Fri 26 Jun 2009
Americans are duped by healthcare profiteers
Posted by Canada / Pat Morin under Balkers
[58] Comments
I think Americans have heard for years now how they are the only modernized nation to not guarantee health insurance for all their citizens. Yet you guys don’t rise up! Can you not see how your system costs you more, leaves millions with no way to pay for medical care when they need it, and lines the pockets of private companies like United Health Care, Humana, Merck and Pfizer? Don’t you get how they’ve bought up inside influence with your Congress, and time and again stopped reforms from ever happening? It is amazing to a Canadian.
Oh, what? We wait for years for appointments under socialized medicine? No we don’t. The Canadian government issues insurance under a single payer system, and we use it to visit private health care providers. We don’t let private insurers get involved except for some supplemental coverages. It’s obvious that is the difference in the 2 systems, and the problem in yours. You’re basically slaves to the free-enterprise spin of your Conservative wing.
We can wait a few weeks for a specialist or a surgery, but so do you. The Reform (conservative) party here tried to sell us an overhaul of single payer and have more like an American profit-based insurance system, and they got blown out of the water by the Canadian people.
there ought to be a complete, honest, side-by-side comparison of all proposals, including single payer, by the Congressional Budget Office. the side-by-side comparison should include not only the Federal government costs, but also the projected total U.S. cost and the costs to other stakeholders including state and local governments, employers and to individual, families and households of different income levels.
Health care has been the province of the privileged for decades in America, causing untold individual suffering and loss, in service to a private system which enriched a few a the top of the health insurance and pharmaceutical corporate structures. Sure there has been some exploitation and fraud from doctors and hospitals, but very little in the overall scheme of things.
You are correct Pat that it was delivered and sold to us by GOP’ers, beholden to wealthy special interests and the status quo, under the ruse of a “market-based” system – which never has and never will get all Americans covered. All it does is produce more and more uninsured or underinsured (100 million people by now), whom are 1 illness away from financial ruin.
The time has been now on this issue, ever since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. One of the main reasons I supported Hillary in the ‘08 primaries, is that we know she would have gone to the mat for the reforms that are desperately needed. Obama, I think believes in reform but it remains unclear how much he’ll fight to make it happen. We’ll get something very expensive that gets some of the uninsured covered, but continues to let insurers and drug makers run amok.
So would Democrats pushing this be willing to take the Medicare and Medicaid budgets and any other Federal monies used for health care and use them to provide universal health care?
They already have more money per capita that the Brits get by with in spite of only covering a fraction of the population. If they agree to live within those budgetary limits, I would be willing to give them a shot. But we all know that is not on the table. They are seeking MASSIVE increases in funding….because this is not about providing you health care. Health care is the smokescreen for MASSIVE increases in the scope and power of the Federal government.
Free health care for all, and this is not socialism, but it is humanism, many countries have such service, and why cannot America have it for all its citizens as well as those who visitors and need medical assistence.
In many countries this free medical care is available for all, and fortunately I have benefitted from it, otherwise I would have been dead by now if I lived in a country where this assistance was not available,
Sammy
Pat, your post raised some good points.I often wonder what it will take to get people off thier butts and onto the streets.My fellow citizens are a complacent and apathetic bunch until they feel threatened.Maybe we need a pandemic event to get them to turn off the Boob tube and get busy forcing their bought and paid for government to act.
The present proposed reforms will just delay the inevitable shift to single payer care.If they mandate insurance for all there will still be millions without coverage they can’t afford.If people cannot pay for mandated “Health Insurance” and are jailed for not buying it ,will they be dying of thier illnesses in jail because care is denied in prison.
Medicaid costs about 4% in administration costs while there are 1300 insurance providers spending 45% more to try and deny coverage and guarantee thier stockholders a profit.At the same time the mountains of paperwork that doctors and hospitals must do to get insurance companies to cover thier patients is one reason U.S. care is prohibitively expensive. I have had health care in Canada while in P.E.I. and it was quick cheap excellant care.
Americans should be aware that they have lost thier Republic long ago to the monied interests ,the millitary industrial complex and the army of K street lobbys.Instead of thier citizen constituents the Legislative branch cater to the Corperations that finance thier campaigns,and spend most of thier energies dailing for the dollars that will fund their re -elections.Without public financing of elections in the U.S. any hope for democracy is a missguided dream.peace
Welcome johnny / newer posters. Even John McCain – wrong on everything else – has been a strong voice for campaign & lobby reform that takes big money out of the picture. You can indeed argue that progressive policy will never happen (or from McCain’s viewpoint, uncorrupted legislation) whilst politicians have to raise enormous amounts of money to win office.
In that regard, Obama did break ground and do an important thing in his 2008 campaign, in organizing a sophisticated internet presence that raised untold millions from an average donor of about $100 or less. Even at that, he also accepted bundling of small contributions by corporate bosses, and in office he indeed appointed some industry insiders after he’d sworn off doing so.
But his fundraising model is an important one for candidates that want to be less beholden to ultra-wealthy interests. And his promises to make government more transparent can also play a part in effecting honest legislation – see these links which are already up & running;
whitehouse.gov/open
recovery.gov
However much remains up to citizens, to learn, do the research and know who the charlatans are in the process. As much as I want the playing field completely level for regular Americans with regard to their say in government, I have to agree with Supreme Court rulings that protect anyone’s right to political speech. You can’t deprive a monied voice like Ross Perot or T Boone Pickens, from his 1st Amendment rights just because he pays to air it on major media outlets.
In previous decades I had a good answer for this problem: The biggest expense of campaigns by far is TV advertising, which happens on public airwaves that the broadcast channels only have a license to use. Meaning we as the airwaves owners, can pass a law that says they can’t run any campaign-related ads, and must provide X amount of free airtime to primary and general election candidates.
But the advent of cable/satellite channels and the Internet, wrecked that solution of course. Those venues do not go over public airwaves, and they’re the growing communications segments while broadcast is shrinking – so now you are back to honoring 1st Amendment protections for any special interest. They get to speak, we have to apply ourselves enough to evaluate their legitimacy or ulterior motives.
The kicker for an insurance lobby that wants to keep Americans subjugated under a rigged system, that enriches the few and rations care according to ability to pay, is that on the WWW we are given voice also. Regular people demanding social justice, circumventing traditional corporate media which has never been vocal nor very informative on this matter. It’s a problem for the status quo… ;^)
We have problems keeping costs in line just like is true in health care everywhere. But we didn’t fall for the scare tactic, that it was all a veiled attempt to massively increase the power of the federal government. This is a social issue that needs government solution, that is the only way everyone can get insurance.
Reposted from the Denver Post.
–
Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist.
Debunking Canadian health care myths
By Rhonda Hackett
06/07/2009
As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.
Often I’ll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner’s nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one’s merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.
Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.
Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America’s health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.
Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.
Myth: Canada’s health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.
Ten percent of Canada’s GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada’s. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada’s government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don’t get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists’ care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.
Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not “socialized medicine” but “social insurance” systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren’t enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.
And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn’t the big bad “socialist” bogeyman it has been made out to be.
It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.
Copyright 2009 The Denver Post. Don’t repost on Balkingpoints… ;^)
When you go to a health care provider in America you fill out as many legal forms as medical forms. Could that be the smoke?
Do you ever consider the IQ of those who listen to conservative talk shows? Maybe we need to reform our education system first.
LOL – welcome to B/P Simpleman.
I think one might question the IQ of anyone still listening to conservative talk shows, after they’ve spent the last 3 decades rubberstamping the failed Trickle Down / Deregulation agenda of the Reagan-Bush Era… ;^)
I didn’t think the point of becoming a healer was to become a millionaire – but after looking at the US system, it appears that health care industry’s grip on your wallets is tighter than on the hippocratic oath. I pity American’s their greed driven “health”systems. Profiting from others misfortune is becoming symbolic of everything that has gone wrong with the American dream.
Welcome Chris – nice to see another Canadian on B/P! :^)
Taking a wider view, I think this is symptomatic of right wing ideology across the spectrum.
The right maintain that “competition” and the profit motive will always produce better services that public ownership. I don’t see the evidence for this assertion, but it’s made again and again.
Thatcher tried to introduce an “internal market” in the UK’s national health service (NHS). It was a disaster.
Now the UK government (run by a Labour party so right wing that they are indistinguishable from any other party in the pockets of profit seeking corporations) has been promoting “competition” between state schools. The big lie is that this gives parents “choice”. The state publishes school “league tables” and parents can “choose” to send their children to the better schools.
The problem is that the best schools are oversubscribed, meaning that they can take only the better students, and therefore get more money from the state. This means that wealthier parents end up sending their children to better state schools, while poor parents end up sending their children to the worst state schools.
It’s time to challenge these right wing lies that it is always preferable to have “competition” and “profit”.
Clearly in the areas of health and education the public sector does do a better job than the private sector. Competition doesn’t work when we want to provide good services to everyone, and not just to an elite.
“Clearly in the areas of health and education the public sector does do a better job than the private sector.” Does anyone really believe this?
No one ever adds this concern to the discussion of health insurance reform: In a system rife with regulation and control, why should medical students undertake the astronomical expense of becoming heart specialists or neurosurgeons? I saw one Balker referencing a 14 month wait for knee surgery. Was that due to a lack of surgeons? Why? Obvious problem: The cost of getting a medical degree exceeds the amount of money to be made from using it. Obvious solution: The government will have to take over all the medical schools. This will be for the good of everyone because it will reduce costs. THEN we’ll get us some GOOD health care!
I am convinced of the following outcomes in the health care debate: Those of us who stayed in school, worked all our lives, paid our bills, took care to provide for our families and protect/insure ourselves against the obvious calamities of life, will be the ones who get screwed in this deal. Our health insurance costs will be higher. In fact it is very conceivable that the amount we pay for other people’s health insurance will exceed what we currently pay for our own. Quality and availability of care will continuously decline.
Strange how those who ask the least of government and would simply prefer that it leave us alone are the very ones called upon to subsidize those who choose to live their lives in the exact opposite fashion.
Welcome to B/P Alun & James.
We’ve been hearing for 30 years how the private sector and “market-based” health care are inherently better. In that time the ranks of under and uninsured in America, have swollen to aprox 100 million.
That is 1/3 of all Americans, 1 illness away from financial ruin. Most are workers who play by the rules and pay their bills. The inequities in our health care system have become so starkly apparent during the Reagan-Bush Era, that polling consistently shows strong majority support now for some form of universal coverage.
Fears that things would be worse with reform, when we already spend much more to cover far fewer than any industrialized nation? That is saying implicitly, that an exclusionary system that rations care on the basis of financial means, is the best we can do. See post #8 above!
Hello Roy, and thanks for your welcome.
My friend, you are of course free to imply what you will about my statement, but, let me explicitly say, you cannot impose socialism upon one sixth of a capitalistic economy without having some very undesirable outcomes.
As I tried to say in a nice way, the future looks quite grim for quality of care in this brave new world. I hope you do not one day find yourself about to be treated by a physician whose competency will be highly questionable, having gotten his medical training at Bert’s Auto Repair and Brain Surgery Training Center. Perhaps you ought to go check out East Germany, or closer to home, the VA hospitals we have now (remember Walter Reed?), if you want to get a preview of how it will be for all of us except the very rich, who will have high-quality doctors and private facilities on retainer, just as they now do attorneys, and in the same way that they handle education issues.
Further, I suspect the terminology employed in discussions of this issue is intentionally twisted. There is no such thing as a lack of access to health care. We have a lack of access to health insurance. Here is the point at which problems arise. We have millions of people who have chosen not to buy health insurance, instead opting for fancier cars and flat screens. Then they get sick and, gee whiz, it is so unfair that they are expected to pay their own medical bills….hey, I’d like to refrain from buying automobile insurance until the day after I have a wreck, but you know, insurance really doesn’t work that way…I think is called taking responsibility for oneself instead of looking for do-gooders to take up your plight….
This country already taxes the working people at an incredible rate in order to subsidize ‘the underprivileged.’ We have welfare and food stamps and susidized housing and programs to pay utility bills. In fact, I would challenge you to name a single aspect of life for which we do not already have multiple government programs on the books to bail out the less fortunate. We also have an enormous charitable industry dedicated to helping the poor. Unfortunately, no matter how much is done, it is never enough, according to some folks.
I will say something that might surprise you. I am in favor of universal health care (which we already have). I also am in favor of the future recipients of free health insurance coverage pay something for it instead of coming to me once again. And while we’re taking care of all these people’s medical needs, how about a movement to get them to be responsible, accountable adults making a contribution to the society?
1) But James you are then saying, that Americans have to stay with what we have because we can’t have a system that impinges on the sacred cow of capitalism. Even when other ones like the Canadian cover everybody and cost 10% of GDP to our 15%.
2) We do not have universal health care. The uninsured will receive emergency care, anything else they are turned away because of no insurance, unless they get the little bit of charity care provided on the fringes. But, in no way is that an answer for the many millions without insurance. Many people who can now only afford catastrophic policies, also are going without seeing a doctor when they need one. If we’re getting most of our medical needs met, why is there so much outcry to pass a system that gets everyone covered?
3) Saying “impose socialism” is twisting terminology. As has been pointed out above, the Canadian system is not socialized medicine. Tired GOP scare tactic there. If the Canadian system is socialized medicine, sign me up. At least I know I have a right to a doctor and hospital if I lose my job, or have to take one that doesn’t offer health insurance.
Do you realize, that there are 10’s of millions of Americans in that exact spot right now? 10’s of millions, at enormous financial risk if they get sick. And that’s been true since way before the awful recession we’re in. Are you expecting that after decades of a market-based health system that only leaves more and more out in the cold, it’s gonna just turn around on it’s own somehow? You’re entitled to your views, naturally. Good day!
James A. / U.S.
Thank for your comments. I agree that the VA may have failed at Walter Reed but my experience with my local VA network has been exceptional.
I would like to address your statement ” how about a movement to get them to be responsible,accountable adults making a contribution to the society.” I also agree, but where I may differ is I believe society blames the poor for the problem rather than the result of the problem. Without getting off the health care issue if workers were paid a living wage we would not need welfare and charity to off set the difference. Accountability not wishful thinking.
Capitalism maybe a good economic theory but when abused, as it currently is, creates problems. The disparity of the haves and the have not is a moral dilemma not economic.
JamesA
[quoting me]“Clearly in the areas of health and education the public sector does do a better job than the private sector.”
[says] Does anyone really believe this?
I don’t think it’s a question of belief, I think it’s a question of empirical evidence.
I grew up in the UK and am British. There the health service is free at the point of service. The NHS is considered a great national success in the UK. It is of course run by the state, and paid for from taxation.
Now I live in Finland (my wife and children are Finnish). Here we have what, by some measures, is the most successful education system in the world. Again it’s a state run system, in fact there are no private schools here in Finland.
JamesA: “The cost of getting a medical degree exceeds the amount of money to be made from using it.”
Seriously? Not in the UK or in Finland. In the UK the only costs are “tuition fees”, a recent innovation by our so called “Labour” government that applies to all people who want to get a university degree. These fees amount to something like a maximum of £3000 per year.
Up until recently in the UK going to university was free. When I went in 1991 my tuition was free and I also received a maintenance grant. Up until recently university education was totally free in the UK.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you cost to the student with quality of education.
I don’t believe that UK doctors are less well educated than USA doctors just because many had a free tertiary education. There’s no evidence that Uk doctors are not as competent at diagnosing and treating conditions as US doctors.
You fall into the right wing trap of believing that just because you pay more you must be getting something better. That’s not true for everything.
Universal free healthcare is beneficial to society because a healthy society is a productive society.
The reason private health insurance is not beneficial is because no one really understands what they are paying for. Even when one is covered by a company scheme, one doesn’t really know how good a scheme the company has chosen to opt for.
When one is choosing a scheme for oneself, how is one to decide which is better? It’s not like buying an MP3 player or a television.
There’s a great deal of evidence to suggest that state funded health is both cheaper and more efficient. To ignore this evidence is to ignore the facts based on ideology.
Alun your stories from European nations about health care and education, and how those intersect with issues of governmental involvement vs. free enterprise / laissez-faire capitalism vs. a measure of central planning for common good – goes right to the premise of Balkingpoints. The exchange of experiences across borders, is just what we’re getting at. As citizens on the planet with shared interests, we could never do it before the WWW
- not in any direct way at least.
Americans are so poorly informed, of how other nations deal with basic social needs like medical & education. We don’t know jack about many other things that are true in the world either – which I mostly lay at the feet of our corporate-beholden major media, rather than innate limitations of our citizens. We’d get it, except the frame of our collective understanding is so shaped by how those outlets cast things, and what they omit.
That’s why you can have economy policy like Trickle-Down / Deregulation (introduced by Ronald Reagan in 1981), prevail for 28 years and 5 administrations (excepting an 8-year partial reversal under Clinton), finally implode into the worst economic downturn in 70 years & near-collapse of the entire banking structure – and still have a good fraction of Americans subscribing to it as some kind of holy grail. While you were solving social problems with pragmatism in UK and Finland, we were being told by presidents and major media in America, that government is the problem.
Fortunately, most Americans finally are seeing Reagan-Bush era ideology for the failure that it is. The times are a’ changing – we’re just on the front end of it IMO.
People should be aware that, although Canadian medicare is considered as a national program, Medicare is actually run by the provinces and territories with aboriginals living on reserves on another system payment/treatment system with some overlaps. Provinces all cover the basics but some provinces pay for treatments and procedures that other provinces will not. You may get treatment in another province but have to pay the difference. You can also jump the line for some procedures by buying the procedure by private providers, like MRIs or laser eye surgery.
Canada has a 14 payer system.
It is a big business to speculate upon the health of others, insurance companies make billions upon billions, selling their health care policies, in which most cases are limited to the type of services that they offer.
Employers pay their insurance premiums in according to the age of their employees, and in most cases those employees that have reached an advanced age are the first to go to the unemployment offices looking for employment, where employers give preferences to younger job seekers when hiring, knowing that their health insurance costs will be much lower, bringing them less risk and more productivity.
For this reason, many countries have adopted a national health system that protects all of its citizens, rich or poor, workers and not workers, young and old, as well as those who are guests into their country, but mind you, this does not mean that the private health sector is not excluted from operating.
Because there are always those who are in search of better ways to preserve their health, and think that money will buy them a better health service, and this is their freedom of choice which no democratic country will deny them, or deny the free practice of medicine or to open private clinics.
But the basic principle is that all will be guaranteed free health care which is very efficient and functioning, and this is what distincts a civilized nation from a money oriented one that speculates, and protects the interests of those corporations that operate in the health industry which destroy those who are less fortunate that cannot afford their protective services, and if they can, at times they must sell all that they have to preserve their health to confront the health costs, or otherwise die for lack of medical care.
I find it very strange that some governments are more interested in protecting the interests of the health speculators than the health of their citizens, many countries can cut their military budgets and adopt a free health care system for all instead, and this is being constructive and not destructive fo humanity, and I believe it should be done on a global scale, making sure that all receive free health care. This is not socialism, or communism, but it is humanism.
Sammy, and his way of thinking
Welcome back Sammy, welcome in Sask Resident / Saskatchewan, Canada
I take it. This Balk is getting a nice mix of views across borders – just the recipe for Balkingpoints.com
I hear your point Sask. Something tells me Americans would be better off, under any of the 14 payers of Canada… ;^)
This Wikipedia link, states that;
In the World Health Organization’s ratings… the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.
You make an excellent case Sammy for why an insurance system should cover everyone. After all, healthy people are productive people, What happens in America is that entrenched special interests like the private health insurance & pharmaceutical industries, contribute a lot of money to election campaigns of legislators and presidents, they then get inside access to make their case against change, and that apple cart gets overthrown by popular insistence only when things reach a crisis stage.
Sort of like a revolution on issues…
We’ve been through this many times in U.S. history and always come out of it with social progress; women’s right to vote, child labor laws, fair wage & labor safety laws, Social Security stipends to ensure the well being of the elderly whom are past working years, civil rights legislation to codify the equality of all Americans and ban ethnic and gender discrimination in housing, employment and other aspects of life.
Because of that influence of those industries, the present demands from ordinary Americans for fairness in health insurance will result in some kind of patchwork hybrid type of public-private system. It will get everyone covered whom seeks out insurance – charged based on a sliding scale of ability to pay for it (as it should be) – but the program will be stupid and inefficient, with those two industries left largely in tact as they are today.
But we have a crisis at present of lack of coverage for around 1/3 of all Americans, so we’ll take that fix any way we can get it. From there, we’ll eventually figure out that other nations are far more efficient with the single or government payer, and private insurers for special and extra coverages only. So we’ll overturn the cart again… ;^)
Why don’t we discuss one of the most successful health care systems in the world, the Swiss healthcare system:
1.There is an insurance mandate for all individuals,
2. The government defines what the insurance benefit will be for all
standard health insurers, insurance companies are not allowed to deny coverage to any individual,
3. Health insurance and medical procedure prices are made publicly available,
4. In exchange for providing health insurance to consumers, insurance companies receive premiums from consumers and risk-adjustment payments from the government in order that insurance companies are not punished if they decide to insure a sicker population,
5. Premiums are community rated, meaning that sick and healthy individuals pay the same price within each age group (the age
groupings are 0-18, 19-25, >25 years old).
6. Individuals are allowed to purchase supplement insurance as well (there is no regulated benefit for supplemental insurance),
7. There is significant cost sharing in all insurance plans (i.e.: deductibles, 10% coinsurance rates up to an annual ceiling),
In Switzerland everything costs more except health care. It is 40% less than in the U.S. yet everyone has health care insurance and their approach is to stay healthy and to catch illness before it becomes expensive to repair it.
In the U.S., we were sold on Medicare and told that by now we would be paying $1.2 billion. Adjusting for inflation that should be $12 billion. The actual cost is over $120 billion. The bureaucracy, the paperwork required, etc. is horrendous as is the misuse of the system. People go doctor shopping and get prescriptions for pain medicines from half a dozen which they then sell or trade. They have the doctors send the prescriptions to different pharmacies so they are not caught. They get free $24,000 electric wheel chairs which they rarely use because they are bed-ridden and they have a state-paid care-giver eight hours a day who can push their chair around if needed. We have companies on TV advertising their products as “free” if you have Medicare.
The abuse is expensive and will only get more so if the government takes on more responsiblity for peoples health. Yet with the Swiss system, everyone is covered without the governmental red tape, etc.
Richard
Free medical care for all should not have any red tape or strings attached to it.
This free medical care should be provided to all citizens and non-citizens at government’s expenses, which in reality it is at people’s expenses, because this money to maintain this free medical care will come directly from the people, through their tax dollars, that will be well spent to keep a nation healthy.
But at the same time there must be room for the private sector to provide medical care, for those who want to be selective, and this is their freedom of choice.
But it is essential that all rich and poor have access to an efficient free medical care, without any strings attached.
Sammy
Welcome back Richard & Sammy – good remarks both.
If the U.S. relied solely on private insurers with all the regulations of the Swiss system, it would be far more fair and humane that what we’ve got after decades of GOP propaganda, rendering them unregulated and free to cherry-pick the healthy / exclude the sick.
They’d have to be able to operate on very thin profit margins IMO, to compete with something efficient from the government or non-profit sector. Community rating to me means inherently, they need large pools
of customers and they’d make a small surcharge on each.
You might impose all those regulations and also set up the public-insurance option, then see which is doing the better job in 5 or 10 years. With Canada at 10% GDP costs and the U.S. at 15% GDP, Canada covering everyone and the U.S. not even close to everyone, that seems to suggest their system does not lose a lot to bureaucratic waste.
The universal access to medical care is the essential part, I agree. After (if) the U.S. gets past all the scare tactics flying around right now, and gets a universal system in place with transparency and proper oversight and fiscal discipline – it’s going to give a big boost to America both socially and commercially IMO.
Healthy people are much more productive. Premiums won’t keep rising because of uninsured, emergency room care. Small business won’t be under the burden of needing to keep offering insurance they can’t afford, to keep their workers. The so-called Public Option would I believe, effectively let the smallest operations out of jail – their workers would go Public Option, their insurance costs disappear / new windfall for a font of innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy.
Cigna whistleblower Wendell Potter, details decades of U.S. health insurance industry corruption / massive dump-the-sick scheme.
Video and transcript is linked below – a simply shocking validation, of what most Americans already suspected;
PBS / Bill Moyers Journal
-
Health insurance companies are criminal enterprises. I keep waiting and watching for a crowd to gather in the street waving torches and pitchforks.
One of the more vocal groups opposing health care reform in the U.S. are the so called pro life conservatives. I mention this for two particular reasons.
1. If pro life is the real reason then why
not protest in front of tobacco shops?
2. How can anti choice be considered a
conservative value?
The government (?) forces a woman to bear a child, then the government (?) deny both health care ( okay to smoke ), then the government (?) says you can’t die yet (euthanasia) we need to make more money.
We know the truth and the government (theirs?) referred to. The same one that has distorted history and science.
Welcome aboard to ol_dude38. Anyone who watches that video link in
my post #30 above, would be hard-pressed not to conclude that health insurance has indeed become a criminal enterprise.
Wendell Potter, now turned whistleblower, worked the scheme for two decades. A massive dump-the-sick, collect from the healthy, deny claims
of people in need, and lie-to-the-public, conspiracy.
Which is hopefully on the verge of being torn down – frothing, misinformed viewers of Fox News screaming “socialism!”, notwithstanding…
Simpleman / #32 -
And how about stem-cell research, the biggest contradiction of all for evangelical (fundamentalist) Christians. Stands to save millions of lives in the future, but goes against God’s Plan. Ergo, can’t do it… ;^)
Not that everyone does not have the civil right, of freedom of worship. They do of course in America, and that principle is shared in many other nations of the world. But the contradictions you raise are a great example of why a firewall is necessary between religion and governance. When any particular religious faction can impose it’s codes of conduct on society at large, it brings on extremism, persecution of dissenters, and dictatorial policies which were precisely at the root of why the American founding fathers revolted against the British Crown.
What most people refuse to see here in the US, is that there already is a single payer plan. The working class. The reason hospital patients are charged $4.00 for a simple pain reliever, and the like, is, that someone has to cover the cost of those who are uninsured and cannot pay. Socialism, in the words of the consertivies. Any monetary loss by a business person is automatically shifted onto those who do pay. Wal-mart is fine example that most people are familiar with. The cost they save from NOT insuring workers is passed on to the insured when they are hospitalized. The insured blames the hospital, not the system. Mining companies have been known to do this, specifically coal to keep cost down and the appearance of competitive pricing. This is the heart of capitalism, corporate socialism. What most business don’t realize is that they would benefit from a single payer plan, because so many of them have bought into the mind set that change is bad. I wonder if there are any business people who can imagine not having to deal with insuring their workers and and still have them covered.
Most people are being constantly brainwashed that something that is being given free to the collectivity, and to benefit humanity, is automatically associated to comunism, or socialism, which are the enemy of free enterprise, and the capitalistic system, which is a potective system for the big insurance societies that speculate with people’s health, and monopolizing the entire health system without any competition.
But a national health system for all, would make sure that each human being is given free healthcare, and no one would die for lack of medical attention, or going untreated because of lack of money.
And I believe that a responsible government’s primary duty is to give its citizens free health care, which is not really free, because the collectivity pays for it through a certain percentage of our tax dollars that would go to pay for this system.
Certainly with the insurance companies strong lobby, and their propaganda, referring to a socialist state, this is very hard to sell to the American people that have and are constantly being brainwahed that such a system belongs to the totalitarian systems of governments.
But I honestly think, that many lives will be saved, and many hardships would be alleviated, with a national free health system for all, but at the same time keep the private sector operating for those who have money to seek other alternatives to cure themselves. Still maintaining the freedom of choice, and this is humanity, and none of the isms that people have been brainwashed with the government’s free health care for all, rich and poor.
Welcome aboard Gary and back Sammy. Don’t know how much of it gets reported in Sicily, but the debate over national health insurance is ablaze right now in the U.S., after Obama’s proposal that a new government program finally get Americans covered who don’t already get it though their employer.
Which is an estimated 50 million people. Polling shows most Americans do support such a system, Bill Clinton tried to get it passed in 1994. But there is a segment – about 20-24% of Americans – whom tune in to ultra-right wing TV and radio channels (flagship, Ruppert Murdoch’s Fox News – you probably know that guy… ;^)
Anyway brainwashing is indeed the term, for how upset they have their viewers over the proposal – driven by one false claim after another about how it will hurt them. And they try to brand it socialism, which is a blatant scare tactic & comical misuse of the term.
It’s to the point that a handful of disrupters are showing up at the so-called “Town Hall” informational events which Congress members are holding about it. They get up as told to by Fox, Rush Limbaugh and other proven-wrong supporters of the Bush Regime – and start yelling and stopping a rational discussion on it.
These same Americans, will need Obama’s national insurance when they are the ones to lose their job. Which they are unable to figure out apparently…
Stay tuned however, the tactic is about to backfire IMO, on these people whom I’m now going to start referring to as the Bully Minority… ;^)
Before you give your approval for government run healthcare I suggest you look into the government run healthcare that has already been used. The American Indians have been under gevernment healthcare for years, and they say “Don’t get sick after June”. Why? Because the healthcare guarenteed to then by our governemnt via a treaty runs out of money right around June. Yeah, our government does just great in the healthcare field. NOT!!
Welcome aboard Rondy. I think the system we have is too broken and too corrupt (see Wendell Potter link above), for the fear card to work this time like it did in 1994. We shall see.
Anybody that is afraid of the government being the insurer, I certainly hope you are locked in on your insurance plan for life.
Sure hope you can never be cancelled off it if you get very ill, or if you lose your job. Hope you’ll never need the Public Option or Medicaid or Medicare yourself. Because it’s not the case for millions of other people.
Health reform opponents are basically saying that those Americans, have to stick with what we have. Which means they have to go without.
Pat good Balk? Did I say that right? Thanks for the support up there in Canada. I am linked or woven into one of those political families where we fight around the dinner table over, well of late, Health Care Reform. Farming back ground, our second generation all went into medicine, then the third… the fourth has two defectors to the INS industry. Food fights are common this year! My grandchildren destined for bad table manners. My husband works for a Canadian Company, and we loved Minnesota health care idea’s, barrowed from you know where!
Promised on several sites to keep busting Myths.
Would like to hear direct on the H1N1 from Canada, and Aussies.
Roy you need no help what so ever! Continue to kick for us. Public Opt. perhaps someday a single payer… inch by inch!
Welcome aboard RK – thanks for the remarks.
Perhaps this is finally the issue on which the deliberate misinformation campaign, blows up in the face of the GOP and their apologists on Wingnut radio & TV. It is so obvious they are trying to scare Americans, into opposing something which is so clearly in their interests.
Apparently, no viewers of Fox News will ever be losing their jobs, or cancelled by their insurer after they get too sick, or denied a claim for a procedure their doctor says they need. And they’ll all refuse Medicare at age 65, because it’s the evil “government” behind it…
And have Mitch McConnell, John McCain and John Boehner, refused their government insurance yet? Jethro Bodine, anyone… ;^)
I’m happy you are helping to clear up this myth–foisted upon us by the US right wing propaganda machine–that socialized medicine doesn’t work. Unfortunately, there seems to be a sizeable percentage of US citizens who are highly susceptible to propaganda and will vote against their own best interests if FOX tells them to do so.
I don’t mind if they want to exempt themselves from health care, but they’re screwing it up for the rest of us. These right wingers have a schizophrenic view of government. When it comes to the military–the biggest welfare system we have in this country–they think the government is the greatest, but when it comes to social programs, they see the government as evil, yet it’s the same government.
Orwell called this Doublethink.
“…because this is not about providing you health care. Health care is the smokescreen for MASSIVE increases in the scope and power of the Federal government.”
Walt USA
This is what I’m talking about…..
Well we are all more likely to have a Stroke or a Heart Attack than get shot or bombed by a terrorist. How about a War on Bad Health? If we word it like that maybe, just maybe..
Welcome aboard Shawn & Penny, good remarks.
FDR is famous for his phrase “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, in his 1933 Inaugural during the Great Depression.
I thought Obama needed a similar catch phrase Wednesday night regarding the fearmongering going on designed to preserve a healthcare status quo, which amounts to tyranny for tens of millions of working Americans.
But he got at the misinformation campaign nicely, correctly called health reform a moral issue, and closed with a very eloquent part about the balanced role of the federal government throughout our history. We do
too much governance or too little, at our peril.
That was important IMO because many Americans fall for the rampant laissez-faire / cut government / Trickle Down propaganda of the last 3 decades – and never connect the dots that in fact it’s government has, does, and will need to step in with appropriate safeguards to protect them from the ravages of the free market.
It’s not a new lesson, just one we forgot. What happens to us last year, without FDR’s FDIC insurance on our bank accounts? Runs on all banks and total mayhem, easily. You need balanced regulation and protections – your government is derelict when it does not get that job done.
Obama will get a couple stray Republicans – Snowe, Voinovich and maybe Collins – the rest will continue to obstruct for the sake of obstruction, for the sake of the health insurance lobby they are financially beholden to. I do not trust Baucus, nor a number of the other Dems in that regard either.
The president knows it will be won by herding the Dems, which is largely whom he wrote that speech for. Progressives said he needed to stand up, he did – now he needs to deliver.
Links to the Obama health reform speech Wednesday night. He spoke
to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, with broadcast by most TV news networks;
Text
Video
-
Just heard on the news tonight there is a new study out after going over records and stats that shows 45,000 American’s die each year because of no Health coverage. Health coverage is a life and death issue, nothing should be more important than to fix this problem. For those whom think it not, you need to talk to the 45,000 families who have lost their loved ones. Try to convince them you need that extra dollar in your pocket or bank account. Nothing is Free, as some think this is a free Health Bill. The rights we have, all of them were paid for in blood. Yes the services we have are paid for by taxes, but it is for the good of us all, and used by all. Human greed should have no place in the Health Care issue. Being human to humans, wow, what a thought. Don’t you think it should be a Right. We are at a crossroads that not just effects the uninsured but also the insured. Just in the last year 2009 health cost have increased over 5% over and above wage and economic increases. Cost has been steadly increasing for over ten years. Cost has gone up over 131% since 1999. Counting the Number of jobs lost over 400,000 over the last year, Insurance companies will recoup their loses thu higher premiums and less coverage, and more deductables. The crossroads are here, NOW. The big question is how are we going to change this? Insurance will soon be unafordable to all working class if something isn’t done soon.
Roy G:
Just found an interesting story on local News. Humana of Kentucky has sent out letters of scare tatics to elderly stating thy were going to loose coverage under the proposed Health Care Bill. Government Investigating them and asked them to stp sending out the incorrect mailer. Though you might also find this interesting.
http://www.news25.us/Global/story.asp?S=11168220
No surprise in that. The restrictions in all the bill proposals would make imposing pre-existing conditions illegal, as well as cancelling coverage of those who get too sick. Which means they can’t run the cherry-picking scheme which Wendell Potter testified about, trying to only cover the well. That means big cuts in profits and they are well aware of that. They will have to start paying claims of actual sick people if any reform passes…
Given the decades through which Humana, United Health Care, Aetna, Cigna and others have systematically denied coverage to the sick, they not only need to be put out of business but criminally charged IMO.
Maybe the major media will actually cover prominently, this latest lie to protect the status quo. If they’d reported on whistleblower Potter in June, this debate would be over and we’d have a Single Payer system such as Canada. That’s the level of corruption he has exposed. Here is the link again;
PBS / Bill Moyers Journal
-
Thanks Again Roy G:
Dear Dennis Martin:
Thank you for writing me. I have heard from many
Americans who are losing their jobs and struggling to pay their
bills. Every day, I meet with my economic advisors to make sure
we are doing all we can to create good jobs and help Americans
support their families and pursue the American Dream.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the
first step to spur job growth and ease the pain of unemployment.
This measure saves or creates millions of jobs here at home in
industries such as alterative energy, health care, and construction.
It has already provided relief to many unemployed Americans by
extending and increasing emergency unemployment compensation
and increasing access to health insurance. My 2010 Budget will
expand these efforts by modernizing the unemployment insurance
system and expanding health coverage to more workers.
My Administration is protecting American jobs by
emphasizing job training in industries that cannot be outsourced.
Recently laid-off workers receiving unemployment benefits have
new opportunities to pursue higher education and job training
programs, including easier access to Pell Grants. To encourage job
creation in the United States, I am replacing tax laws that send jobs
overseas with new incentives to create them here at home, and
available assistance can be found online at:
http://www.dol.gov/recovery/implement.htm or http://www.opportunity.gov.
Together, we can help more Americans find and keep good
jobs and enjoy a healthy standard of living. To locate an
employment center near you, select your state at:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/location.htm. For information on benefits and
opportunities for those out of work, I encourage you to visit:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/audience/aud-unemployed.htm. To find career
resources, you may call 1-877-872-5627 visit or visit:
http://www.careeronestop.org.
While it will take time to turn our economy around, I am confident
that we will emerge from this crisis stronger than before.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
ere is part of what I just recieved.
Not bad for a public servant… ;^)
(somebody needs to tell Barack to get off his computer and get to work… ;^)
I know someone who might need some of those links. And Congress just passed another 13 weeks of unemployment benefits – and with this downturn we could possibly be looking at years on end of that. The U.S. passes those as stop-gap measures but in Europe, unemployment assistance is more assured for workers.
I believe it’s time to tie public-sector job opportunities into those unemployment payments – both so that the idle are producing and active, and so that a social benefit is obtained. Look at the unmet needs in child and elderly care, as well as community policing. We could slash crime in America with an auxiliary police patrol on foot or bicycles, perhaps doubling the size of police forces that protect U.S. cities.
It can shrink & grow with booms and downturns – I see no philosophical nor values problem with a public-sector employment option. The unemployment check is an expense either way for governments, but you shut down some of the awful human and monetary costs of crime with such a program.
Roy G,
Look at the Bright side,politics is sort of like this.
With this much pony stuff here if we keep shoveling, we are going to find that pony in here somewhere.
It has been the Republicans shoveling the dung! :)
Roy G:
Just checking back. I have found another interseting site, this one about the waste that our government is doing. Which says a lot when it comes to why government is going broke, considering the bickering about American Health Care.
http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/ohmy.aspx.
I knew it was bad, but not this bad.
I would say that site makes a point about wage and benefit disparities between the public and private sectors, although their language feels like it could be a front for one of the Tea Party groups. (mostly Bush voters who want to use “cut government”, as a way to continue the social neglect that reigned during the Reagan/Bush era)
But there is clearly waste and excess in government that we need to turn towards dire needs like health insurance, energy independence and the crumbling U.S. infrastructure. I suspect the $500 billion budget for the Pentagon every year, is full of excess payouts. And while I supported the concept of a stimulus package, it was thrown together haphazardly and no doubt had lots of pork in it.
You know how states have ballot referendums? Those should probably start up now on this very issue, to force an equalization of pay and benefit scales between public and private sector workers. That could reduce the expenses that site refers to, but also possibly lock in benefits for part-time and minimum-wage workers in service industries, which at present offer almost none.
And if those workers start doing better, that would be the best stimulus plan of all…
Those tea baggers look curiously like Bushies to me. It’s odd how they scream socialism when it comes to a government coming to the aid of average people for healthcare, but had nothing to say when he did the socialist tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Or when he did the socialist handout to the bankers, or the Haliburton no-bid sweetheart contracts in Iraq. The ones now comparing Obama to Hitler are total ignorants.
The Tea Party protesters are right-wingers claiming to be independents. They are organized by groups like FreedomWorks, headed
by extremist GOP’er Dick Armey. Most of them could not define the term socialism, even if their job or house or health insurance depended on it…
Many think Hitler was a socialist, which indeed shows their ignorance of history. They will swallow any line of propaganda which Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, feed them.
They think “cut government/cut taxes” is the answer to America’s deep social problems, deprivations and inequities – even though that approach just failed under Bush II, and failed before that under Reagan/Bush 1 – which is what allowed Bill Clinton to defeat Bush 1 in 1992. Hoodwinked
and conditioned by Wingnut Media, they are unable to wake up.
And when the right wing channels like Fox organized these idiots to go to the health care town halls and cry like babies, the rest of the US press covered it like it was an important statement from some kind of big group. But after all their yelling polls still show that a good majority want everyone covered! And they weren’t scared by a few loudmouths that are clueless on world history and what hasn’t worked in their own country.
Jeff, the wingnut minority tried to kick & scream about death panels and socialism – and thanks to a compliant Media Inc. amplifying it into something much louder than it was, that made some people hesitate to support something which majorities have indeed supported for decades. Cover everyone medically.
It’s not hard. The world gets it done, while Americans fall for propaganda that props up a barbaric status quo, in which a few get wealthy while millions go without life-preserving care.
But we said the opposition was overblown, and driven by people who can’t get over the fact that their party failed utterly and was ousted for those failings in 2006 and 2008. Today the AP released a poll showing that since Obama has stepped in to take back the mic on the issue, support is rising again;
—
AP Poll: Health care overhaul hanging in there
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP)
October 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — The fever has broken. The patient is out of intensive care. But if you’re President Barack Obama, you can’t stop pacing the waiting room. Health care overhaul is still in guarded condition.
The latest Associated Press-GfK poll has found that opposition to Obama’s health care remake dropped dramatically in just a matter of weeks. Still, Americans remain divided over complex legislation that Democrats are advancing in Congress.
The public is split 40-40 on supporting or opposing the health care legislation, the poll found. An even split is welcome news for Democrats, a sharp improvement from September, when 49 percent of Americans said they opposed the congressional proposals and just 34 percent supported them.
Anger about health care boiled over during August. Lawmakers returning home for town hall meetings faced outcries that the government was trying to take over the system, ushering in higher costs, lower quality — even rationing and euthanasia.
“It’s very significant that there’s an upturn in support for the plans because after August there was a sense that the whole effort was beginning to decline and would not come back in terms of public support,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor who tracks public opinion on health care.
“Even with this,” added Blendon, “the country is still divided over whether or not moving ahead is the right thing to do.” A large number of Americans – 17 percent – say they neither support nor oppose the health legislation, suggesting many have unanswered questions.
Still, a shift has taken place. Behind it seems to be a growing determination among Democrats to move forward. Meanwhile, political independents don’t appear as alarmed about the congressional proposals as they were just a few weeks ago. Still, opponents remain more passionate in their convictions than do supporters.
In a significant change, opposition among older Americans dropped 16 percentage points. Seniors have been concerned that Congress would stick them with the bill by cutting Medicare to pay for covering the uninsured. Among the most reliable voters, they were much more wary of the changes than the public as a whole. The gap has narrowed.
The poll found that 68 percent of Democrats support the congressional plans, up from 57 percent in early September. Opposition among independents plunged from 51 percent to 36 percent. However, only 29 percent of independents currently support the plans in Congress.
Among seniors, opposition fell from 59 percent in September to 43 percent now. Almost four in 10, 38 percent, now support it, compared with 31 percent in September.
Retiree Sandi Murray, 65, of Hesperia, Mich., said she doesn’t have any concerns her Medicare coverage will suffer. “I think it will be A-OK,” she said.
Murray said she thinks it’s time to address the problems of nearly 50 million people without coverage. “We need to do something so that everybody has some amount of coverage for some reasonable amount of money,” she said.
Republicans remain solidly against the congressional health care plans, with four out of five opposed. However, even 13 percent say they support the bills in Congress, a contrast with the mood of GOP lawmakers, who are all but unanimously opposed.
Americans overwhelmingly say it’s important that health care legislation have the support of both parties, but Democrats are showing signs of impatience. Fifty-seven percent say Obama and the Democrats should pass a bill this year even if they are unable to win support from Republicans.
Blendon credits Obama’s speech to Congress in early September and his blitz of media interviews and appearances since then for moving public opinion toward the positive column. What some have criticized as presidential hyperactivity, many Americans took as a sign that the president was taking ownership of the issue, Blendon said.
The AP-GfK poll was conducted Oct. 1-5, based on a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults age 18 or older, contacted by telephone on land lines and cell phones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for results based on the entire sample.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Don’t repost on Balkingpoints…
A few U.S. Republicans like Bill Frist and Bob Dole are starting to peel off to support the Baucus bill. Which should be a dead giveaway that it favors the insurers and will let their profiteering continue on. Just a lot more customers for them, if a bill without public insurance passes. That seems to be their fallback if they can’t keep excluding the ill under their present arrangement.