, checked it anyway, and billed my insurance company for the service. Meanwhile, all they told me about my ear was that it's probably dry skin.

Now, there's no way to know if they were padding the bill or protecting themselves from liability. But one thing we CAN be sure of... if people were paying out-of-pocket, doctors would need to discuss the amount they charge and the necessity of proposed procedures. If that was MY money, I'd have surely said 'no'. But we don't even think about negotiating price and service anymore, and caught unprepared, swept along as I was... it didn't occur to me to do so either.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.

and if Doctor's didn't give you every unecessary test under the sun every time you went to the hospital I wonder what those figures would be...better yet I wonder what the cost of defensive medicine has on tort reform and our overall healthcare system.

I have to get out of here for a few.. but before I go, let me just share my last experience at the ENT's office.

I went in because my ear was itching and giving my a little bit of pain, so I wanted to rule out infection and see if there was maybe something in the ear canal. I had no loss of hearing whatsoever. And yet, they whisked me into a booth, checked it anyway, and billed my insurance company for the service. Meanwhile, all they told me about my ear was that it's probably dry skin.

Now, there's no way to know if they were padding the bill or protecting themselves from liability. But one thing we CAN be sure of... if people were paying out-of-pocket, doctors would need to discuss the amount they charge and the necessity of proposed procedures. If that was MY money, I'd have surely said 'no'. But we don't even think about negotiating price and service anymore, and caught unprepared, swept along as I was... it didn't occur to me to do so either.

Next time go to a Wal-Mart Clinic.

 

[drsmith1072]

This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

LOL
Robert byrd, a legislator righties have been attacking for years and claiming that he is senile and should retire. However, now that he holds a single position that the righties can agree with they all can't wait to prop him up and quote him out of sheer political expediency. LOL

I wonder how many of the posters who thanked the author of this post have attacked and treid to discredit byrd in the past??

 

[drsmith1072]

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

I love how 3 Cons jumped on to thank you for this false information.

Bush tax cuts - Cost 2x+ as much as proposed bill - Passed by reconciliation.

Tax cuts don't "cost" anything, and were passed a part of a budget bill.

Actually NO they weren't part of a budget bill. They were individual bills whose purposes were either to enact, speed up or extend bush's tax cuts.

H.R. 1836 (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001)

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that H.R. 1836 would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period. In addition, the act would increase direct spending by $4 billion in 2001, by $40 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $92 billion over the 2001-2011 period. H.R. 1836 would reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period. Of this total, $2.9 billion would be off-budget and not subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

H.R. 2 (Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 )

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period.

H.R. 4297 (Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 )

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that this legislation will reduce federal revenues by $70.0 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period. In addition, based on information provided by JCT, CBO estimates that the legislation will have no effect on federal spending.

All were passed under reconciliation.

 

[Vanquish]

Murf76, you're interesting, I'll give you that.

It's funny that you joke that we should "socialize" legal care...since we already do! People get a lawyer even if they can't afford one...but they don't get a doctor? And even when their illness will be absorbed by the public at large anyway?

As for reading my source...yes I read it. And it says the figures aren't as great as Obama said (I'm not blindly protecting BO so don't set me up to be one of those partisan hacks. I follow the good ideas that NEITHER SIDE has a 100% lock on!)...but they're not the 3-4% you were whining about earlier.

They're beating earnings expectations. Meanwhile they claim hardship and kick people off the rolls via their leverage to beat earnings even more.

You only believe in Tort reform in "interstate and federal cases."? Why those cases, you've made no argument simply stated an opinion. And surely those cases can't be the only ones causing such a large problem with healthcare as you say.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yes it has...For BUDGET bills, Sally simpleton.

Even Robert Byrd (y'know the guy who AUTHORED reconciliation) knows that using it to ram legislation through goes against it's intended purpose...After all, he made that very point when the dems considered pulling this stunt with Hillarycare.

A health care bill isn't a budget bill? You really are dumber than paint...and that is an insult to paint.

No, it's not a budget bill...It's legislation, Miss Dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers.

and what do you think bush's tax cuts were??

H.R. 1836 (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 )
H.R. 2 (Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 )
H.R. 4297 (Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 )

Nothing but legislation enacting, speeding up, or extending bush's taxcuts and they were passed through reconciliation.

 

[drsmith1072]

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

I keep hearing this accusation from your side, so I'd like to see some proof that insurance companies are arbitrarily denying coverage "because they can". If there is a medical procedure that is considered a medically accepted practice, there is no legal way an insurance company could deny coverage - especially if that procedure is listed in the contract. Now, if there is a new procedure that has not been determined to be medically effective, then the insurance company has the right and fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to deny coverage. There is nothing wrong in that to justify the Left's demonetization of the industry.

All they have to do and have done is look into your medical records and find something that they deem a "pre-existing condition" and then they can deny you coverage for your current ailment.

Blue Cross To Docs: Help Cancel Coverage
Blue Cross To Docs: Help Cancel Coverage - CBS News

 

[EriktheRed]

For the love of God, Erik......This IS What The Nuclear Option Was Set Up For.
Stop your damn spinning on it. Like I said, it has never been used beforeon bills like this, and it wasn't set up for legislating a bill like this.
This is the reason that level headed democrats aren't buying into the reconcilaiation, they understand and you don't.


You wanted the rules, and I've shown you the rules......and it was about budgetary items only, they didn't write anything more broad than that. So if your looking at what's in the 4 borders of the paper, it's not for legistlating the healthcare bill.

What was Medicare Part D?

Please tell us what your talking about, EriK. Cloture on it was invoked by the Senate with a70-29 vote. So please explain what you are asking.

Didn't know that about that part. I always thought it had gone through reconciliation, but I guess that's not the case here. What I was trying to get at, though was the idea that recoconciliation has also been used in the past to get around not having a flibuster-proof majority.

Like Greg Sargent points out in response to Sen. Hatch's op-ed:

* Hatch voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which passed by a simple majority (58-33) via reconciliation.

* Hatch voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, accelerating the Bush tax cuts and adding new ones, which passed by a simple majority via reconciliation — 50-50 in the Senate with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote.

* Hatch voted for the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, reducing Medicaid spending and allowing parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid, which passed by a simple majority (52-47) via reconciliation.

* Hatch voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, extending the Bush tax cuts for some tax brackets, which passed by a simple majority (54-44) via reconciliation.

There's also this:

On April 16, 2001, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took to Fox News to boast about the GOP's first major use of the budget reconciliation process in the Bush-era. "I think we can do a reconciliation bill that'll have an overwhelming number of senators and congresspeople voting for this $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion tax cut," he said.

Today, he has a somewhat different take.

"To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition, President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the "reconciliation" process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can't afford," Hatch writes in a Washington Post op-ed today. "This is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy."

A few quick points on this:

1). The budget reconciliation process is not being considered for a "multi-trillion dollar health-care bill." That bill (which was scored by the Congressional Budget Office at below a trillion dollars) has already passed the Senate under the standard rules. It achieved a supermajority. The House can now pass that bill, and it can go to the President for signature. Reconciliation is only being discussed as an expedited way to amend that bill, without having to contend with an expected GOP filibuster.

2). Hatch says "the Constitution intends the opposite" but the Constitution says nothing about filibusters. It does allow the Senate to make its own rules, and one of the rules the Senate made for itself is the budget reconciliation process.

In 2001 the Republicans did ultimately succeed at using the budget reconciliation process to pass major tax cuts--a deficit busting measure that didn't comply with the reconciliation rules, and sunsets every five years. That reconciliation bill passed with 58 votes, including a handful of Democrats.

 

[beowolfe]

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.

and if Doctor's didn't give you every unecessary test under the sun every time you went to the hospital I wonder what those figures would be...better yet I wonder what the cost of defensive medicine has on tort reform and our overall healthcare system.

I hear people making this arguument, but that has not been my experience with my doctors. I've never felt the tests they were ordering were unnecessary.

Have any of you had the experience where you felt that a test a doctor ordered for you was unnecessary?


PS...I'm no doctor. And I acknowledge that the tests that I didn't think were unnecessary could be due to my lack of medical knowledge.

 

[drsmith1072]

85% of "We the People" are happy with their healthcare, wry.
over 50% of "We the People" do not want this particuliar healthcare bill.

I can't make it any simpler for you, wry. Please take off your partisan glasses for 15 seconds and try to understand what "We the People" really want.

85% are happy? I doubt that, but giving your statistic the benefit of the doubt, that leaves 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Forty-Five Million living in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And that's just fine in you opinion?

Estimates place the number of people without health insurance in 2010 at 52 million.

More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said they're satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.

And nearly three out of four said they're happy with their overall health care coverage.

Poll: Health care costs too expensive, Americans say - CNN.com

It should be noted that many people choose NOT to carry coverage by personal choice. Those that would like coverage have a substantial number who can't pay for it due to unemployment. Even with this legislation, approxiamtely 20 million will still be without insurance plus those that choose to pay the fine and not have it.

It should be noted that you cherry pick what you want to focus on from your link and only present what suits your needs.

"But satisfaction drops to 52 percent when it comes to the amount people pay for their health care, and more than three out of four are dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in the United States."

That is the very next paragraph from your own link. I wonder why you excluded it?? Hmm?

8 out of 10 are satisfied with the "quality" of their coverage which has what to do with the current plans? How do current plans being discussed affect people who already have coverage??

It should also be noted that your poll is almost a year old. Got anything a little more current?