BS: US Health Care Reform

Subject: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 02:05 AM

This thread is dedicated to Americans who want to study the issues attendant to "health care reform" in the United States.

I firmly believe that we have a generational opportunity to effect massive and productive change in the U.S. health care industry - approximately 16% of the US economy. Obama is here with this subject material as his principal goal. He has Democratic control of both houses.

I respectfully request that foreigners continue to provide their thoughts on the relative merits of their own systems to existing threads dedicated to that subject. I suggest that Americans interested in positive change resist responding to input from people who do not understand our system or the substantive issues to be addressed. This is complex subject matter and difficult enough even for us to understand.

As to other disagreements - let loose - have at them. Still, "right versus left," I suggest, is again diversionary and best avoided.

Take your informed opinions to your representatives to your representatives and to the streets.


Here's what I think, rightly or wrongly, in whole or in part:

Single payer is not an option.

A yet to be defined "public option" is one of two components of true Reform. Destruction of the employment-based insurance option which now predominates as a Sacred Cow to powerful interests is the other component. We need at least one, and preferably both, or there will have been no true "reform."

There is an imperfect legislative proposal pending which could accomplish both of those goals. It is called the "Healthy Americans Act" (S. 334), or the Wyden-Bennett Health Reform Plan. Searching "Wyden-Bennett" will provide a wealth of information. It was introduced in January 2007 (S. 334) by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and re-introduced in February 2009 (S. 391), each time with over a dozen co-sponsors from both major parties


I believe the Democrats have avoiding confronting the employee benefits related industries and therefore have shifted this proposal to the side. The Republicans, for the same obvious reason, won't call them out on it.

In a July 1, 2009 interview, Obama said he agreed with "with '90 percent' of Wyden's thinking" but called HAA "radical" : The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system." A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."

I say we shouldn't allow "significant political resistance" to force us into a trillion dollar mistake that allows massive cost shifting, regressive taxation, and extraordinarily expensive efficiencies to continue.

I believe that any "reform" legislation that is passed without either a public option or an option to free employees and competitors and true innovators from employment-based coverage is not reform at all, but mere incrementalism not worthy of a "reform" title.

Here is a primer on Wyden-Bennett

Decide what YOU want Congress to do.

Good luck to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 03:16 AM

Single Payer:

"Single-payer health insurance operates by arranging the payment of services to doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single source established and managed by government."

"The "public option," a new government insurance program akin to Medicare..."

So, tell me. Just what is the difference here? I don't understand it.

Incidently, I am from Oregon and I have admired Ron Wyden for years. Long before he ran for office he was deeply involved in senior citizen issues. The man does his homework.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:54 AM

What are the chances that a bill that would have the effect of dismantling employer based insurance would ever be passed? They're calling for Obama to be shot just for suggesting the public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:20 AM

Ebbie, I don't see where Heric mentioned Medicare. None of the various "public option" plans that has surfaced would have any resemblence to Medicare at all - they are all "pools" of one sort or another.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:42 AM

When Obama said he can't get support for single payerI think he meant one huge government program to achieve universal access. The term single payer lives on in the debate, I think, out of confusion or an intent to confuse. I see the public option as a much smaller government backed / guaraneeted and government run safety net, even if they sbcontract out much of the operations.

Chances that a bill to free us from the yoke of employment based insurance would have huge opposition. The industry players (NOT the health care providers) shot it down before take-off, and now they are destroying the rest of "reform." If we're going to lay down and die without evem a push for this simple, efficient path to a sensible system, people should at least know that's what we're doing.

The current path to a multi-agency inefficient expansion of our current system underfunded by a trillion dollars or so and with no public option is a sad substitute for real reform.

Wyden-Bennett has "FEHBA For All," as its benefits package, with broad (huge) insurance pools and community rating, on standardized procedures for efficency, and at far better prices than what's forced on you by an employer's choice of plans. A LOT of paper-pushers will be forced to find new employment in productive pursuits. Almost all of the poor are subsidzied for the mandatory coverage, with some Medicaid / public option remaining as the safety net.

It is relatively simple and provides freedom. The voting public should be given the opportunity to reject it, rather than the industry lobbyists. People are always screaming that they want what federal employees (including Congress) get. Well, here it is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:56 AM

Art in my mind the public option is the final safety net where the various pools have failed to achieve their intended effect, since nothing's perfect. I think having it as a department within Medicare and run by DHHS is a perfect location for it. It's eligibility would tailored to the still-underseved populations, maybe states that aren't running their programs up to standard, or, if employment based insurance still lives, it will be a backstop for people who still get screwed by that system. It's Medicare-For-All-Who-Need-It. The only people in it are people who would be VERY glad for its availability (without their having to be unemployed AND destitute and selling the family house or farm) and a very popular program with people wishing they could get into it. If they end up there because of bad behavior by insurers then government recovery specialists go after the insurer, instead of a sick person in financial crisis who has almost no rights anyway under emploer-provided insurance.

Wyden-Bennet is (deliberately?) vague on that subject and that's laregely where negotiations and debate need to take place.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:57 AM

I think there is one big difference. Congress gets it paid for by the taxpayer.

However, of what is available, Wyden-Bennet may be the least worst option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:44 PM

And everyone making four times poverty level gets it paid in whole or in part by the taxpayer, plus, healthy/wealthy and their employers don't get to self-select themselves into inexpensive programs at low costs, and those with pre-existing or chronic conditions don't get thrown out of the pool into shitsville. If you want fancier insurance then you go out and get it, after you have met your basic obligations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:48 PM

I have not folowed the debate in detail, but surely one of the Obama plan's problems is that although it makes it compulsory for all to pay (with some cost support) those who do not will still be uninsured. That was the position as I understood it during the presidential election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:05 PM

The biggest source of the uninsured in the situation you describe are those in (or just out of) the workforce and not eligible for public support. This plan cleans up that mess far more effectively than America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. (H.R. 3200) where all of the screaming is now directed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:11 PM

. . . and this plan doesn't touch Medicare benefits so seniors would have no concerns. That underfunding crisis could be left for another day.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:25 PM

. . . and this plan doesn't shuffle costs off onto future generations (although its "safety net" / public option features need modification) so those who profess fiscal ethics as a focus would have no (or few) legitimate concerns.

The insurers and other big players are not playing nicely in the current negotiations. Force this on them.

FEHBA for all is sitting there like an apple on a shelf right in front of us.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 02:09 PM

Current, rather than historic, funding has been a feature of funded plans for a long time. It moves costs between current payers, rather than along the lifetime of a single insured. In that respect, it is characteristic of insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:28 PM

Heavy lifting which explains why Wyden (and the others) did what they did, to include high administrative costs, inequitable sharing of costs, inability to cover large segments of the population, and the inability of employers to make health care more cost-effective:


Sara Collins, "Whither Employer-Based Health Insurance?" Commonwealth Fund: 2007

Sherry Glied and Bisundev Mahato, "The Widening Health Care Gap between High- an

Reinhardt, "Employer-Based Health Insurance: A Balance Sheet." Health Affairs:

Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, "Paying for National Health Insurance

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:31 PM

Crap the first two links don't work. Anyone who cares can google them, then click on the .pdf link to read the full article.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:15 PM

Sorry to make it personal, CarolC, but doesn't Wyden-Bennett solve all of your problems, and those of any person you could name?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:30 PM

I haven't had time to read all of the material posted so far about Wyden-Bennett. It definitely sounds promising from what I've read so far. But when the phrase "would end employer based insurance" is used, I find myself wondering how I might argue in its favor with people who really like their employer based insurance. And if I can't convince the people I know who like their employer based insurance that Wyden-Bennett would be better for them, and knowing that a lot of people who like their current coverage are listening to and believing the lies that the insurance industry is spreading, the question I'm asking myself is, how will we get it passed?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:33 PM

Perhaps someone who currently has employer based insurance, and who supports Wyden-Bennett, would like to talk about why they feel this bill would be better than what they currently have through their employer. That might give me some material to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:40 PM

Would somebody please tell me why a national healthcare scheme is held likely to destroy private healthcare, and employer based healthcare?


HELLO! It hasn't happened anywhere else that a national scheme exists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:41 PM

Richard Bridge: Congress doesn't get their insurance paid for by the taxpayers any more than any other government employee does, and the government pays about the same percentage of their insurance as does any other large employer.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:41 PM

Since the purpose of this thread is to discuss what IS on offer, I will not set out my concerns about a privatised but reformed system vis-a-vis Kucinich's single payer system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:55 PM

That would be me for one, and, number one, it's fair, number two, insead of eliminating unspecified waste in Medicare it has real and obvious savings by eliminating waste in employee benefits paperwork processing and sales and incompatibility, and eliminates "waste" in the form of tax subsidies to corporations to provide fancier coverage for employees at the high end, number three, I will always know that I can afford insurance even if I lose my job, at rates that are far less than COBRA, and subsidized all the way to free if I am really strapped, number 5, if I should get some condition I will have free range of employment to choose from, and number 6, I will not be exposed to cost-shifting wherever it can be snuck in (such as when I have been screwed by my employer's chosen insurer.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM

Those look like good arguments to me. When I get some time, I'll read through the material that's been posted so far.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 06:57 PM

Oh oh. Wyden is already moving forward. I just went to his website and saw his "Free Choice Proposal," which says "While health reform shouldn't blow up the current employer-based system. . . . "

I don't understand it yet. Damn it's hard to keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:07 PM

I think it's okay. He still prominently displays the Healthy Americans Act

I guess he's doing what he has to do. Since he is the one making the most sense so far I'm sticking with him.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM

Here's his statement on the floor, 6/16/09. He's staying with the principles, and the proposed legislation is still there on the shelf. It is a contender and it should not be abandoned:

Real health reform means changing the way business is done in the private insurance market. It means, Mr. President, an end to insurance company cherry-picking, where the companies take the healthy people and send the sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. That's wrong, and this Congress – Democrats and Republicans – will make it illegal. Real reform means everyone is guaranteed coverage by their choice of insurer. Under a new system, insurance companies must be required to cover all comers and they'd be required to price with fairness so you don't get discriminated against because of your gender or your health status or your age. It means that you no longer will be denied coverage or charged more because you were sick years ago or you might be sick five years from now.   

Real health reform guarantees that all Americans can choose their doctor and their health plan. As the President said yesterday, real reform will give every American access to the insurance exchange where they can choose to keep the care they have or pick a better plan that meets their families' needs. That means if you like the care you have – you can keep it. But it also means that if you don't like the care you have – you can reject it. You can reject it and choose a better plan.   Real reform will not only cover the uninsured but it will make the lives of all those who have insurance coverage better. Right now the majority of Americans, Mr. President, who are lucky enough to have employer coverage get no choice. I believe – and the President said it yesterday - those Americans deserve choice too.   

Now, some might say that this undermines the employer-based system. No, it doesn't. Rather, it makes the employer-based system more accountable at the same time that it makes health care more portable.   Real health reform means that if you leave your job or your job leaves you, you don't lose your health care coverage. . . .

Real reform takes an axe to administrative costs. Americans ought to sign up just once for health care. They ought to have their premiums taken from withholdings so they don't have to worry about making payments. They ought to go into larger, efficient groups so they are no longer left on their own on what can often be a cruel individual market. In today's non-system, people are an afterthought to the self-perpetuating bureaucracy of medical billing, reimbursement fights, coverage fights, and outright fraud. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:15 PM

Here's a guy in the New York Times on 8.25.09 who says we should still support HAA even if toned down a bit by the "Free Choice Proposal." Real Choice? It's Off Limits in Health Bills

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 10:37 PM

Here are some problems:
1. The Democrats won't allow any limit on malpractice awards, and malpractice insurance payments drive costs up dramatically.
2. There is no guarantee that illegal aliens won't eventually be covered under a federal plan. Previous posters call that "small potatoes," but Obama wants to introduce a program to allow illegals a "path to citizenship." We did this in 1986 with three million illegals at the time. That caused the numbers to jump to 20 million today, which means we could be looking at another 140 million in 2032. Congressman Heller offered an amendment in committee that would have prevented illegal aliens from accessing the system, and the committe voted it down, so the tax payers have every reason to conclude that the Democrats intend to make political hay out of insuring illegals for votes.
3. This is a question: Do any of the plans provide educational opportunities for young people to follow the medical profession? In the past, the AMA has tried to control the number of students entering medical school--these opportunities should include nurses and nurse-practioners.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 10:41 PM

So it would be better to let tens of thousands of legal residents in the US die every year in order to insure that no illegals will derive any benefit from our health care system, is that it? Because that's what it boils down to if we don't have health care reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:00 PM

1. Section 712 pays States to enact malpractice reform.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111z4TDLf:e195267:
2. Bennett has supported tighter immigration control. He voted in favor of the fence, making English the nation's official language, and denying citizenship rights to guest workers. He voted to uphold the legalization of nonimmigrant guest worker status.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Robert_Bennett.htm
3. Section 713(b) provides funding assistance for the training of health care providers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111z4TDLf:e195267:

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:25 AM

"So it would be better to let tens of thousands of legal residents in the US die every year in order to insure that no illegals will derive any benefit from our health care system, is that it?"

               I think it's a mistake to assume that the American tax payer is so stupid that he/she is going to be motivated by TV advertising more than by simple mathmatical exercises that they can easily make for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:29 AM

heric - I don't think Senator Bennett's attitude on illegal immigration is really relevant here. I couldn't get the last item--the one about trainging--to open. Can that be checked out?         Thanks,

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:32 AM

Well, the simple mathmatical exercise that I have easily made for myself is that there are two people in my household who need medical care and who don't have it because of pre-existing conditions. Both of us are legal residents. So my reality is that if we don't enact health care reform just because we don't want to give health care to people who are here illegally, my husband and I could die prematurely just so we could be sure that no money gets spent on illegal aliens.

Sounds incredibly stupid to me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:40 AM

(the last item is actually the same as the first item, but scroll down - It doesn't say how much they are going to give anyone.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:56 AM

Quite a number of jurists across the world would say that the US courts' measures of damages are out of whack in a number of respcts. The US system has muddled up the compensatory nature of damages with the punitive nature of penalties. That's really a different debate.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 09:16 AM

Not when you consider that a one of a doctors largest expenses is malpractice insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:49 AM

But it encourages malpractice reform, has some incentives to encourage entry into the health care field, and doesn't open the floodgates (or Bennett would protest), so sign up Mr. Riginslinger for the real reform that the lobbyists don't want you to have.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:52 AM

heric - It's tort reform that the trial lawyers don't want you to have.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:10 AM

John Edwards Files Lawsuit against OB/GYN

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Former Senator and Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards today filed a lawsuit against the doctor who delivered Rielle Hunter's baby girl. Hunter, who was hired to perform some Internet-related consulting for the Edwards campaign, had an affair with the former Senator, according to the Edwards' admission.

In the lawsuit, Edwards charges the physicians with gross negligence in allowing Hunter to deliver a healthy baby. "I could feel in every follicle of my finely blow-dried hair that this baby did not want to create a scandal," said Edwards in a written statement. "In fact, I could channel the baby's thoughts for months. What kind of doctor would permit such a tragedy to persist under these circumstances?"

Edwards is asking for $50 million dollars, plus an undisclosed amount that is believed to be equal to payments to Hunter.

Edwards would not give an interview about this lawsuit. However, a supporter of Edwards, who would only give his name as "Bubby," said that "We all know how Rielle was passed around more than conspiracy theories at a nut, er, netroot convention. This is why Democrats stand for more government involvement in health care. It is all the fault of Bush's policies to allow these doctors to act in an unrestricted manner.

"Heck, Hillary had her husband Bill on her side. What else did you expect John Edwards to do? Besides, John knew that Elizabeth would be OK with it. After all, he channeled her thoughts also."


Posted by Isophorone at 12:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Emma B
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:21 AM

"I think it's a mistake to assume that the American tax payer is so stupid that he/she is going to be motivated by TV advertising more than by simple mathmatical exercises that they can easily make for themselves."

Riginslinger, if that's true just why is such an obscene ammount of money being spent on advertizing - as I asked on another thread on
30 Aug 09 - 01:07 PM

may I quote from
'An Urgent Message From the League of American Voters'

"The message I have for you today is simple: we must stop Obama Care and we CANNOT let our guard down.

Just over two weeks ago the League of American Voters launched its national campaign to stop Obama Care.

In short order, our powerful ad featuring a respected medical doctor exposing the dangers of Obama Care have supporters of the Obama plan reeling.

We must continue this battle.

As I write this, the League has to firm up its TV ad buys for the next two weeks. We have already raised over $1.3 million. But we need to raise $5 million to kill off Obama Care.

P.S. The New York Times reported that liberal groups backing Obama Care are outspending groups like ours 3 to 1. Yet we are still winning the war of public opinion. This means when the public finds out the truth, they are siding with us. We just need to keep doing our work and getting our ads out"

and on such dishonest ads like the one featuring the Canadian woman, Shona Holmes?

RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:39 PM

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:11 PM

This weekend I watched again the old Jimmy Stewart movie, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. The tactics of the corrupt senators who quashed the support of Smith back home and manipulated the media is so clearly a picture of what is happening now with health care reform legislation.

The actual support for a public option from independents and republicans is higher than the "town hall" images show.

"According to a national Quinnipiac poll in August, 40% of Republicans and 64% of independents support the public option. In Iowa, the latest Des Moines Register poll showed 36% of Republicans and 56% of independents. For context, 36% of Senate Republicans would be 14 votes -- huge "bipartisanship."" from PCCC

Here is a video created to reach those in DC and Iowa featuring a Republican Iowan who supports the public option:
A Republican in Iowa speaks out.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:00 PM

Support for Health Care Legislation Has Stopped Falling, But Most Still Opposed

As August winds down, the good news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is that support for their proposed health care legislation has stopped falling. The bad news is that most voters oppose the plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed. Those figures are virtually identical to results from two weeks ago .

As has been true since the debate began, those opposed to the congressional overhaul feel more strongly about the legislation than supporters. Forty-three percent (43%) now Strongly Oppose the legislation while 23% Strongly Favor it. Those figures, too, are similar to results from earlier in August.

While supporters of the reform effort say it is needed to help reduce the cost of health care, 52% of voters believe it will have the opposite effect and lead to higher costs. Just 17% believe the plans now in Congress will reduce costs. This is a critical point at a time when voters see deficit reduction as more important than health care reform .

Additionally, by a 50% to 23% margin, voters believe the proposed reforms would make the quality of care worse rather than better. Voter skepticism of Congress remains high. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently penned an article advocating health care reform, but most voters were skeptical about the benefits they claim would result from its passage . (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 .

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters believe that passage of the legislation is still at least somewhat likely. Forty-one percent (41%) say it's not likely. Those figures include just 17% who say it is Very Likely and nine percent (9%) who say it is Not at All Likely, leaving the vast majority of voters somewhere in between.

Obama's job approval ratings as measured in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll have slipped in August as the health care debate has moved to center stage. So has support for congressional Democrats . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's national unfavorable ratings have jumped to new highs .

Congress returns from its recess on September 8, and Democratic congressional leaders have vowed to pass some form of the health care plan when they return to Washington. Many town hall meetings held by congressmen have turned into protest sessions, and congressional leaders are considering procedural steps for Democrats to pass the bill on their own. If Democrats can agree on a plan that would not attract any Republican votes, 24% believe they should pass that legislation . Most (58%) say they should change the bill to attract a reasonable number of Republican votes in Congress.

It might be a challenge to win GOP votes in Congress because 87% of Republican voters around the country oppose the current legislation. That figure includes 74% who are Strongly Opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 55% oppose the legislation including 47% who Strongly Oppose it.

Among Democrats, 75% support the plan including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings , 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they've been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

One reason the town hall protests have become so intense is that just 22% of voters believe Congress has a good understanding of the health care legislation .

The latest tracking survey was conducted over two nights, the nights before and after news reports covering the death of Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy. Some advocates of reform have suggested that his passing might become a rallying point for the legislation. However, support for the legislation before and after Kennedy's death was virtually identical. Among the public, there was no increase in support or opposition.

Last summer , 50% of voters nationwide had a favorable opinion of Kennedy while 45% had an unfavorable view. Like the health care reform he championed to the end, Democrats gave Kennedy rave reviews. He was viewed favorably by 79% of those in his own party and unfavorably by 77% of Republicans. Opinions among those not affiliated with either major party was more divided: 44% favorable and 49% unfavorable.

Ironically, as Congress has debated reforms to the U.S. health care system, Americans have begun to show greater confidence in that system . Forty-eight percent (48%) of adults now say the health care system is good or excellent, and only 19% say it's poor.

In a Wall Street Journal column , Scott Rasmussen notes that "the most important fundamental [in the health care debate] is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent." Rasmussen, the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports, explains that "in political terms, the most important reality will be how the reform affects the 68% who say they have good or excellent health insurance coverage. If they end up having to change their coverage, pay significantly higher taxes or encounter some other unpleasant reality, congressional Democrats will look back on this August as a time when they should have listened more closely to the folks back home."

 ©2008 Rasmussen Reports Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:22 PM

yeah strongly support or oppose "it."

It being sewing on new appendages to the Frankenstein.

"It" will raise costs and increase waste (while providing more care to more people, with continued inequities.)

Tell the people to opine on the Wyden Bennett legislation to free them from the yoke and the paternalistic corporate control of their health benefits. It's not radical in the least. It's basic freedom of choice with funding of equalized premiums for ALL.

Here's a 19 page section by section description of the entire proposed legislation translated into plain English.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:31 PM

Nate Silver's web site, fivethirtyeight.com, is excellent in putting polls into an understandable and accurate perspective.

Poll: Most Don't Know What "Public Option" Is -- Including Pollsters
"...This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they're asking the questions. ..."
CLICK HERE

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:33 PM

Oh here you go, rig: Section 123 prevents illegal aliens from receiving subsidy payments and requires legal aliens to particpate in the premiums.

What Medicaid does with those people is whatever Medicaid does.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:33 PM

Frankly, I'm surprised the opposition has stopped falling. It must be due to advertising on the part of the Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:38 PM

also from the article at fivethirtyeight.com that I linked above...

"More generally, there seems to be a sort of arm's-race on both sides of the debate to conduct crappy, manipulative polls on health care reform, and the public option in particular. This [internet based] poll belongs in the 'crap' pile, as do most of the others. Defenders of the public option, however, should have little to fret about: the most neutrally and accurately-worded polls on the public option -- these are the ones from Quinnipiac and Time/SRBI -- suggest that their position is in the majority, with 56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option and 33-36 percent opposed."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM

There would be less leeway for this problem to occur if anyone knew what the public option is and whether it is essential or negotiable.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:05 PM

Good point, heric!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:57 PM

That is part of the point made in the article I linked to. People generally don't understand what "public option" means.