Saturday, January 23, 2010

America Says It's Time To Drop ObamaCare

Well folks, it appears the nation is steadily and surely moving away from ObamaCare. A Rasmussen Reports survey taken on January 22nd found that 61% believe it is time to drop health care reform.

A brief except.


Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead with health care.


I wonder if the tone deaf Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et all are listening?

Via: Rasmussen Reports

13 comments:

  1. RN,
    The first paragraph indicates to me the publics concern with the economy,not that they don't want our present health care disaster reformed.

    On the contrary,most of us want good affordable healthcare. That would be single payer.Not socialist,not marxist,not communist.Single payer healthcare like most other industrial nations have.

    The govt can indeed be corrupt,as can the private sector.The difference is an unregulated private sector will collude to squeeze profits out of us but with govt at least we have some say.We can vote the bastards out.We can't do that with UHC or Aetna.That's my opinion.

    Having stated my piece,IMO a public option was never on the table.Obama crafted an industry friendly package that makes the US taxpayer foot the bill.I still believe they'll pass something then in 2012 Obama will point to it in pride and blame all the shortcomings on the Republicans. Who I might add are just as bad and just as complicit in catering to health insurance lobbyists as Obama is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. what's the difference between a socialistic healthcare program and the single payer healthcare program, Oso?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Griper,
    As I understand it-what we call socialized medicine,what they have in the UK-the health industry (hospitals/doctors)is operated by the govt.Medical personnel are govt employees,govt owns the buildings.govt calls all the shots.

    Single payer,the medical establishment is private.billing goes to the govt rather than an insurance company,and the govt pays the doctor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. yes, Oso, the government pays the doctor what the government decides to pay, not what the doctor's billing is.

    in other words the government controls the profession in either system and this is what socialism is all about, government control.

    and as i said in one of my posts on my site, and we already know from Medicare that government control doesn't work. medicare costs goes up just as fast as the private sector. so, where is the cost savings?

    and a lot of hospitals and doctors are beginning to refuse medicare as a method of payment because they lose money with what medicare pays.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually we know from medicare that it does work.The problem with medicare is it's underfunded because the people most needing insurance are concentrated there.If we had single payer this wouldn't be a problem.

    why do you assume what works in the rest of the industrial world wouldn't work here?

    The private sector has proven it's incapable of delivering affordable health care,thus reinforcing the point that we need single payer.

    You weren't trapping me,I knew your question was to make a point.

    However, the question is moot because despite what the majority of Americans want, lobbyists will prevent affordable health care. Complicating matters is misguided ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Griper,
    I'd forgotten to address what you said about the govt deciding what to pay being govt control.I regularly hear people talk about govt projects having 1000.00 dollar toilet seats or 500.00 hammers.That happens with lack of oversight.

    Maybe you're right and the govt would underpay.But how is that different from what we have now,health insurers routinely deny coverage and it doesn't hurt the medical profession.

    And like I say, it works in other countries but the question is moot.Ain't gonna happen here till maybe the whole system blows up and we start from scratch.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oso,
    "Maybe you're right and the govt would underpay.But how is that different from what we have now,health insurers routinely deny coverage and it doesn't hurt the medical profession."

    that is because it is not a part of the policy that a person has chosen. no health care coverage is "full coverage" and that includes medicare. also, the medical profession makes up for the loss by charging private insurers and individuals without insurance more.

    health insurance is not like auto insurance where it can have full coverage. nor is it like life insurance where you get full payment per the policy.

    the only way you can get full coverage on health insurance is if you self-insure.

    and i wasn't trying to trap you, Oso. it was a sincere question.

    "That happens with lack of oversight."
    false, that is deliberate. doctors put on their billings to the government their charges. the government determines what each procedure gets paid and tells the patient his share of it. that's a fact. it is called "price control"

    and the big problem in controlling prices is that there is no control over expenses and that leads to losses eventually for the medical profession, thus bankruptcy as many hospitals have had to go thru.

    that is why many doctors and hospitals refuse to use medicare. the mayo clinic is the latest one that i know of that is stopping accepting medicare.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The health care system now is a monopoly unless you're extremely welthy Griper. Most I know are in HMO's which tell you what doctors and hospitals you can see. You can't leave the network without a referral and the deductibles on that are as high as 50%.


    Oso is correct. Single Payer addresses all these concerns. If you look at it from the right's point of vew, it's better in that it fosters competition among providers also. If you're not locked in to your HMO's network you can go wherever you think the best care will be.

    There will always be a market for coinsurance companies so the industry will adapt and not suffer.


    And I asked RN this once. I think it was RN. Will you renounce Medicare and refuse to participate? If you or one of your loved ones loses health insurance coverage will you refuse public aid and stay home?


    If your answer is "no" you have no credibility to argue against national health care Griper.


    Half of the health care in our country is provided by the government. You surely must know someone who benefits Griper.

    ReplyDelete
  9. truth,
    "If your answer is "no" you have no credibility to argue against national health care Griper."

    my credibility is not determined by the answers i give to specific hypothetical questions. my credibility is determined by my whole argument on an issue. and my whole argument is based upon research, truth, not upon emotion as you are trying to put your argument with your question.

    "The health care system now is a monopoly unless you're extremely welthy Griper."

    i don't know how you define the word monopoly but i do know this. a single payer plan is a monopoly. and it is a monopoly by the use of force not by choice of free will.

    and as far as i'm concerned the use of force by government should only be used under two conditions, the waging of war and the enforcment of criminal laws. and in both cases, force is used against those who would forcibly deny liberty to others. in fact, force serves only two purposes, deny liberty and deny the ability to use free will.

    as for fostering competition that is also false. government has a distinct advantage over the private sector. the private sector must be profitable to survive unless we are speaking of charitable organizations. and the health care profession is not a charitable establishment. when the government provides a service they are competing against charitable organizations not the business sector as Obama would have you believe.

    the government is not meant to be a profitable organization. it was meant to provide services at cost not profit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To All - Great discussions here. Differing view points but ideas that need to be talked about on the merits, or lack thereof, and ultimately resolved.

    The system as it is functioning right now is strained and ultimately could if not addresses and resolved effectively will become a boat anchor.

    And yes Truth it is I who you posed that question to. In all good conscience I must say, as I believe I did when you posed the question, and I clarify further here, If my wife or our children, or our grandchild lost heath insurance and needed assistance to gain the medical procedures needed to stay healthy and alive I would accept this.

    The kicker Truth is this; I would work out a financial arrangement to pay over time the benefits I derived from the medical profession on my behalf.

    For in the end it is I, and my family whom raised to to provide for their own security, to accept the responsibility for their own health, welfare. happiness, livelihood, and all else life makes possible for each individual.

    Great comments, I thank you for them as they provide food for rational thought.

    There are those on the left and the right that have ideas worth considering. I hope Rational Nation USA, a conservative site, can be the vehicle to freely air competing viewpoints perhaps find common ground as our founding fathers were able to do in that long hot summer that resulted in the greatest political document the world has ever known. The Constitution of the United Stares of America.

    ReplyDelete
  11. mmm i thought i left a comment in answer to truth. wonder what happened to it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Griper - You did and I thought it was subject relative and your points countering his arguments were well made.

    I approved on moderation of the comment in the affirmative and authorized posting.

    If inadvertently clicked the wrong box I am truly sorry and if you have the time PLEASE re comment.

    Your comment were absolutely worthy of being heard.

    Again if this was my inadvertent error pklease accept my sincere apology.

    ReplyDelete
  13. no,,i saw it published after i submitted this last one, RN. ty

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.