Fox News VP Sammon claims poll shows people "don't want the public option" -- but poll shows the opposite
On the August 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, after co-host Bill Hemmer noted the results of an Ipsos/McClatchy poll question -- which he incorrectly said was an ABC News poll question -- asking if the public option would provide better care than private plans, Fox News vice president for news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon claimed that "people are saying they don't want the public option, as that poll demonstrates." However, when the Ipsos/McClatchy poll specifically asked respondents if they believed "it is necessary to create a public health insurance plan," 52 percent of respondents agreed. Numerous other recent polls also show that a majority of Americans support a public option.
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: We've seen the way it's been batted around the last 24 hours. One month ago, ABC News did a poll; they wanted to figure out whether or not you think a government-run option would be -- would give you higher-quality care or lower-quality care or no difference at all. On the screen -- 76 percent said it would make either no difference at all or lower-quality care.
Boy, you look at those numbers from a month ago, and you look at the town halls that have happened over the past four or five weeks, you wonder where those numbers are today, Bill.
SAMMON: Well, that's true. And, you know, you have to -- you have to figure that President Obama is feeling whipsawed, because on the one hand, people are saying they don't want the public option, as that poll demonstrates. Republicans are showing up at these town hall meetings and objecting. On the other hand, you've got liberal Democrats saying, look, you better put that public option back in there.
While Hemmer spoke, Fox News displayed the following graphic on screen:
While Hemmer and a Fox News graphic sourced the polling results to an "ABC News" poll, the results are actually from an Ipsos/McClatchy poll conducted from July 9-13:
Poll Sammon referenced found 52 percent believe it is "necessary to create a public health insurance plan"
Ipsos/McClatchy: 52 percent say "it is necessary to create a public health insurance plan." In a July 9-13 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 52 percent of respondents said that the statement -- "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care" -- came "closest to [their] opinion" of "whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance."
Other polls -- including ABC News poll that Hemmer and Sammon incorrectly cited -- find majority support public option
Several recent polls found that a majority support a public option. Recent polling from Washington Post/ABC News and Time all found more than 50 percent support for a public option; two Quinnipiac polls and a New York Times/CBS News poll found more than 60 percent support. A Fox News poll found 44 percent supporting the public option.
Quinnipiac: 62 percent support "public option." When asked whether they "support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 62 percent of respondents in a July 27-August 3 Quinnipiac poll said they support giving people a public option. In a July poll asking the same question, 69 percent said they support a public option.
Washington Post/ABC News: 54 percent support a "government-run plan." A July 15-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked: "Thinking about health care, one proposal to insure nearly everyone would require all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax, excluding those with lower incomes. It would require most employers to offer health coverage or pay a fee. There would be a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. And income taxes on people earning more than 280-thousand dollars a year would be raised to help fund the program. Taken together, would you support or oppose this plan? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?" Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would support the plan.
Time: 56 percent favor a "government-sponsored" option. In a July 27-28 Time poll, 56 percent of respondents said they would favor a health care bill that "creates a government-sponsored public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans."
NY Times/CBS News: 66 percent favor a "government administered" plan. When respondents were asked in a July 24-28 New York Times/CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 66 percent said they would support the plan.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 46 percent favor a plan "administered by the federal government." However, at least one poll, conducted July 24-27 by NBC News/Wall Street Journal, shows a split opinion on the public option. When respondents were asked whether they would "favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies," 46 percent said they would favor such a plan, while 44 percent said they would oppose it; 10 percent of respondents were not sure. MSNBC.com reported at noon E.T. on August 18 -- after the Fox News segment -- that an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted August 15-17 found that 47 percent "oppose the public plan, versus 43 percent who support it."
Fox News: 44 percent favor "creation of a government-run health insurance plan." A Fox News poll, conducted July 21-22, found that 44 percent favor the "creation of a government-run health insurance plan that would compete in the market place against private insurance plans," while 48 percent oppose the plan; 7 percent responded that they don't know.
Transcript
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: We've seen the way it's been batted around the last 24 hours. One month ago, ABC News did a poll; they wanted to figure out whether or not you think a government-run option would be -- would give you higher-quality care or lower-quality care or no difference at all. On the screen -- 76 percent said it would make either no difference at all or lower-quality care.
Boy, you look at those numbers from a month ago, and you look at the town halls that have happened over the past four or five weeks, you wonder where those numbers are today, Bill.
SAMMON: Well, that's true. And, you know, you have to -- you have to figure that President Obama is feeling whipsawed, because on the one hand, people are saying they don't want the public option, as that poll demonstrates. Republicans are showing up at these town hall meetings and objecting. On the other hand, you've got liberal Democrats saying, look, you better put that public option back in there.
Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York actually said, look, we feel betrayed in the Democratic Party by the Obama administration. We actually have -- we Democrats have a tire track across our chest from being thrown under the bus. So he's getting it from the left and from the right. My suspicion is that the health -- the public option or the government-run insurance program, which is really what it is, will possibly be taken out but ultimately be put back in, because I think Republicans are going to vote against this plan whether it has that so-called public option or not. And in the end, Democrats are going to go to the so-called nuclear option, which is to say, Bill, they'll change the Senate rules so you don't have to have 60 votes to pass it, you'll have to have 50 votes to pass it.
The point of a public option is not to improve quality of care, but to put some downward or at least stabilizing pressure on prices.
By the way where are the poll results from Gallup and rasmussen? Aren't they the most reliable?
Next.
That’s right they dam well know that the private companies wont be able to compete with a state run option that has a endless capital supply through taxes, that is the way they want it. That way they can say hey we wanted you to be able to keep your plan but it just couldn’t compete so welcome to the only option left the single payer government plan. The just don’t have the ball to come out and say what they want. Kind of like President Obama saying he has never been for a single payer system, when he is on record more that once saying as candidate Obama he supports a single payer plan. OF course MMFA won’t bring that up doesn’t play well to their head up your ass base.
You have a very strange understanding of the word "voluntary," and a very poor command of the English language.
Just like those Voluntary Income Tax Returns you fill out every year...
All the [arguably] 'first rate' public services I get are paid for by a host of other types of taxation. Schools, roads, police, fire, etc etc etc not one dime of that comes from federal income taxes.
In fact, we can look back to the Grace Commission Report and among many other things we learn;
And that was in 1984. Federal spending and our National Debt have increased dramatically since then.
The "Income Tax", as in the one you file a "voluntary" Income Tax Return for every year, doesn't actually pay for squat or provide squat that benefits any of US in any meaningful way.
Roads are provided by taxes on gasoline, tires etc.
Schools are paid for by property taxes, etc.
Utilities are paid for by those who consume, and even part of THAT is further taxed.
I never said anything remotely like 'all taxes are bad', or 'none of the taxes pay for anything'. What I singled out was ONE useless form of taxation, that does none of the wonderfl things many of you seem to want to believe that it does.
If anything, THAT power to destroy sucks money out of individuals and families, and out of the states, and makes all the above go begging the fed to allow them to have little bits of it back (provided the states become good little unconstitutional rubber stamps/police precincts for whatever legislative excrement comes out of Washington ala Grants-in-Aid programs)
Geez, read some Law and History, and use some common sense & a calculator now & then.
There may at one time have been in theory, but there is absolutely nothing "Progressive" about that tax now. It barely pays the scores of millions per hour in interest, mostly to people that print worthless debt-currency/fiat money on little pieces of paper.
Go read the Bretton Woods Agreement for a little taste of reality.
A "Dollar" is NOT a "thing", it is a unit of measurement, like an inch, or a pound. There can be dollars of something. There used to dollars of hard currency, now, there are dollars of monetized debt.
That is what the lions share of your Income Tax goes to, and even that isn't enough to keep up.
(hint - uninsured)
Whatever. You have a terribly cynical view of your fellow Americans.
There's no reason to believe that a citizen shouldn't be rewarded, right along side police and military protection, for their work and contribution as a tax payer with healthcare and education. It's a partnership for prosperity. I don't know where you get your misconceptions about good government from but you're delusional.
You know as well as I do if government services like the USPS were not available, to compete with private carriers, you couldn't send a letter from one end of the country to the next for less than half a dollar. Let the profit motive drive the price of postage/shipping and the price to you would be out of reach.
And when you uncork crap in a bottle like, "The government doesn't provide electricity, plumbing or phone service (there's a difference between regulating it and providing it) and most roadways are paid for by whatever state they're in." you expose your disconnect. Local or federal government programs are still tax funded public services. And government regulation of the private sector is still a government service that provides for the general welfare.
You also ignore the top notch work of the Center for Disease Control, FEMA (under Democrats, anyway) NASA, the National Weather Center and on and on.
If you don't like living together in a society, get the Hell out. Go it alone, or secede, more like it. See how well you get along in your free market utopia. Seriously, go away. You're wrong headed reactionary thinking is a drag on progress. Every civil advance in our country has been met with reactionary hostility from the right. You have always been automatically opposed to change, no matter the form. Until, that is, it turned out to be a benefit to society, then you claim to have been for it all along. Just like the Civil Rights Act.
You righties are pathetic.
And, when it comes to aiding their fellow man, they are also quite un-Christian (unless there's a profit to be made in it)
Great post!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Mooching toddlers.
True, if you could afford it. But say you couldn't afford insurance and got into an accident and had to go to the hospital. Guess who'd be paying your tab?
ME!!!
But then again, no one (even you) has ever lost their job.
Polls are irrelevant. People want affordable health care. For everyone. It saves lives and makes people healthier. It lowers bankruptcies. It's good for employers. Basically, it's good for everyone except the insurance company vampires sucking a 30% margin out of every dollar of premiums.
The question that should be polled: Since insurance companies don't bring anything to the table in regards to health CARE, and exist only to make money, should we even have a private option?
the point of the article was about polls. I also do not believe you can ask 500 people a question and that represents a couple of hundred million.
I remember years ago they said we would save a fortune on health care if they could convince people to stop smoking cigaretts. At the time 50% of the population smoked, today it is less than 25% so where is all the savings from prevention?
Do the insurance companies really make a 30% profit? Is this after all expenses and taxes? If so what do you think a reasonable profit would be?
The 30% is for overhead and profit. The overhead for medicare is 4%. Do the math. And to answer your question, there should be no profit motive in health care. Period.
And about smoking. There may not have been any savings, but as I look out my window here in Cleveland, Ohio we built a brand new baseball/basketball stadium complex on the backs of smokers and drinkers. Tobacco taxes are a cash cow to governments because no one complains when they are raised.
So cheers and light one up for me!
That is exactly right. And there are simple solutions to funding these essential public services, like taking the tax rates on the rich back to Clinton era levels. Remember how we had a budget surplus and a strong economy? Granted he gutted many public services, but he also made many of them, like FEMA, outstanding. It's all about priorities.
No, it's not. Here why you just failed Micro-Econ 101:
(originally posted be me on 8/13 in JF's CF column)
------------------------------------
I'm going to drag out my econ-101 (well, 601, but whatever) again.
There are several, simple reasons why HEALTH CARE is (for the most part) unique, and not something that the free market manages well.
1) FLAT DEMAND CURVE - Basically I have no alternatives. If I can't afford an Acura, I can buy a KIA. If I can't afford Filet, I can buy Chuck. But if I can't afford a triple-bypass (or chemo / transplant / pick your treatment) then I DIE. Well... death might be the low-cost alternative, but it's not one I'm likely to chose. So my demand curve (my tolerance/intolerance of price changes) is essentially flat. I'd be willing to give you ALL of my money, rather than DIE. So there's no incentive not to gougue. (There's a supply curve too, of course, but when the damand curve is flat, price just goes up, up, up with volume/demand. The supply curve will not lower prices in that case.) Unless I make medical decision based on COST rather than MEDICAL NECESSITY, cost not only won't come down, they CAN'T.
2) The free maret does not guarentee a low price for all. Market Price is a function of a) how many people will buy something at a given price versus b) how many people will sell something at a given price. Where these two curves meet sets both the price AND the available volume. And there's the rub: It guarentees that SOME PEOPLE don't get the item, either becuase they can't afford it, or aren't willing to pay that much.
(2 con't) Well... with people health care, I just can't accpet that! You can't either - witness your concerns about 'rationing.' WHAT DO YOU THINK THE 'FREE MARKET' DOES? It rations, based on price and tries to avoid surpluses (which lower the price) or shortages (which raise it).
The free market is EXACTLY why med bills got so high that we need insurance. The free market is EXACTLY why insurance got so expensive that we need our employer to foot 80% of the bill. The free market is EXACTLY why costs are now so high that HUGE COMPANIES are being bankrupted by the insurance costs. (See point #1, above, for the reason.) OK, to be fair there're some inefficies created by the gov't - low medicaid reimbursments for example, we agree on that. But there is just no evidence, in theory or in practice, that supports the idea that the FREE MARKET will lower costs, or increase coverage.
More than anything else, the MARKET is what got us to where we are today. And the patchwork of crap that we've built of the years to cover those cost HAS contributed, but not in a way that going 100% free market will suddenly deliver universal care.
People who think health care is a business disgust me. Thanks as well, NiceGuy.
I'm sick of these liberal sissies, this includes you Barack, rolling over for these irrelevant, bass ackward, market fundie conservatives time after time after time after time despite the fact we elected them overwhelmingly to lead an active government.
Wimps.
Fox had a poll on town meeting effectiveness that had respondents for yes or no call the same number. Then, they couldn't understand why the results were 100% yes.
Here's the clip. The part I'm talking about is about 2min 30sec into the clip. It's hilarious.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/poll-bearers
Here's an NBC poll released today:
-- And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans opppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed. --
I simply corrected their storyline that the polls show Americans support a public option...the NBC poll clearly says otherwise.
And here's another snapshot that comes to mind concerning the democrats and their healthcare plans...a picture from the old days of children practicing for a nuclear attack...head under the desk, stuck between their legs, with their arms covering their heads.
Can't say that I blame them...being attacked by conservatives and blue dog democrats...as well as the radical left. They have a real mess on their hands.
we will get healthcare reform and it WILL have a public option. at the end of the day the democrats will come together just like after the primaries. you know, the one where the right was saying hillery voters would vote for mccain. how did that work out for you guys anyway?
Conservatives are slamming it as nothing more than a disguised public option...and the far left...like DailyKos...call the co-op plan "putting lipstick on a pig".
Maybe a brick paved walk to Emerald City for some body parts would help the besieged democrats.
The co-op thing that Conrad is pushing is a bust because progressives and republicans will not support it.
Your fear is irrational. This is reality. Get used to it because Obama's got 3+ more years to make you scared.
Oooga boooga!!!!
Wait - now I know what you're scared of. You're scared that when a health care bill gets passed and becomes well-liked and successful, then your wing-nut tunes will be whistling with no one listening during your 40 years of wandering in the desert.
Other than that, your story is pure bull.
Most people want "affordable" health care.
Most do not have any issue with a "public option".
The people doing most of the crying and screaming are:
Republicans (and other conservatives) who wouldn't work with Obama on any kind of legislation, even if it gauranteed prosperity for all and an end to war.
People who are ill informed who actually believe that "Socailism" is on its way but; still don't want their Medicaid touched.
This month:
Opposed: 47% -> spread is 50% to 44%.
Favor: 43% -> spread is 46% to 40%
Whoops! There's overlap, so the results could be due to simple random fluctuations. No difference.
Last month:
Opposed: 46% -> spread is 49% to 43%.
Favor: 44% -> spread is 47% to 41%
Lots of overlap between the 2 months.
Net - no change at all. Ho hum.
What's funny is republicans are all about freedoms until they should allow them. I want the choice to own guns, but you can't have the choice who you get your health care from. Damn hypocrites. I am so glad I walked away from that party.
Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Max Baucus.
1. Conservatives want affordable healthcare.
2. Conservatives do NOT want the federal government to run healthcare, regardless of Obama, Republican, whatever.
3. The federal government has REPEATEDLY failed at running large scale programs effeciently (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Freddie/Fannie, Cash4Clunkers, Post Office, etc...).
4. The federal government has created HUGE defecits with the above mentioned programs...both Democrat AND Republican (though MUCH more with Democrats).
5. The public is being MISLED about the "public option". If the media provide ALL the information, rather than bias toward progressive policies, there would be little left for discussion.
Here is the conservative viewpoint: The public option will eventually (keyword) eliminate most, if not all, private insurance options, leaving only the federal government. How? Because the federal government is not a producer, it is a consumer. It does not produce anything, especially effeciency. The federal government CONSUMES, and CONSUMES, and CONSUMES our tax dollars.
If a private insurance company performs poorly, they loose business, and their jobs. If the federal government performs poorly (say...Social Security), they print money, raise taxes, and penalize the citizens. But, nothing changes. We just spend more money.
The US Constitution explicitly states that ANY power NOT enumerated in the constitution is given to the people. It is NOT the mandate of the federal government.
And yes, I know some of the parrots will say "Article 1, Section 8 says 'general welfare'"...but if the US Supreme Court and 200 years of debate cannot decide what that means, then neither can we. Any wahoo can google it and find both sides of the argument...so don't try it.
This country was founded on the rights of the individual, not the collective. This country was made great BECAUSE of that. NO COUNTRY IN HISTORY was made great through socialist or communist beliefs.
Do you want pizza? Yes
Do you want pepperoni? No
Sausage? No
Cheese? No
Sauce? No
Crust? No
You sure you want pizza? Yes, of course we want pizza.
Anyway, its not the same what-so-ever. Yes, healthcare reform is needed. But, that does NOT mean the federal government should do it.
Here's some things that should be in a bill:
1. Remove constraints that styme competition between insurance companies. Allow cross-state policies.
2. Reform Medicare payments. At least have it break even!
3. Tort reform to cap damage awards given by activist judges, reducing physician insurance, reducing costs.
4. Reform the pharm rules that allow them to drive up costs to the physicians, insurance.
You see, if you only look at it from Rachel, Ed and Keith's view, they won't talk about these things. They will tell you that conservatives only want the status quo. What they don't tell you is that other options exist that can make the system better for everyone, without increasing taxes or increasing deficits.
2. Medicare is in the red because they insure the most costly patients - the ELDERLY!
3. Tort reform is a drop in the bucket in the overall cost structure. It's a right-wing red herring.
4. Most of the pharma rules were put in place by REPUBLICANS.
4 wrongs don't make a right.
Medicare is (also) in the Red because Congress keeps replacing MONEY with IOU's (Gov't Bonds) so they can pay for other things. Now... the thinking man (a liberal) would realize that this means there's a problem with congress, and how the fund things. The moron (a conservative) sees this a reason to get rid of medicare.
(It's kind of like you getting mugged and them saying, "See? You just can't handle money!")
Either raise the level of repoire, or stop replying.
BTW - You missed something: Are you really conceeding that it's any less absurd to describe all liberal as "thinking [people]"? That's pretty generous of you, becuase I have met some dumb liberals in my life as well. It's rare, but it does happen! ;)
Now that that's out of the way, do you disagree with my point re medicare/soc sec?
And, I completely accept your apology. Well done.
You can imagine that as a conservative voice on this site, I get my fair share of baseless name-calling...
JStephen, I think you are incorrect on this one, though. At least if you are talking about the right-wing. In fairness, the term conservative has a wholly different meaning today than it once did.
But the right-wing clearly does not want Medicare or Medicaid. I think that's obvious from the quotes above by hilighter and stark et. al. I will list some of them if necessary, but I think it is quite obvious that they do not want government involved in healthcare. They also have a basic misunderstanding of economics, but I don't think that is what is driving them. I think it is quite obvious from their statements that they see government providing healthcare as wasteful handouts to the lazy.
To answer your question: We COULD, but the REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES won't let us. Were not lacking in workable solutions, your lot is just really good at convincing that easliy misled public that they're 'scary' or 'un-american' or some other such nonsense. (Witness the health care debate: It's hard to convince the public when the opposition is trusted depsite the fact that they lie with almost every breath.)
But, it IS true that Conservatives do NOT want a government run healthcare system, as the federal government has PROVEN over, and over, and over how poorly they run large programs.
What, in the history of our great country, would lead you to believe that the federal government (regardless of political affiliation) can run a large program without consuming enormous amounts of taxes and creating huge deficits?
There's 26% savings RIGHT THERE.
Why do you love insurance companies so much?
And your lack of faith in government, which by the way is the people, is quite discouraging and fast becoming a wingnut canard.
The federal government runs many, many programs very well. I am still amazed that so many people dismiss the all the men and women who work for the federal government so easily. We have a great country but we can't run any program well? That seems like a contradiction. Which federal programs that are run by the government now do you think private industry would run more efficiently at a lower price for the consumer? I assume you are arguing that these "large programs" should be turned over to private industry. No? If not, then I believe your argument would be crying out for stricter regulations, not less.
What in the history of our great healthcare insurance scam would lead you to believe that the insurance companies are ever going to do anything to make costs reasonable to the consumer (or at least curb the remarkable speed at which these costs seem to increase) or provide healthcare for all? I would love to hear how this is going to happen without the federal government, but I have yet to hear how it is going to happen. We have been hearing that once the feds get involved costs will soar for decades now, meanwhile costs continue to soar.
2. Medicare is in the red because the federal government has NEVER successfully implemented a large scale program effeciently. Are you aware that the current plan points this out, and claims that it will recover half of the $1 Trillion by being more effecient? Why not use that money to insure the remaining 25 million? Why do we need a projected $1.5 Trillion deficit?
3. Provide proof. I can go to the internet and do a simple search on "tort reform medical costs" and find TONS of articles saying the opposite. The truth is you have ZERO proof, and are echoing progressive talking points.
4. Who cares who put them in place? I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I am a conservative American who believes in our country, and belives in the rights of the individual. Again, I have seen ZERO evidence that all pharma regulations were created by Republicans...or even that the majority were created by one party or the other...but what does that have to do with it? I'm not bashing one party or the other. Both have issues, and strong points. I freely admit that. Move on.
Medicare is much more efficient than private healthcare. This is just a simple fact. No one with any knowledge is arguing this dead point. Medicare is more efficient. Look it up. If Medicare is so inefficient and ineffective compared to private healthcare, then let's see how many Americans want to get rid of it.
Tort reform has been done in Missouri. Wanna guess how far down their healthcare costs have gone? They've gone up right along with everyone else's. Do a little research. Call someone who lives in Missouri and ask them about their cheap healthcare. Tort reform has been tried and in some cases, it is actually good - but it has not driven down costs and it will not.
You need a simple understanding of economics. As long as healthcare is in any kind of free market there will never be healthcare for all. That is just how a market price works. If everyone could afford it, then they would be able to charge more. In fact if 200 million people paid $20 a month but 100 million people were willing and able to pay $50 a month then the price would eventually work its way up to $50 a month and the other 100 million would be SOL. Without the government there will never be healthcare for all who want and need it. That's how economics works.
And, you're not a Republican but you think Maddow and Beck are the same thing? Please. You shouldn't be selling it because nobody is buying it, my friend.
The bill was so noxious to some of the sane republicans that the vote on the floor of the house was left open til 3 a.m. (never done before). One Republican house member was even BLACKMAILED into voting for it.
There's one right off the top of my head.
But, that does not, NOT indicate (as you did) that ALL of these were done by one party or the other.
BUT!!!!!Again, WHO CARES? Democrats do bad legislation, Republicans do bad legislation. Noted. Move ON!
1) Uselss and dangerous. Useless: WHAT constraints? That's absurd. They can compete all they want. What are you talking about? Dangerous: Remove the state boundaries and every company will only have to comply with the ONE state that has the most lax regs. You just DROVE UP costs, and made sure they cover NOTHING. Thanks a lot.
1a) Autism treatment (as just 1 example) is only covered in 14 states becasue those 14 state govt's MANDATED it. Thanks for killing that for everyone. Jackass. McCain talked about this. It's the biggest reason (other than Palin & Obama) that I didn't vote for him. It's Health Care SUICIDE.
2) How about 1 universal plan, with every american in the SAME PLAN?! That way it ALL "breaks even."
3) Tort reform IS needed, but will do little to lower costs to average citizen. Damages should NOT be capped however (who are YOU to desicde that?) but rather the large number of BS cfrivoluous cases, should just be thrown out. Neither would accomplish much though - the PRICE would change very little, with most of the differecne going to PROFIT. (Thus coverage will not increase.)
4) Hmmm.... Sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Are you TRYING to stifle new drug development? Personally, I have very few problems with big pharma that couldn't be sovled by restoring the's FDA budget. [Pharma] provides VALUE in the HC system. So let 'em make their money. Insurance profits OTOH are derrived from LIMITING CARE & COVERAGE. They do NOT provide value. They shouldn't be allowed to make obscene profits for FAILING to provide health care!
If that were true, I say good. Health insurance bureaucrats who profit from letting people die for bottom line profits deserve to be stuck on the spit and roasted in hell for all eternity.
"Because the federal government is not a producer, it is a consumer."
Done. You're done. You're spouting RNC talking points a la Michael Steele. Government produces scientific studies, does research, builds roads, maintains parks, builds schools, funds public universities and much more. You sir are a blind man.
"If a private insurance company performs poorly, they loose business, and their jobs."
Whatever. Insurance companies turn good profits but that has no bearing on their performance. It just tells us they're good at accepting premiums and denying care, that's how they make money. If what you said is true, if their performance mattered, the insurance industry would have folded decades ago from causing families to go into bankruptcy by denying service for medical procedures or coverage for medication. Your slovenly adoration of these death merchants is sociopathic.
"NO COUNTRY IN HISTORY was made great through socialist or communist beliefs."
With the exception of our socialist military, you're right. Mostly, you're just plain full of crap. Depending on your definition of great, Britain can be considered a great country. France, Canada, Japan can too.
And don't try to claim you have the sole interpretation of the constitution as your own personal domain. We all have a say in what it means and we have even made amendments to it when needed.
Hard-Core, Right-Wing, Funny-Mentalist, Republican, Corporate Whores in the Congress are PEOPLE too, you know!