Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76088)	12/9/2009 11:09:16 AM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224707

Health Care Reform 41% Favor Health Care Plan, 51% Oppose Monday, December 07, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement The Senate worked through the weekend on its version of the national health care bill, with President Obama stopping by for a rare Sunday visit, but for the second week in a row, only 41% of U.S. voters favor the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% oppose the plan. And as has been the case for months, the emotion’s on the sign of the naysayers: 40% Strongly Oppose the plan, while just 23% Strongly favor it. Support for the president’s health care plan fell to 38%, its lowest ever, just before Thanksgiving. Followed by two weeks at 41%, this marks the lowest extended period of support for the plan yet. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it. “This suggests that public opinion about the health care plan is hardening,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Despite the fact that most American believe our health care system needs major changes, most are opposed to what Congress is currently doing about it.” Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis, with updated findings released each Monday morning. (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. The Senate is expected to take up the abortion issue as part of its health care debate this week. Earlier polling shows that 48% nationwide want abortion coverave banned in the health care bill, while just 13% want such coverage mandated in the legislation. Both the Senate and the House have Democratic majorities, which explains why both keep pushing on health care despite consistent public opposition. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 83% of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed to it. Democrats consistently have rated health care reform as the most important of the priorities listed by the president early in his term. Republicans and unaffiliated voters say cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term is the president's highest priority. Fifty-two percent (52%) of all voters now say it is at least somewhat likely that the health care plan will become law this year, while 37% believe that is unlikely to happen. Seventeen percent (17%) think passage is Very Likely, but nine percent (9%) say it’s Not At All Likely. That’s one reason why 71% of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That’s up five points from September. The overall figure includes 46% who are Very Angry. While one of the chief stated goals of the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats is to lower the cost of health care, 57% say costs will go up if the plan is passed. Twenty-one percent (21%) say costs will go down, and 17% believe they will stay about the same. Similarly, only 23% think the quality of health care will get better if the plan is passed, while 54% predict that it will get worse. Sixteen percent (16%) expect quality to stay about the same. Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs. Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide believe passage of the health care plan will increase the deficit. Seventy-five percent (75%) also think it is at least somewhat likely that middle class taxes will have to be raised to cover the cost of the plan. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say such a tax increase is Very Likely. Only 27% favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. Althoough most Americans oppose the health care legislation working its way through Congress, 42% of voters say the federal government should be addressing health care reform. Twenty-three percent (23%) prefer to see reforms at the state government level, while 17% want both the state and federal government to get into the act. Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76088)	12/9/2009 12:32:16 PM
From: tonto	6 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224707

Kenneth, this blizzard is something else...and Lake Michigan waves are splashing against our retaining wall...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76088)	12/14/2009 4:10:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224707

Health Care Deal in the Senate? 09 Dec 2009 10:51 am A lot of outlets are reporting a deal along the following lines: Medicare buy-in for those 55 or over, some sort of non-profit quasi-public option overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, and a trigger for the public option that is arguably very unlikely to ever kick in. With Ben Nelson's abortion amendment voted down, and Nelson saying he won't vote for a bill without very similar language, a workable compromise on a public option substitute is necessary to get the 60 votes they need. But Lieberman just sent out the following press release: -------------------- "I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus on proposals to send to the Congressional Budget Office to review. I believe that it is important to pass legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt. "My opposition to a government-run insurance option, including any option with a trigger, has been clear for months and remains my position today. "Regarding the 'Medicare buy-in' proposal that is being discussed, we must remain vigilant about protecting and extending the solvency of the program, which is now in a perilous financial condition. "It is my understanding that at this point there is no legislative language so I look forward to analyzing the details of the plan and reviewing analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid." ----------------------------------------- To me, that reads like nothing with a public option trigger is going to pass. But perhaps I am not understanding the exotic subtleties of Congress-speak. The meat of this proposal is obviously the Medicare expansion. Like the now-discarded "co-op" idea, the non-profits suffer from one obvious flaw: someone else has to decide to put capital into starting them up. Starting an insurance company is not something you do with a $500,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, especially not on a national scale. And it's not clear why you would want to--there's no profit opportunity, and I suspect that the onerous regulation is going to make it look relatively unattractive to philanthropists who would have to concentrate a really significant chunk of their charitable giving on making one of these things work. Is this enough to make a deal? It still looks to me like either Lieberman or the public option nuts have to blink. And for all their obsession with an increasingly watered down proposal, my money's on the public option afficionadoes. At the end of the day, they want these deals more than I think Lieberman does. meganmcardle.theatlantic.com Comments (14) Ravi Nagarajan December 9, 2009 11:19 AM This "deal" is mind boggling in terms of how it is being covered as a rollback of the public option. A massive expansion of Medicare to those between 55 and 64 years of age is obviously a "public option" for millions of Americans and, even if premiums are higher, I doubt they will be high enough to fully offset the cost. Therefore, we are taking an already teetering system and making matters worse. Furthermore, the proposal to have the Office of Personnel Management oversee a quasi-public option is just a public option in another form. The obvious flaw regarding start-up capital is a very valid one ... and I think it is more likely than not that a national plan would have to be offered once the non-profit route fails. It seems to me that a great deal of clarity could be achieved if the left simply admits that they would like to see a single payer system eventually and are moving towards that with Medicare expansion. Conservatives can then make the case for a regulated free market using today's system as the starting point. All of these half measures do nothing other than to muddy the waters. If the left wants a single payer national system, why are they unwilling to say so? Ann (Replying to: Ravi Nagarajan) December 9, 2009 11:38 AM "if the left simply admits that they would like to see a single payer system eventually and are moving towards that with Medicare expansion" Exactly! The arguments for the public option never make sense. If the public plan won't be subsidized, then it's not really adding anything. Far more could be achieved if the federal government stopped allowing restrictions on sales of health insurance plans across State lines, thus expanding competition. The public option only makes sense if the public plan will be subsidized, explicitly or implicitly (by imposing crippling regulations only on private plans), in order to move towards a government monopoly. It's frightening how often we hear liberal politicians talking about the importance of competition as justification for a public option, since the only true 'competition' is from a government entity with special privileges. A level playing field can never bring about the right kind of competition, since it's not rigged to guarantee the politician's preferred outcome. Fannie and Freddie worked so well that we're bringing the same approach to health care, but this time we'll make sure that Fannie Med eventually drives out all the others. meganmcardle.theatlantic.com