Poll: Majority In U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform By Wide Margin

[cubby1223]

^^^
Is either party objective? C'mon now, use some common sense.

Healthcare is a Democrat plan and will always be a Democrat plan. They have the votes, and past experience says they have zero interest in bipartisanship, even if the Repubs were willing.

So yes, it's a Democrat Health Plan. But is the flow chart wrong?

 

[senseamp]

The Repubs are not willing, that's the problem. They don't want to shape a plan, they want to block one.

 

[sportage]

THis may be the last fight. Chance.
People need to contact their reps in congress to resist lobbyist efforts to derail UHC.

Btw, its not looking too good.
(from) the Washington Post)

Drug Makers Score Early Wins as Plan Takes Shape

WASHINGTON -- The pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to "take on" during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul.

Legislation expected soon in the powerful Senate Finance Committee will leave out cost-cutting steps as part of an agreement with the industry and the White House, according to Congressional aides, industry lobbyists and others involved in the talks.

The missing items include two planks of Mr. Obama's campaign platform: allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada and giving the federal government the right to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Meanwhile, a separate Senate committee voted this week as part of its health bill to give branded biotechnology drugs at least 12 years of market exclusivity, a defeat for makers of cheaper copycat medicines. "This is the best year the drug industry has had in decades," said Nancy LeaMond of AARP, the seniors' lobby, which is seeking greater price-cutting on drugs.

If UHC, and I mean realistic UHC is not passed. And if things remain as they are today as to American healthcare, I predict by the year 2015 70% of all American's will have NO healthcare in any form. Employed or not.

And the few 30% that will have some type of healthcare, will only qualify for coverage as long as they never actually use it. And if they should need it, they will be forced out by adjusting costs, and thus soon join the 70% uncovered American's.

 

[Timorous]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

Britain is not a model by which you are going to convince anyone to adopt more government control of anything. Huge income taxes plus incredibly high VAT, cameras everywhere, tight gun control, the list goes on. That's not what America is about. America is about freedom and you don't have that in Europe. Freedom to make the right choices and live well and freedom to make the wrong choices and run into problems. You need a stable government to give limited support in times of trouble but some want the government to do everything for them. If they want that then they should be free to move. But America was not founded for those people.

Our NHS is OK. My family have never had any problems with it and it seems to work pretty well. There are defiantly problems with it and I am sure if you dig around you will find horror stores about it but the same could be said for the American system.

Our taxes are fairly high but I do not think they are as high as you believe them to be. Say I earned £66,500 (this is about 3x our national average so it is a fairly comfortable wage) I would pay about £23,000 in tax and national insurance if I had no tax credits to take out. This would be about 34% of my income and is a fairly large amount but I do not know how it compares to what you pay in America when you include Federal and State income tax. Bear in mind this includes my health insurance each year and even assuming all 11% of the National Insurance was for the NHS it would mean I paid £6,600 for health insurance.

So lets take that £6,600 figure as our medical insurance. For the same amount of money can you get the following in the USA?
Visit any hospital at any time for any reason without any additional costs to consult the doctor.
Visit your GP as many times as you need each year with no additional cost.
Get your medication at a subsidised price (£7.50)
Get your dental care subsidised (current top bracket is £100 but there are lower ones if you dont need as much work and a check up is £15)

From what I have read on the American system you are limited to what hospitals you can go to because not all hospitals are covered by all insurers. If you have an accident and are picked up in an ambulance and taken to the closest A&E but this particular A&E is not one that deals with your insurance company what exactly happens after they have treated any life threatening problems? (I really want to know so some feedback would be great)

In the UK we have none of those issues. I do not have to worry about filling in form xyz and I do not have to worry about the cost of treatment.

The last A&E I had was after an accident I had on my push bike. I came off and suffered some short term memory loss. I went to the A&E and due to the nature of my injury I saw a doctor within 10 minutes of arriving at the hospital. He did some tests and gave me an information packet and said that if I had any of the symptoms on the sheet I should come back in straight away.

I have never understood how health care can be provided by for profit companies. These two goals are at odds. To maximise your profit for your shareholders you need to make sure you can retrieve as much cash as possible from your customers but when they need any of that back you have to try and find a way to deny them coverage. If you do not do this then you are breaking the law because you are not maximising the shareholder value.
So for the CEO to do his job within the law he has to deny as many people as possible. How does this reconcile with providing good coverage for the customer?

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I know I don't.

If you don't understand it, why are you against it?

Or - since no one understands it why be for it? What's the rush? What I've read is mostly gibberish. You explain it in plain language to us!

Plain English:

Money is involved.
Hospitals and Doctors are involved.
Some people have ailments.
Working together we treat those ailments.
Everybody wins.

(I couldn't resist I just wanted to write that so badly)

Thanks! Now I'm convinced - let's do this, and NOW! Another government run program is just what we need ....

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So the American public want all the tests and treatments and they want it cheap and everyone covered. I want a big home, lots of time off and to point to any car I like and take it. Are the Dems more likely to meet these needs?

Most people would like to see health care reform. What many are suspicious of are free lunches. There won't be any. You will either pay more or get less or perhaps both.

Politicians and their minions need to stop lying

Funny how other countries pay less and get more.

And funny how the CBO director testified yesterday that the plan currently proposed won't save us anything; in fact, it will end up costing us much more $$. And it's not like we've got some huge budget surplus to pay for this plan either. I started a thread about the CBO testimony, but Red buried it in some other thread.

 

[AndrewR]

a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year

Ah, yes, leave it to a partisan hack to ignore the other salient aspect to the poll.

If you had to choose, which goal of healthcare reform would you say is more important -- expanding healthcare coverage to include nearly all Americans or controlling healthcare costs in the U.S. today?

52% Controlling costs
42% Expanding coverage

Still think that Americans are clamoring for the Obama plan? A MAJORITY of Americans want to lower the costs, not institute universal healthcare, in the very poll you cite as a slam dunk for the Obama plan.

Anyone have any polls which ask the question, "Are you favor of healthcare reform which increases your taxes?" Or, how about, "Would you support a healthcare reform package which expands healthcare coverage but does not address underlying cost factors to healthcare such as medical malpractice insurance or litigation costs?"

jpeyton: Get rid of the VA first. Why do our troops get socialized health care?

Because many of them served until retirement under the promise of healthcare for life, and many others suffered wounds or injuries as a direct result of military service. The VA needs to be reformed drastically, not cut. Let's curb Medicare costs if anything.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Extelleron
life is better for the most part when government is not involved.

I'll try to remember that as I go through my daily routine...

...drinking water from my government run watershed/utility

...living in my government zoned neighborhood

...driving down government paved roads and highways

...riding on government run public transportation

...attending government run primary and secondary schools

...protected by government run police and fire departments

The federal government provides your water?

The federal government zoned your neighborhood?

The federal government paved the road in front of your house?

The federal government runs your local buses?

The federal government runs your local schools?

The federal government runs your local fire and police?

Funny, the only common thread I see is that the federal government does NONE of those things. Quality government services come from local people who can be held accountable because they live next door. The federal government gives us NCLB, the Iraq war and trillion dollar deficits because it's a bunch of wealthy elitists who believe they were born to be royalty.

The best government is that which is closest to those it represents. Washington DC only represents itself.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So the American public want all the tests and treatments and they want it cheap and everyone covered. I want a big home, lots of time off and to point to any car I like and take it. Are the Dems more likely to meet these needs?

Most people would like to see health care reform. What many are suspicious of are free lunches. There won't be any. You will either pay more or get less or perhaps both.

Politicians and their minions need to stop lying

Funny how other countries pay less and get more.

And other countries make less than here. Guess what? This isn't Sweden.

Yet they have a higher standard of living. Funny how that works. Its not all about $ signs.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So the American public want all the tests and treatments and they want it cheap and everyone covered. I want a big home, lots of time off and to point to any car I like and take it. Are the Dems more likely to meet these needs?

Most people would like to see health care reform. What many are suspicious of are free lunches. There won't be any. You will either pay more or get less or perhaps both.

Politicians and their minions need to stop lying

Funny how other countries pay less and get more.

And other countries make less than here. Guess what? This isn't Sweden.

Yet they have a higher standard of living. Funny how that works. Its not all about $ signs.

They also have an unsustainable socialist society which is slowly going bankrupt. Also, if someone can afford the best medical care in the world, they are typically taking a flight to the United States, not Stockholm.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

Britain is not a model by which you are going to convince anyone to adopt more government control of anything. Huge income taxes plus incredibly high VAT, cameras everywhere, tight gun control, the list goes on. That's not what America is about. America is about freedom and you don't have that in Europe. Freedom to make the right choices and live well and freedom to make the wrong choices and run into problems. You need a stable government to give limited support in times of trouble but some want the government to do everything for them. If they want that then they should be free to move. But America was not founded for those people.

You don't have to fashion you're whole Society after them if all you want is their HealthCare.

However, isn't the healthcare model a reflection of the society? I think if you move to a UHC model, then that is a fundamental change in American society. It would involve more acceptance of government than ever before. And by bringing in UHC, you will be forced to bring along higher taxes, whether through a huge increase in income taxes or a national sales tax, and it will pave the way for more "reform" in other areas of life. I'm not going to be a conspiracy theorist but let's face it, life is better for the most part when government is not involved. There is too much corruption and there are far too many special interest groups. Like I said earlier, Obama and Congress could bring forth legislation that would work to cut through malpractice costs, greatly reducing the cost of care. But he can't/won't do that because he has to give interest groups what they want - not what is best for the people.

Contradicted yourself. Oh wait..neither option works. Time to rethink it all

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year

Ah, yes, leave it to a partisan hack to ignore the other salient aspect to the poll.

If you had to choose, which goal of healthcare reform would you say is more important -- expanding healthcare coverage to include nearly all Americans or controlling healthcare costs in the U.S. today?

52% Controlling costs
42% Expanding coverage

Still think that Americans are clamoring for the Obama plan? A MAJORITY of Americans want to lower the costs, not institute universal healthcare, in the very poll you cite as a slam dunk for the Obama plan.

Anyone have any polls which ask the question, "Are you favor of healthcare reform which increases your taxes?" Or, how about, "Would you support a healthcare reform package which expands healthcare coverage but does not address underlying cost factors to healthcare such as medical malpractice insurance or litigation costs?"

jpeyton: Get rid of the VA first. Why do our troops get socialized health care?

Because many of them served until retirement under the promise of healthcare for life, and many others suffered wounds or injuries as a direct result of military service. The VA needs to be reformed drastically, not cut. Let's curb Medicare costs if anything.

Pay as you go systems will always be screwed up.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

About as brilliant as you are.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Talk about a mandate; this poll demolishes the idea that the public will oppose health care reform legislation from Obama and the Democrats. Quite the opposite, it paints a picture of an electorate that is eager for reform to happen this year. With huge majorities in Congress, health care reform will be a done deal by the fall, regardless of how much the right-wing whines about it.

Ooops, not only did you try to distort that poll into saying something it doesn't - looks like you are dead ass wrong with your assertion that the public won't oppose HC "reform" from BHO and the Ds.

50% Oppose Government Health Insurance Company

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

About as brilliant as you are.

The Daily Mail is the Brit equivalent of FoxNews, so they're going to pick out the shittiest doctors in all of the UK. I'm sure there's more details than this.

Of course, good luck getting to see an American Rheumatologist if you don't have health insurance and good luck getting private non-group health insurance after the condition is diagnosed. Not to mention that the wait time to see a specialist in the U.S. can be pretty long, depending on where you are.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The Repubs are not willing, that's the problem. They don't want to shape a plan, they want to block one.

Yup. I haven't seen anything out of the Republicans this year except "NO!!!!!" and more tax cut proposals.

 

[Red Dawn]

You know people from all over the world come to America to get the best Medical Care money can buy. Of course that leaves out most Americans because even with Health Ins they don't have access to the best treatment that money can buy, just to most profitable for the HMO's. Now it's not horrible but it isn't always first class either.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

About as brilliant as you are.

The Daily Mail is the Brit equivalent of FoxNews, so they're going to pick out the shittiest doctors in all of the UK. I'm sure there's more details than this.

Of course, good luck getting to see an American Rheumatologist if you don't have health insurance and good luck getting private non-group health insurance after the condition is diagnosed. Not to mention that the wait time to see a specialist in the U.S. can be pretty long, depending on where you are.

They are using numbers from the National Audit Office, not picking random doctors. Nice try using the new P&N tactic of attacking the source though.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So the American public want all the tests and treatments and they want it cheap and everyone covered. I want a big home, lots of time off and to point to any car I like and take it. Are the Dems more likely to meet these needs?

Most people would like to see health care reform. What many are suspicious of are free lunches. There won't be any. You will either pay more or get less or perhaps both.

Politicians and their minions need to stop lying

Funny how other countries pay less and get more.

And other countries make less than here. Guess what? This isn't Sweden.

Yet they have a higher standard of living. Funny how that works. Its not all about $ signs.

They also have an unsustainable socialist society which is slowly going bankrupt. Also, if someone can afford the best medical care in the world, they are typically taking a flight to the United States, not Stockholm.

Link?

I'm sure their per capita debt is much, much smaller than our glorious for-profit health care war fighting hard wrassling capitalist utopia.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

About as brilliant as you are.

The Daily Mail is the Brit equivalent of FoxNews, so they're going to pick out the shittiest doctors in all of the UK. I'm sure there's more details than this.

Of course, good luck getting to see an American Rheumatologist if you don't have health insurance and good luck getting private non-group health insurance after the condition is diagnosed. Not to mention that the wait time to see a specialist in the U.S. can be pretty long, depending on where you are.

They are using numbers from the National Audit Office, not picking random doctors. Nice try using the new P&N tactic of attacking the source though.

Notice you didn't argue the second part of my post. I guess a nine month wait beats never, eh? And the NHS is working to improve those numbers.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know people from all over the world come to America to get the best Medical Care money can buy. Of course that leaves out most Americans because even with Health Ins they don't have access to the best treatment that money can buy, just to most profitable for the HMO's. Now it's not horrible but it isn't always first class either.

It IS first class. And people pay to come to America for healthcare with their own money. The Canadian government doesn't give you an option to outsource their healthcare. People choose to pay. So if they're willing to pay for a ridiculously expensive treatment in a ridiculously expensive country, then it shows we ARE first class.

The fact is most of us on Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Kaiser are getting better care than anyone else in the world.

The problem is that some people in the US are denied coverage, and medicare sucks, and so does medicaid and the uninsured receive terrible care blah blah blah. But for those of us who have decent insurance, we're able to get some of the best care ever.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

The fact is most of us on Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Kaiser are getting better care than anyone else in the world.

You got a source to back that claim up?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: AndrewR

They also have an unsustainable socialist society which is slowly going bankrupt. Also, if someone can afford the best medical care in the world, they are typically taking a flight to the United States, not Stockholm.

Link?

I'm sure their per capita debt is much, much smaller than our glorious for-profit health care war fighting hard wrassling capitalist utopia.

Not only is their per capita debt smaller, but even if it wasn't he still wouldn't have a point. They pay substantially less of their GDP in health care costs than we do, and substantially less per person. So even if they were going bankrupt it wouldn't be because of their health care system. Their system is simply vastly superior to ours, it's ideological blindness in America that keeps us from adopting this incredibly obvious solution.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know people from all over the world come to America to get the best Medical Care money can buy. Of course that leaves out most Americans because even with Health Ins they don't have access to the best treatment that money can buy, just to most profitable for the HMO's. Now it's not horrible but it isn't always first class either.

It IS first class. And people pay to come to America for healthcare with their own money. The Canadian government doesn't give you an option to outsource their healthcare. People choose to pay. So if they're willing to pay for a ridiculously expensive treatment in a ridiculously expensive country, then it shows we ARE first class.

The fact is most of us on Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Kaiser are getting better care than anyone else in the world.

The problem is that some people in the US are denied coverage, and medicare sucks, and so does medicaid and the uninsured receive terrible care blah blah blah. But for those of us who have decent insurance, we're able to get some of the best care ever.

Haha, you've been lied to. We spend 2.5x the money to have the 37th best care in the world.

P.S. Canada will pay for services performed in America if you would have to wait too long or it is a specialty service.

 

[Xellos2099]

And where did you get the 37th from? Sicko?