Althouse: Support for ObamaCare falls to 43%.

December 14, 2010

Support for ObamaCare falls to 43%.

53% are opposed — with 37% "strongly" opposed. Strong support is way down at 22%.

152 comments:

kent said...: MATCH GAME 2010:

"You can [blank] some of the people some of the time..."; 12/14/10, 9:19 AM
Anonymous said...: The fact that 22% support it speaks ill of America.; 12/14/10, 9:32 AM
Unknown said...: "We have to pass it to see what's in it."

They did and we did.

And I remember how all our little National Socialists kept shrieking, "Get used to it!!!".

Now they can.

kent said...

MATCH GAME 2010:

"You can [blank] some of the people some of the time..."

Are you allowed to use that word in mixed company?; 12/14/10, 9:32 AM
Larry J said...: Is "strongly opposed" the best they have? If so, then count me as "strongly opposed."; 12/14/10, 9:32 AM
traditionalguy said...: The 22% are probably thankful for the pre-existing exclusion being eliminated. That unfairly traps many people. But if the GOP deals with that issue forthrightly and gets their message out not withstanding the enemy Media's snow job on the issue, then they will come on over too, unless they work for the AARP or a similar fascist government scam.; 12/14/10, 9:43 AM
Alex said...: Real people of conscience run roughshod over "public opinion". Obama was elected, deal with it. Elections have consequences SUCKA!; 12/14/10, 9:53 AM
Opus One Media said...: assuming that most of the flock on here oppose it, please list the three things, in order of importance, that you want to do away with. (all of it doesn't count...just list the provisions that you find most objectionable); 12/14/10, 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...: please list the three things, in order of importance, that you want to do away with

1. The government forcing people who don't want to buy health insurance to buy health insurance.

Your need for three things merely demonstrates what a boor you are.; 12/14/10, 9:59 AM
Alex said...: These are the 3 worst parts:

* individual mandate

* adults with pre-existing conditions will be eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool, which will be superseded by the health care exchange in 2014

* Impose a $2000 per employee tax penalty on employers with more than 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers; 12/14/10, 9:59 AM
Alex said...: HenHouse is speechless that his bluff was called!; 12/14/10, 10:00 AM
sunsong said...: I want the mandate to be thrown out - whether by the courts or the legislature. To me, something needed to be done about healthcare, but 2400 pages or 2700 pages was overkill. And the mandate, imo, is unconstituional. That's a big problem.

I also oppose the idea of government officials and/or bureaucrats deciding what procedure are acceptable and what aren't - what will be funded and what won't. We are individuals. One size does not fit all. Different treatments work well with some people and are ineffective with others. The individual needs to be treated - as an individual, imo.; 12/14/10, 10:17 AM
Original Mike said...: HD: It's not insurance, and thus completely unsustainable economically. All of the other bad stuff (i.e. the government making health care decisions for individuals, the stunting of innovation and progress on the treatment of disease) flows from that.; 12/14/10, 10:19 AM
Triangle Man said...: I do not like the individual mandate I see how it addresses balancing the risk pool with the already-sick, but I don't like it.

Obama opposed the individual mandate during his campaign.; 12/14/10, 10:21 AM
traditionalguy said...: HD...Health Insurance can be regulated. It already is by States. But if the clear intention is to destroy the Private Insurance industry just to get fascist Government stooges' death panel and rationing hands around the throat of old and disabled folks, then Sara Palin was 100% right. And how are the Dems going to win that war unless they first get the old and disabled labeled subhuman vermin...Like the Nazi Party did to the Jews? Your answer cannot be because the love us too much, because they only love easy money.; 12/14/10, 10:21 AM
Triangle Man said...: Note that I do not think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.; 12/14/10, 10:22 AM
Triangle Man said...: But if the clear intention is to destroy the Private Insurance industry just to get fascist Government stooges' death panel and rationing hands around the throat of old and disabled folks, then Sara Palin was 100% right.

What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?; 12/14/10, 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?

What is people don't want to buy it? Where in the Constitution can you find the part about making people buy stuff? If people don't participate in commerce, the Commerce Clause is not invoked.; 12/14/10, 10:25 AM
Alex said...: Seven Machos - in all Western European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel people are just automatically covered, period. America is the lone holdout for the greedy insurance industry.; 12/14/10, 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Alex -- your trolling is silly.; 12/14/10, 10:27 AM
Lincolntf said...: "What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?"

Then destroying the system that delivers the actual care is insane, whether it's Constitutional or not.; 12/14/10, 10:28 AM
Triangle Man said...: Where in the Constitution can you find the part about making people buy stuff? If people don't participate in commerce, the Commerce Clause is not invoked.

Congress, your elected representatives in government, can enact legislation to take money from you and buy stuff with that money. I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard. Why does the commerce clause need to come into it?; 12/14/10, 10:30 AM
Original Mike said...: "What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?"

It is clear that this is not the primary intention. If it were, they could have done this MUCH more cheaply and left everybody else alone.; 12/14/10, 10:32 AM
Larry J said...: What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?

That would not require a 2000+ page piece of legislation that "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."

The healthcare legislation was far more about health insurance than health care. Health care is what you receive from medical providers. Very little about actual health care was in the bill. Instead, it created multiple levels of bureaucracy and regulations primarily focused on paying for health care.; 12/14/10, 10:33 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: What is people don't want to buy it?

I think that's perfectly ok. The flipside is when that person gets appendicitis or breaks their arm tend to find out that Chapter 7 is a viable option in lieu of footing the hospital bill.

Unfortunately there aren't that many cat care policies available which would be an appropriate (and value added) purchase for those 'youths' who don't need no stinking insurance card.; 12/14/10, 10:33 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: @HD

Being forced to buy health insurance.

Being forced to buy insurance acceptable by the government- not personal needs.

Being penalized for not buying health insurance or government authorized insurance.; 12/14/10, 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Congress, your elected representatives in government, can enact legislation to take money from you and buy stuff with that money. I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard. Why does the commerce clause need to come into it?

Dude, it's because of what the law says. Look at the law. The law penalizes people for not buying health insurance. There is no tax. It's a penalty. A tax is not a penalty. A penalty is not a tax.

Democrats are hoisted on their own rhetorical petard here. Of course -- of course -- there couldn't be a tax because Congressional Democrats were adamant that their vaunted health insurance bill would not raise taxes. So they thought up this brilliant penalty for people who don't buy insurance and tried to invoke exactly the Commerce Clause, because the federal government operates under limited powers.

If Congress wants to institute a tax, the constitutional grounds for that is much, much stronger. But this most recent Congress was too pussy for that.; 12/14/10, 10:34 AM
Triangle Man said...: That would not require a 2000+ page piece of legislation that "we have to pass it to find out what's in it.

I agree. I think too many groups lobbied and got their piece of the action.; 12/14/10, 10:34 AM
Triangle Man said...: If Congress wants to institute a tax, the constitutional grounds for that is much, much stronger. But this most recent Congress was too pussy for that.

Fair enough.; 12/14/10, 10:35 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It is clear that this is not the primary intention. If it were, they could have done this MUCH more cheaply and left everybody else alone.

Exactlty which is why I would have backed a Federally funded catastrophic care plan for the uninsured/uninsurable. Create a nominal monthly premium (ala Medicare) with the rest subsidized by the taxpayer. No it won't pay for your annual physical or well baby care which it shouldn't. Routine medical care should be your responsibility.; 12/14/10, 10:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: And yet -- I wonder how many of those polled know what's in the bill. Are they reacting to what they are told by politicians who are only out to seek power.; 12/14/10, 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: I wonder how many of those polled know what's in the bill.

Maybe they were the members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi who voted on the bill so they could find out what's in it.

RIM SHOT!; 12/14/10, 10:40 AM
Triangle Man said...: Damn it, posted before finishing.

@Seven

I agree that Congress made a mess for themselves by phrasing the law they way they did. It is a puzzle to me. Nonetheless, I would not be surprised to see some backpedaling about whether or not it is a tax if that appears to be the constitutionally viable label.; 12/14/10, 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: please list the three things, in order of importance, that you want to do away with.

1. Government providing insurance to anyone above the poverty level.

2. Federal government regulation of the health insurance market.

3. Any federal government mandates to the states.; 12/14/10, 10:43 AM
traditionalguy said...: Triangle Man...The existing system provided free services at Hospitals to all in need. That is why my hospital bill reads $80,000 for 8 days. The real cost of serving me was maybe $16,000, and by my bill being paid at $80,000 by my private carrier, the extra $64,000 went to the free patients, and my rates for coverage reflect that fact. There is no need for a take over to get the free patients treated. It's all a trick to get control over who lives and who dies. I admit that compared to the Global Warming(CO2 is proclaimed poison) Trick it is a minor trick.The Global Warming trick gets everybody, while the health insurance take over trick only get the old and the disabled. As Ted Turner said, Obam got his trick priorities wrong.; 12/14/10, 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: I would not be surprised to see some backpedaling about whether or not it is a tax if that appears to be the constitutionally viable label.

I'm certain that's one of the arguments. Congress can and should fix this problem by amending the law. I would like to see major amendments -- a complete and drastic overhaul. But a simple change from penalty to tax would, in my opinion, fix this problem. And it's not merely a technical issue, either. Congress must stay within its boundaries as set out by the existing Constitution. Otherwise, we aren't a government by us or of us.; 12/14/10, 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard.

Well, how about the fact that you should be able to provide for your own medical care?

Maintaining an infrastructure is a legitimate function of government.

Taking a portion of my wages so someone else can go to a doctor, not so much.; 12/14/10, 10:51 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: What if the clear intention [had been] to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?

Then, they would have passed something far different.

I would suggest that most of those who still believe that that was the true reason and intention behind ObamaCare are in that 22%, and likely half of them watch Stewart and Cobert for their news.

Think about it for a minute. The justification was initially 45 million uninsured. But, then when 1/3 of those turned out to be illegals, the 30 million was used. But no one ever looked into that figure that closely, I would suggest because it would show that a significant portion of those opted out to spend their insurance money on drugs and alcohol. I am not talking the drug addicts necessarily, but rather the Stewart and Cobert watchers who just want to party a bit before they have to grow up.

So, maybe we need to extend the safety net to cover another 5-10% of the population. Does that mean the penalty shot down yesterday in court? Mandatory insurance? Abolition of low-cap and high deductible plans? All those boards, commissions, etc.?

I would suggest that it doesn't. It could have been accomplished far easier with, say, a national catastrophic medical plan, which aren't very expensive, and maybe an expansion in Medicaid and Medicare. It would have been far cheaper, and far less disruptive.; 12/14/10, 10:58 AM
Original Mike said...: "I wonder how many of those polled know what's in the bill."

Do you find it credible that there are 2000+ pages of goodness in there?; 12/14/10, 11:04 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I would suggest though that the goal wasn't just to provide a safety net for everyone, but to spread the wealth around. To give everyone pretty much the same coverage, regardless of their ability, or worse, willingness to work and pay for their own health care and health care insurance.

What I find the most humorous about it though is that unions backed ObamaCare and the Democrats, despite the fact that ultimately they are going to be some of the bigger losers. It all comes from their "leadership" being willing to sell out their members's interest in order to sit at the big table with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.; 12/14/10, 11:04 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: And yet -- I wonder how many of those polled know what's in the bill. Are they reacting to what they are told by politicians who are only out to seek power.

Actually, since the favorability of ObamaCare seems to be still sliding, it appears that the more people know about it, the less they like it. It wasn't so bad, until they discovered that it doesn't take 2,000 pages of legislation, numerous boards, commissions, and panels, etc. to solve the problem of 5-10% of the population uninsured.; 12/14/10, 11:07 AM
Original Mike said...: Taxes are used to raise revenue. Apparently, the penalty is expected to raise $4 billion. The total cost of the bill is pushing $1 trillion. It is not a revenue-raising measure. It is coercion to get you to do something the government wants.; 12/14/10, 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: it doesn't take 2,000 pages of legislation, numerous boards, commissions, and panels, etc. to solve the problem of 5-10% of the population uninsured

Moreover, as was mentioned upthread, is it really cheaper to have these layers of costs than to just force hospitals to eat costs at emergency rooms and transfer those eaten costs to paying customers? I don't think it is. I think the perfectly good way things are now is cheaper.; 12/14/10, 11:09 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Congress, your elected representatives in government, can enact legislation to take money from you and buy stuff with that money. I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard. Why does the commerce clause need to come into it?

Because that isn't the way that our government was designed to operate. We supposedly have a national government of limited enumerated powers, with the remainder of the powers reserved for the states and the people. That was the intent, and that is what the Constitution says.; 12/14/10, 11:11 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: MadisonMan said...

I wonder -- how many of those polled know what's in the bill.

Based on the numbers, I'd have to go with 37%.; 12/14/10, 11:12 AM
cubanbob said...: Only democrats could fuck something up so bad. It takes a perverse form of genius to do what they have done.

They wanted universal coverage for the uninsured and those with existing pre-conditions. It's too simple for them to just expand Medicaid and means test the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions.

They are too cowardly to cover their cost shifting of Medicare and Medicaid on the private sector. ER's, hospitals and doctors should be billing the government directly for the services provided to the indigent or deadbeats who game the system when federal law requires them to treat them. Why let Congress off the hook? Let the bastards have to vote to appropriate the money instead of the dirty, sneaky way their doing it now. If republicans were actually serious about these mandates they would propose this. Congress having to argue and vote for the funds to cover the forced subsidies. Give the voters the choice:

A-higher Medicaid/Medicare taxes to replace the forced subsidies.
B-higher medical insurance premiums to subsidize Medicaid/Medicaid.
c-cut spending on Medicaid/Medicare

The only thing that keeps the democrats going as a national party instead of becoming what it really is a marginal and regional leftist party is the never ending stupidity and timidity of the national and state republican leadership.

This bill is not likely to survive the courts. There simply too many flaws in it to survive the court review. The tax issue, the mandates and the takings clause matter are more than enough to scuttle this ship of fools. What comes after that remains to be seen.; 12/14/10, 11:13 AM
garage mahal said...: Yes, ObamaKKKare HAS taken effect, and yes it's costing billions! Don't listen to the CBO or anyone else.; 12/14/10, 11:15 AM
Lincolntf said...: How humiliating for Obama. First he had to grant exemptions to virtually all of his political allies because the HCR was such a fuck-up, and now 2/3rds of the country realize that he's still forcing it on them while the Courts are basically calling him an idiot. His bid for the title "Worst President Ever" is all but assured now.

(His fragile sanity is gonna crumble completely if he doesn't get to a Hawaiian resort, ASAP.); 12/14/10, 11:22 AM
Original Mike said...: "ER's, hospitals and doctors should be billing the government directly for the services provided to the indigent "

Yep. Honest. Simple. Managable. Accountable. Lower total cost to society.; 12/14/10, 11:23 AM
Fen said...: The fact that 22% support it speaks ill of America.

I'm wondering what portion of that 22% have waivers?; 12/14/10, 11:26 AM
Fen said...: I wonder how many of those polled know what's in the bill. Are they reacting to what they are told by politicians who are only out to seek power.

Congress passed it without reading the bill to begin with.; 12/14/10, 11:30 AM
Fen said...: What I find the most humorous about it though is that unions backed ObamaCare and the Democrats, despite the fact that ultimately they are going to be some of the bigger losers.

Nah, they'll get waivers.

Does anyone know if Congress itself must use Obamacare? They always seem to exclude themselves from the nonsense they make the rest of us abide by.; 12/14/10, 11:32 AM
Original Mike said...: "Does anyone know if Congress itself must use Obamacare? They always seem to exclude themselves from the nonsense they make the rest of us abide by."

I read recently (Wall Street Journal article, I think) that they intended to exclude themselves but slipped up and didn't ("damn, I knew we should have read that bill"). Not to worry, Congress critters said, they do not intend to honor the law.; 12/14/10, 11:40 AM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/14/10, 11:48 AM
Scott M said...: 53% are opposed — with 37% "strongly" opposed. Strong support is way down at 22%.

Nigh upon inaccessible waivers will do that to popular sentiment.; 12/14/10, 11:49 AM
Fen said...: According to HHS, 112 waivers have already been granted (1.2 million people).

I wonder how much I have to donate to my corrupt congress-critter to get the chance to lobby for a waiver...; 12/14/10, 11:49 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Fen asked...

Does anyone know if Congress itself must use Obamacare? They always seem to exclude themselves from the nonsense they make the rest of us abide by.

What exactly is there to 'use' in ObamaCare? I believe that for the most part they will be subject to its provisions. However, they don't have to worry about an individual mandate, since they have insurance paid for by taxpayers. If their plans are considered 'Cadillac' plans, then that would incur a %40 tax on their employers, not them. Their plan would have to cover their children up to age 26, but what do they care? It's not like they work in the private sector where their company has to meet expenses or someone will get laid off.

I seem to recall hearing of some provision that would affect them negatively that they forgot to exclude themselves from, but all in all it seemed pretty minor.; 12/14/10, 11:58 AM
Fen said...: ObamaCare [Obama, via Rasmussen]

43% [45%] Support
22% [23%] Strongly Support

53% [54%] Oppose
37% [41%] Strongly Oppose

bracketed % = presidential tracking poll

Interesting how close those numbers are.; 12/14/10, 11:58 AM
garage mahal said...: Congress passed it without reading the bill to begin with.

Obama and Congress had a devious plan to destroy private insurance, to ultimately implement government run health care. But they all submitted that 2000 page plan and FORGOT TO READ IT!; 12/14/10, 12:12 PM
Eric said...: I do not like the individual mandate I see how it addresses balancing the risk pool with the already-sick, but I don't like it.

The financing was already a bit of three card monty. It collapses without the individual mandate.; 12/14/10, 12:19 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Obama and Congress had a devious plan to destroy private insurance, to ultimately implement government run health care. But they all submitted that 2000 page plan and FORGOT TO READ IT!

Why the snark garage? Nancy Pelosi admitted as much. They didn't forget, they just didn't bother.; 12/14/10, 12:19 PM
Alex said...: garage can't deal with reality so he gets a bit hysterical.; 12/14/10, 12:20 PM
garage mahal said...: So there never was a master socialist plan to take our freedom and liberty away and destroy private insurance?; 12/14/10, 12:22 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Nah, they'll get waivers.

Maybe for another two years. And, they will likely pull out all the stops in the next election. Voter fraud, and all that. But they will get a much cooler reception when the next Republican enters the White House.

Keep in mind that some of the biggest beneficiaries of the waivers have been the public employee unions that have provided so much support for the President. But the House in the next Congress is not going to look kindly at all at continuing to bail them out, esp. knowing how much money and manpower the unions employed against them. And, so, I expect that their ranks won't increase over the next couple of years, like they have under Obama.; 12/14/10, 12:23 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The financing was already a bit of three card monty. It collapses without the individual mandate.

It would collapse any way. This is just making it collapse all that much faster - assuming, and hoping, that the higher courts ultimately follow the court yesterday.; 12/14/10, 12:24 PM
Scott M said...: So there never was a master socialist plan to take our freedom and liberty away and destroy private insurance?

Of course there is. Just like there's probably a white supremacist wet dream for a plague that only kills non-whites, gays, and whites that like gansta rap.

It doesn't matter how you twist in the wind on this one, buddy. It's not a good sign. By the way, how many critters in Congress do you suppose knew about the 1099 debacle before voting on the thing?; 12/14/10, 12:25 PM
garage mahal said...: Ah, so it was some sort meta-physical plan to take away our freedom. Coercion by the abstract.

By the way Republicans just voted against the 1099 repeal. Huh.; 12/14/10, 12:29 PM
Original Mike said...: "So there never was a master socialist plan to take our freedom and liberty away and destroy private insurance?"

Of course there is. The goal of many liberals, including Obama, for single-payer, government run health care is indisputable. (Yes, I know you're going to dispute it anyways.); 12/14/10, 12:32 PM
garage mahal said...: But how could they accomplish that if they never even read the bill?; 12/14/10, 12:33 PM
Original Mike said...: "By the way Republicans just voted against the 1099 repeal. Huh."

Gee, let me take a wild-ass guess here. There was some other crap sandwich attached to it. Do I win a Cupie doll?; 12/14/10, 12:37 PM
Scott M said...: Ah, so it was some sort meta-physical plan to take away our freedom. Coercion by the abstract.

No, not abstract. Very concrete and deliberate coercion. I can't think of much more diametrically opposed to liberty than coercion. Can you, Garage?; 12/14/10, 12:37 PM
garage mahal said...: No, not abstract. Very concrete and deliberate coercion

How in the fuck could you do that if nobody in Congress read the bill! It makes no sense. Oh I got it. Of course it doesn't make any sense.

Gee, let me take a wild-ass guess here. There was some other crap sandwich attached to it. Do I win a Cupie doll?

No Cupie doll. They want to wait until they take over and take credit for it.; 12/14/10, 12:45 PM
Alex said...: How in the fuck could you do that if nobody in Congress read the bill! It makes no sense. Oh I got it. Of course it doesn't make any sense.

I guess you missed the part where Nancy Pelosi rammed it through in 3 days?; 12/14/10, 12:46 PM
garage mahal said...: So Democrats just got lucky. They submitted the master plan of destroying private insurance....without reading it.....and it just turns out it WAS exactly the master plan they always dreamed of!; 12/14/10, 12:47 PM
Scott M said...: How in the fuck could you do that if nobody in Congress read the bill! It makes no sense.

You've made a couple passes at the shark pen. Are you going up the ramp shortly?

You do realize that someone actually WROTE the language in that bill. It wasn't a million liberal monkeys on a million typewriters. It was the public face, the politicians, that rammed it home without reading it. They are supposed to be servants of the people. I don't know who actually wrote the bill, though. Do you?; 12/14/10, 12:48 PM
Original Mike said...: "and it just turns out it WAS exactly the master plan they always dreamed of!"

It's a step in the process. Obama himself has said you can't get there all at once.; 12/14/10, 12:51 PM
Lincolntf said...: Garage, the plan was written, beginning back in the Nineties, by various Leftist orgs, including Americans For Progress. Congress was not allowed to read it by Pelosi because she knew exactly what kind of Socialist pap the "professional Left" would have produced, and that Americans would reject it outright.

You should really pay attention to politics if you want to contribute to these discussions. This is common knowledge, and was discussed widely at the time of the ram-through.; 12/14/10, 12:53 PM
Scott M said...: It's a step in the process. Obama himself has said you can't get there all at once.

I've often wondered if single-source advocates believe that it's better than the current system...or just more fair.; 12/14/10, 12:54 PM
garage mahal said...: You do realize that someone actually WROTE the language in that bill. It wasn't a million liberal monkeys on a million typewriters. It was the public face, the politicians, that rammed it home without reading it. They are supposed to be servants of the people. I don't know who actually wrote the bill, though. Do you?

So some sort of Man Behind the Curtain wrote the bill. Or a Grand Puppeteer?; 12/14/10, 12:58 PM
Scott M said...: Who wrote it, GM?; 12/14/10, 1:00 PM
garage mahal said...: Wellpoint.; 12/14/10, 1:06 PM
Original Mike said...: Yet, you support it.; 12/14/10, 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage: The dastardly health insurance companies wrote this law.

Garage: I support this law.

Conclusion: ...; 12/14/10, 1:11 PM
garage mahal said...: Poking fun at loopy conspiracy theories is hardly an endorsement.; 12/14/10, 1:13 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I've often wondered if single-source advocates believe that it's better than the current system...or just more fair.

I don't think very many of them really think that it is better, and may believe, as most of us (Garage excepted) that it worse. But it was worth it for them, because health care availability will now be more fair. The wealth is being spread around, and the quality overall of our health care will be brought down to the level of those who won't work for theirs, cannot afford such, or just want to spend the money on booze and pot.; 12/14/10, 1:13 PM
Scott M said...: Wellpoint.

How did Wellpoint get elected into Congress?

IE, if Wellpoint wrote it, the intent was concrete and deliberate, going back to my original point. Then you have to wonder why so many Congress members, those who's votes allowed it to become law, didn't understand what they were voting on outside summaries drawn up by leadership staffers...who, coincidentally, aren't elected either.; 12/14/10, 1:13 PM
Original Mike said...: "Poking fun at loopy conspiracy theories is hardly an endorsement."

This one ain't loopy. In fact, it's why you support this bill. You know the end game as well as everybody else.; 12/14/10, 1:16 PM
Lincolntf said...: There's even a requirement that sales of gold bullion over $600 will now require a disclosure to the Federal government, in the form of a 1099 report.
Nothing says "I Care About the Poor People!" like sneaking in bullshit tax regulations on precious metals.

The chances that Obama's health care takeover would ultimately survive were never been than about 50%. Now the odds are about 100-1 against him.; 12/14/10, 1:36 PM
Triangle Man said...: I don't think very many of them really think that it is better, and may believe, as most of us (Garage excepted) that it worse.

They think that equivalent or better care can be provided at a lower marginal cost under a single payer system.; 12/14/10, 1:37 PM
garage mahal said...: We're already paying for single payer. We just aren't getting it.; 12/14/10, 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: better care can be provided at a lower marginal cost under a single payer system

Except it can't. Canada's health care system is not solvent, and people from Canada come here for serious problems. Therefore, we have empirical evidence that marginal cost will not be lower and that the system will not be better.

Moreover, stories of patient neglect are so common in single-payer systems as to be routine.

Americans don't want a single-payer system and would never stand for it if one existed.

Finally, what is stopping any American state from adopting a single-payer system? I'll answer that one for you: nothing. So hasn't it happened?; 12/14/10, 1:40 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: How in the fuck could you do that if nobody in Congress read the bill! It makes no sense. Oh I got it. Of course it doesn't make any sense.

So was Pelosi lying when she said we have to pass it to see whats it it? Was John Conyers lying when he said he didn't have time to read the bill?; 12/14/10, 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: We're already paying for single payer. We just aren't getting it.

I thought single-payer was supposed to cost less. And no, we aren't getting crappy single-payer coverage.; 12/14/10, 1:41 PM
Scott M said...: We're already paying for single payer. We just aren't getting it.

So what you're saying, if I understand obfuscation correctly, is that we're already being coerced so a little more won't hurt?; 12/14/10, 1:43 PM
Original Mike said...: "They think that equivalent or better care can be provided at a lower marginal cost under a single payer system."

Because nothing says cost efficiency more than a monsterous government program.; 12/14/10, 1:43 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Because nothing says cost efficiency more than a monsterous government program.

But this time it will work! Just you wait!!!; 12/14/10, 1:53 PM
Original Mike said...: Thanks for the laugh, Hoosier.; 12/14/10, 1:54 PM
Toad Trend said...: Why would anyone support this horrible bill?

We were 'sold' (force fed) this piece of legislation disguised as a 'health care' bill. In fact, is is chock full of things having NOTHING TO DO with health care - that restrict or eliminate certain liberties.

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/ObamaCareoverreach.pdf

'You have to pass the bill so you can see whats in it'.

Question: would you buy a car from someone that told you 'a' car costs $25,000 - but you couldn't actually see or drive it until you signed the finance contract/buying agreement?

Of course not. Nancy Pelosi is an idiot, my apologies to idiots. How the hell is it that she has anything at all to say about what goes on in this country?; 12/14/10, 2:00 PM
Triangle Man said...: Because nothing says cost efficiency more than a monsterous government program.

LOL!

I think the cost savings are not thought to be on the administrative side.

I am not a supporter of this approach, but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies, and by reducing waste in treatment costs by building the evidence base for treatments that work through "comparative effectiveness research".; 12/14/10, 2:01 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I thought single-payer was supposed to cost less. And no, we aren't getting crappy single-payer coverage.

The only way that it could cost less is if everyone who already had decent health insurance lost coverage. And, compounding this you have numerous mandates as to coverage, as well as the government in charge.

Think of how it might be possible to:
- increase the number of those covered by health care insurance
- decrease the out-of-pocket expenditures of those using health care insurance
- increase the number of mandated coverages
- raise the cap for low-cap health insurance policies
- lower the deductibles for high deductible policies,
- etc.
All while reducing the overall cost. Sound impossible? Sure does to me.

So, in the end, they played a shell game with the CBO, not scoring the cost of the mandates (since many of them were in the province of the Secretary), including a cut for reimbursing doctors and hospitals for Medicare patients, etc. And they got fictitious figures that they could use to bypass Senate rules, and try to justify themselves with the American public.; 12/14/10, 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Nothing says "reduce waste" like a big government program.

Also, the nefarious profiteers of private industry don't care about and already do "comparative effectiveness research."

There will always be a segment of society that thinks that government can do something better than it is done or could be done in the private sector, despite 25,000 years of evidence to the contrary.; 12/14/10, 2:10 PM
traditionalguy said...: The single payer is a finance method. The Nationalized Health Plan is a means to restrict money paid out by treating large statistical groups according to a mean level of need...always going down as the money goes away into more AlGore Hoaxes... and not by treating individual patient's needs. Ask any Harvard guy how brilliant they are to think of that. That is all they teach them.; 12/14/10, 2:12 PM
David said...: Three things I hate most about the bill:

1. In the name of cost containment, foolish and semi-competent government bureaucrats will regulate and then control doctor-patient decisions.
2. Lack of competition and government control will stifle innovation in delivery of care.
3. The people who passed the law also exempted themselves from it's rules.; 12/14/10, 2:15 PM
David said...: but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies, and by reducing waste in treatment costs by building the evidence base for treatments that work through "comparative effectiveness research".

Proves my point.; 12/14/10, 2:18 PM
Toad Trend said...: Bottom line about all of this - and what Mr. Cuccinelli is saying - if the federal government can compel you to buy health 'coverage', 'insurance', whatever, then they can compel you to do ANYTHING. So all the discussion about management models, finance, etc etc having to do with this thing may be academic. The liberals are completely blind to liberty, until they feel that their 'false' liberty, i.e. the right to someone else's property, is threatened.; 12/14/10, 2:19 PM
Scott M said...: if the federal government can compel you to buy health 'coverage', 'insurance', whatever, then they can compel you to do ANYTHING

The crux of the matter. Garage...?; 12/14/10, 2:23 PM
Lincolntf said...: "...if the federal government can compel you to buy health 'coverage', 'insurance', whatever, then they can compel you to do ANYTHING."

To Liberals that's a feature, not a bug. Even the so-called moderate Dems crave a Government that tells them what to eat, how to heat their homes, what words they can say, etc.; 12/14/10, 2:28 PM
Triangle Man said...: @David

Funding research into which treatments work best is the kind of meddling into my personal doctor-patient relationships I can get behind.; 12/14/10, 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: One critical difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals think that the government can be a force for good, and that it's okay to compel good. As a conservative, I say fuck that. I don't care how good and noble your goals are. The critical and insurmountable problem is the compulsion.

I do not wish to be compelled. I wish to choose for myself.; 12/14/10, 2:32 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Funding research into which treatments work best is the kind of meddling into my personal doctor-patient relationships I can get behind.

Ok, then throw some money at that problem. Maybe a billion or so. Not considered to be real money any more. It surely didn't take 2,000+ pages of legislation passed in the middle of the night with no one having voting on the bill having had a chance to read it for such a program.

The problem though is that when this is combined with government control, all of a sudden you go from an advisory role to control over what treatments are covered and what treatments are not. And, yes, which ones are cost-effective, and which ones are not as much so.

We see where that leads with some of government insurance programs in, say the UK and Canada, where budget restraints end up pushing patients into the low cost, high pain solution.; 12/14/10, 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Funding research into which treatments work best

What a shame no one was doing that before ObamaCare became law.; 12/14/10, 2:37 PM
Toad Trend said...: @Lincolntf

Correct. Which is why liberalism is so dangerous and needs to be defeated. Every time.

@Scott M, @ Seven Machos

What makes this so perplexing to understand? Did our liberal 'friends' never get bitchslapped for stealing from their siblings/friends as children?; 12/14/10, 2:39 PM
garage mahal said...: The crux of the matter. Garage...?

I said I hated the mandate. Being forced to buy insurance without the public option was a horrible idea. Insurance companies love the mandate though, the Supreme Court would certainly rule for the mandate, it's in the insurance companies interests to have the mandate. What they do want is to strip out regulations and consumer protections in the law.; 12/14/10, 2:48 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: One critical difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals think that the government can be a force for good, and that it's okay to compel good. As a conservative, I say fuck that. I don't care how good and noble your goals are. The critical and insurmountable problem is the compulsion.

I agree with the compulsion. I don't like it either.

But another complaint I have with liberals and their world view is that results don't matter. Rather, intent is what matters. That they tried to do good, even if it fails miserably, causing untold pain and suffering, is all that matters.; 12/14/10, 2:49 PM
Scott M said...: I said I hated the mandate.

So...we've come full circle. There wasn't some back room star chamber of conspiracy here. It was right there, plain as day, concrete and deliberate...and the reps/senators did not avail themselves of the opportunity (said they didn't have time in more than one case) to know what they hell they were about to foist on the people of this country.

You say you hate the mandate? In the absence of a severance clause...which the insurance company you named forgot to put in...(conspiracy?)...the financing structure does indeed collapse like the upthread house of cards.; 12/14/10, 2:57 PM
Toad Trend said...: @Bruce Hayden

"But another complaint I have with liberals and their world view is that results don't matter. Rather, intent is what matters. That they tried to do good, even if it fails miserably, causing untold pain and suffering, is all that matters."

I agree with this take, and would like to follow up with a question about this, for our liberal friends:

If results don't matter, and intent is the greatest consideration - how do you explain the love affair with fairness and equal 'outcomes'? Can you have it both ways?; 12/14/10, 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies,

Wow.

I mean, wow.; 12/14/10, 3:11 PM
Toad Trend said...: @Garage Mahal

"Insurance companies love the mandate though, the Supreme Court would certainly rule for the mandate, it's in the insurance companies interests to have the mandate."

Sounds like bullshit to me.; 12/14/10, 3:29 PM
Martin L. Shoemaker said...: Triangle Man said...

I am not a supporter of this approach, but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies

And when squeezed sufficiently, their profit margins will drop to the point where it makes no sense for them to research new treatments. They'll make more money doing something else, and they'll drop out of that business.

Unless, of course... Gee, if the government can compel me to buy insurance, I guess the government can compel them to work in an unprofitable business! And when they go bankrupt, the government can take control like they did with GM!

Central planning, here we come!; 12/14/10, 3:37 PM
Scott M said...: If I cook my own meal or order pizza, am I impacting restaurant commerce unfairly? How about if I mow my own grass? Am I unfairly and greedily impacting lawn care commerce?; 12/14/10, 3:39 PM
Original Mike said...: "Funding research into which treatments work best is the kind of meddling into my personal doctor-patient relationships I can get behind."

As Seven said, it's being done now. By doctors, scientists, and medical professionals. What do you think all those big, research intensive Medical Schools do? It's really quite an insult, actually, when Obama stands up there and claims to have discovered the wisdom of studying which treatments work best.

That is arguably, the worst thing of all in this grand scheme. A system that has produced great innovation will now "planned" from Washington.; 12/14/10, 4:11 PM
Opus One Media said...: it appears if we had either one national health plan or at least a government option to offer an alternative and provide competition with the private insurance companies, then all this discussion would be for nothing.

instead the preference seems to be in a health delivery system that doesn't give a very good prognosis for a very ill patient.

just sayin'; 12/14/10, 4:16 PM
Scott M said...: My understanding, HD, is that our country is not as good as most at preventative care, but superb at trauma and serious illness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, you've got no problems with the issue that appear to be innate with single-source healthcare? Were does the innovation come from under such a scenario?

Are you against opening up the health insurance market to cross-state competition?; 12/14/10, 4:19 PM
Hagar said...: Prepaid healthcare for all is a social welfare program, and will not be achieved by regulating the medical insurance industry.

If this is what you want, then call a spade a spade, and call for nationalization of the health care industry, or at least the major parts of it, such as the hospitals and the hospital staffs, and be prepared to support them from tax revenues.

I think that is what most European countries have today, with a small private medical industry operating on the side, for which you can buy private insurance to pay for major expenses.

The national health services are huge bureaucracies, and operate as such, but free, or nearly so, while the private doctors and clinics give personal and convenient service, but charge you directly.; 12/14/10, 4:26 PM
Original Mike said...: "But another complaint I have with liberals and their world view is that results don't matter. Rather, intent is what matters."

You mean like tanking the economy to reduce global temperature 50 years out by one-tenth of one degree?

Yeah, I've noticed the exact same thing.; 12/14/10, 4:32 PM
Original Mike said...: "I think that is what most European countries have today, with a small private medical industry operating on the side, for which you can buy private insurance to pay for major expenses."

Except that in America liberals want to make it illegal for you to buy health care outside the system. In the name of fairness.; 12/14/10, 4:34 PM
Toad Trend said...: @HDHouse
"it appears if we had either one national health plan or at least a government option to offer an alternative and provide competition with the private insurance companies, then all this discussion would be for nothing.

instead the preference seems to be in a health delivery system that doesn't give a very good prognosis for a very ill patient.

just sayin'"

I didn't go to an insurance company when I needed health care. I went to a doctor.

The problem with offering a government-supplied 'alternative' is that the government can dictate whatever regulations, cost controls, etc that they want with NO RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FISCALLY SOUND. Private concerns, faced with the same regulations, cost controls, etc would have to play along to stay in business, which wouldn't be for long. Couple this with being forced to offer insurance to people with preexisting conditions that cost more to treat, you have a recipe to bankrupt private health insurers. If this is the purpose, then by all means, the government should get involved.

The answer is with critical care insurance, not a 'one-size-fits-all' policy that covers things that healthy people would never use. Making everyone adhere to this would be wasteful and there would be little incentive for a government administration to provide a quality product like we have with a private system. The only thing gov't administration would do is ration care to contain costs. That is what we are headed for if this bad idea known as 'Obamacare' is fully implemented. I have many friends that are doctors, they have grave concerns (no pun intended) and take a dim view of those that support this 'plan', often referred to as a disaster. So, if you really don't have a handle on what this all means, have a frank discussion with your doctor. If you know a doctor as a friend, stay chummy with he/her as this may be the only lifeline you have if this awful plan survives 'pregnancy' and and is born as a true socialist healthcare system. In other words, I don't recommend pissing off your doctor.; 12/14/10, 4:35 PM
KCFleming said...: In Frank Capra's film series "Why We Fight", World War II was seen as 'a battle between the "slave world" of fascism and the "free world" of American liberty.'

Just 60 years later, the Democrats have succeeded in bringing a kinder, gentler fascism to these very shores.

Our GIs were dying for freedom and democracy in World War II. Little did they know they were wasting their time.; 12/14/10, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: instead the preference seems to be in a health delivery system that doesn't give a very good prognosis for a very ill patient.

I guess that's why the King King Hussein (of Jordan) came to America when he was seriously ill.

You are an idiot.; 12/14/10, 4:38 PM
Toad Trend said...: @Jay

"instead the preference seems to be in a health delivery system that doesn't give a very good prognosis for a very ill patient.

I guess that's why the King King Hussein (of Jordan) came to America when he was seriously ill.

You are an idiot."

You really should see someone about your tendency to hold back :); 12/14/10, 4:46 PM
Penny said...: "You really should see someone about your tendency to hold back.:)"

Wondering? Is "hold back" the new erectile dysfunction?; 12/14/10, 6:29 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: it appears if we had either one national health plan or at least a government option to offer an alternative and provide competition with the private insurance companies, then all this discussion would be for nothing.

This is one of the more ridiculous things that HDHouse has said over the years, and that says something.

First, there is the liberal assumption that we have all heard so often here, without any real support, that there is no competition in the health insurance market. And that we need the government to step in and create some. Baloney.

To the extent that there isn't competition, it is solely because of government regulation, primarily at the state level. Insurance mandated coverages and regulation of rates is the culprit here. And if lack of competition were the real problem here, all that the feds would have to do would be to ban rate fixing and insurance coverage mandates by state governments, and possibly allow the selling of insurance across state lines. We don't need the massive disaster commonly known as ObamaCare to solve that supposed problem.

And, how does the government compete with private insurance companies? They don't have a prayer doing so on their own, because of their innate inefficiency. The only way that they can "compete" with private insurance companies is with massive taxpayer funded financing.

If they want taxpayer funded health care as an alternative, then admit it straight up. But don't pretend that the government can compete on a level playing field with private companies here, or, indeed, anywhere.; 12/14/10, 6:30 PM
Penny said...: No easy answers here, but without BIG time citizen intrusion into what the government previously created with Medicare, Medicaid, Schip and Uncompensated Care... for illegals, as an example, there will be NO WAY OUT.

Private insurance is there, but primarily because private businesses are allowing this charade to continue. Given one iota of sense, OR the desire to be REALLY competitive at their own businesses, private companies will up salaries modestly and get away from the health care provider business entirely.

The Government is the Ouroboros eating its own tail.Whether we like it or not, we are all caught in that loop.

That loop is BIG!!!!

Bound to be some squeezing, some tightening, and even "death panels"? if we stay here in this loop.

And over there >>> ?

Go ahead...make your best guess.; 12/14/10, 8:05 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: So TRaditional guy are you saying that if we had universal coverage you eight day hospital bill of $80,000 would be reduced to $16,000 because you as an individual would not have to pay for those who do not have health insurance-- I agree a great argument for some kind of national plan. Let us not use the emergency room care as our socialistic alternative-- wink, wink,,; 12/14/10, 9:00 PM
Lincolntf said...: Giving the Government ultimate control over whether you live or die is something only a Liberal could love.; 12/14/10, 9:15 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: You guys are just scared shitless about what will happen when the provisions start and they, uh, realize that they rather like it.

Like they do the other entitlements that you'll never do anything to make less costly.

And defense.; 12/14/10, 9:57 PM
Anonymous said...: "Support for ObamaCare falls to 43%."; 12/14/10, 10:04 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Seven Femmes is really coasting on the lack of support for provisions that aren't yet active.

Anyway, if you want to socialize hospital bills alone by encouraging use of the emergency room as the primary source of preventive care for everyone in this country, just admit it. It helps bring the whole debate into focus. Not that some people can stand that.; 12/14/10, 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "Support for ObamaCare falls to 43%."; 12/14/10, 10:10 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Seven Femmes' broken record is necessary for avoiding debate.

As a politician, he'd be the soundbite.

Only the now matters, Femmes. Forget the future. Public opinion is the only device by which to construct policy. Go with it, Emperor Tiberius.; 12/14/10, 10:12 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: I'm waiting for that skipped beat to chime in again.; 12/14/10, 10:13 PM
KCFleming said...: El Ritmo kills another thread.; 12/14/10, 10:22 PM
Anonymous said...: I was going to write the same thing, Pogo. Thank God this ad hominem troll of low intelligence comes in at the end. I was hoping he'd disappear after the election.

Dribble on, dude. Call us all names. Make no points whatsoever. Be vacuous and snide at once. A winning combination.; 12/14/10, 10:25 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Facts will do that to your fantasies. Kill them, that is.

Christ, Pogo. Four comments brings your brain to a crashing halt. Interesting to know that I have that much power over you.

No wonder you fear the government so much. If I were that mentally weak, I guess I would too.; 12/14/10, 10:26 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "A winning combination."

For getting you to shut up with your stupid boilerplate? Apparently so.

Anyways, thanks for registering your preference for continuing to socialize emergency room coverage.; 12/14/10, 10:28 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Dribble on, dude. Call us all names."

Such as "ad hominem troll of low intelligence"?; 12/14/10, 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: The goal of the troll is very often to silence people he disagrees with. I'm glad you read my stuff, though. No one reads yours. I certainly don't. However, I did note that you mentioned me in a thread not long ago that I didn't even participate in. That was rich. Just remember, dude: you apparently masturbate to your disagreements with me, but no one cares about you or to talk to you. This includes people who agree with you.; 12/14/10, 10:31 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: The milquetoast lefties here are free to play their own losing game.

It is not my goal to silence you. But if you can't stand acknowledging a point you can't best, I don't mind having that effect.

Should I be hurt about which pseudonymous cyber-lounge goers read or don't read my stuff? Hurt beyond belief?

I have better stuff to worry about and invest my ego/sense of self-worth into. Apparently you wouldn't understand.; 12/14/10, 10:36 PM
Ralph L said...: I would have backed a Federally funded catastrophic care plan for the uninsured/uninsurable
It's up and running, but it's supposed to go away in 2014 when the unicorns arrive. It ain't cheap, but better than bankruptcy.; 12/14/10, 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Ratmo done kil't another'n.

Ratmo needs a dog or a woman.; 12/14/10, 10:59 PM
Fen said...: BigGOv/Ritmo: I have better stuff to worry about and invest my ego/sense of self-worth into.

Apparently not.

Why don't you tell us another dozen times how much you don't care?; 12/15/10, 8:10 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Oh goodie! It looks like Fenster has now decided to become my own personal psychiatrist!

Or at least he has taken up the gobbledy-gook avocation of "psychoanalyst". That would be a better description of what he's attempting.

Fenster, given your certain adherence to Hippocratic principles, what sort of good can I expect someone as negative as yourself to provide me? I mean, I do want to make sure I'm getting something out of this relationship that you're proposing.; 12/15/10, 8:56 AM
Fen said...: I thought you didn't care?; 12/15/10, 5:35 PM