WaPo Poll: Majority Wants Public Option More Than Bipartisanship For Its Own Sake
Okay, this is important: The new Washington Post poll finally asks people about their cravings for bipartisanship in the right way, and its finding really challenges the conventional wisdom that people want bipartisan health care compromise at all costs.
Specifically: A majority wants a Dem-only bill rather than a bipartisan one if the Dem-only one includes a public insurance option and the bipartisan one doesn’t. A majority of Independents wants the same. From the internals:
Which of these would you prefer –- (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or
(a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?
Prefer government-sponsored insurance: 51%
Prefer Republican support: 37%
This is the first time a major news org has asked the question this way — Research 2000 did it once — and I like to pretend it was inspired by my ranting about this. By the way, 52 percent of indys want the partisan bill with the public option.
Again: Other public polls have offered respondents a straight choice — do they want a partisan bill or a bipartisan one — without explaining that winning over GOP support has actual policy consequences for the final bill that they might not like.
When this is explained clearly — and the WaPo framing is a far more accurate depiction of the choice the public and lawmakers face — a majority wants the partisan, Dem-only bill with the public option. Indeed, a majority wants the public option more than they want bipartisanship for its own sake. Okay?
*****************************************
Update: The poll’s internals are now live.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg, given that the proper wording was eventually used by your employer, it seems reasonable to assume that your ranting might actually be responsible for it.
In any case, this is great.
Thanks holy, I genuinely don’t know.
If the wording “Government sponsored insurance” managed to garner 51% of the vote and didn’t scare people away the Dems are looking good. Plus, these Generic Congressional Ballots are looking good for the Dems.
It’s good to be a Dem.
I wonder if this poll has regional breakdowns. Does this poll register where the support and opposition is coming from, since the Democratic public option opponents, or those who haven’t committed pro or con, are in more conservative areas of the country/former Republican-controlled areas? My guess is that it’s national and not broken down into regions, but I’m curious to see where the support and opposition really lies or if public option opponents are representing their constituents or just expressing their own opinions.
Greg,
Do any reputable polling firms just take a poll on the support for a Public Option without conflating it with a nebulous Bipartisan support connection.
Could you make some inquiries of the polling firms on why they just do not poll on the Public Option support. We already know that most people wish for rainbows, sea shells balloons(without child stowaways) and bipartisanship, but can we ask the pollsters why they just don’t stick to reality, when polling.
Ditto that. Regional breakdowns would be awesome.
“these Generic Congressional Ballots are looking good for the Dems”
And imagine how good they’d be if Rasmussen wasn’t an automatic NEGATIVE 2-10% for the Dems versus other pollsters.
“Which of these would you prefer –- (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance.”
That is not correct framing! The public option is NOT designed for people who can’t get affordable insurance. Simply untrue. The govt option is designed to compete with private insurance and it will be subsidized, but this framing is inaccurate.
The public option in HR3200 will offer health insurance at “market rates.” Per 538, “the public option has been transformed in this question into a sort of fallback policy for people who are priced out of the market.”
This is a very poorly worded question!
SBJ, in addition to being a Racist, and a War Monger, is also a habitual liar.
The Public Option does not call for any subsidies. It is designed to be self-sustaining.
SBJ is a bald faced liar.
I don’t think the public option will be subsidized any more than the private insurers in the insurance pool will be nor do I believe it will be available to everyone. It will be available to a very limited % of the population that would be burdened too much from the cost of private insurance within the pool.
“The “option” sections of HR 3200 and the HELP bill have these features in common:
~ Both bills authorize subsidies for the relatively small number of Americans who will be eligible to shop within the exchange. These subsidies will be given to eligible individuals regardless of whether they use the subsidy to buy insurance from the “option” or from an insurance company.”
So much for the GOP bipartisan red herring. People that recognize the need for reform are not clamoring for bipartisanship, they want sensible, affordable, and universal coverage. When you are jousting with your insurance company over a preexisting condition, you are not thinking, “Man, if this were only more bipartisan!”
Give us reform with 50 votes plus Biden’s or by any other means. We really don’t care about the procedures and the numbers. We care about the results. If I have meaningful coverage, it won’t be any more meaningful if it passed by 65 votes as opposed to 50 + 1.
The Public Option would be available to anyone who wished to enroll and pay the premiums.
It would have lower overhead, than the 30% that Private Insurance now takes out of the money they collect in premiums.
Medicare administrative overhead is 4% compared to 30% for Private Insurance, so the Public Option will have a built in 25% advantage in money available to pay for actual medical care.
@mike: That is my point. The question describes “a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance.”
The public option is not designed for people who cannot afford private insurance. People who can’t afford insurance will have access to subsidies to purchase private insurance in the exchange.
The question is not accurate. The public option will be a government-funded insurance company that competes with private insurance companies and offers health coverage at market rates.
Guys like SBJ do not want the Federal government to do anything for the poor in this country.
He sure does support spending two trillion Iraq, and wants to repeat that same amount of spending in Afghanistan.
Why does SBJ hate poor Americans.
“The Public Option would be available to anyone who wished to enroll and pay the premiums.”
Wrong.
“People that recognize the need for reform are not clamoring for bipartisanship, they want sensible, affordable, and universal coverage.”
Bingo! The bills under consideration have not been shown to lower premiums and none of them provide universal coverage.
Just like clockwork. A poll by ABCNEWS shows results directly dounter to every other poll out there on virtually every issue, including generic ballot, party identification, Obama job approval and support for the public option and Obamacare, and what happens, those multiple polls are ignored and the minority of polls (in this case, one) that show support for Obama’s plans are touted endlessly on liberal website.
And of course what would a discussion of polls be without someone taking a shot at Rasmussen. Never mind the fact he has been the most accurate pollster the last few elections. And never mind the fact that Gallup has arrived at almost the exact same conclusion as Rasmussen on the generic ballot question. Again, more evidence of what I discuss in the first paragraph. Cherrypicking. All one has to do is look at polling averages for Obama job approval at a reputable site like Realclearpolitics or pollster.com to see how far off this poll is. But hey, it favors the Dems, so we better claim those other polls, you know, the large majority, are wrong, and this one poll is right.
umm…Mark. It’s a WaPO poll and this site is run by the WaPO.
sbj, honestly, I think CBO was scoring the PO to run around 10% less than industry rates.
.
It is called a Public Option, because it would give people an Option. SBJ wants people to think that it would not, despite the name Option, and the stated goal of providing competition in the Health Insurance Arena.
Since he continues to lie about this, you can not believe any of his industry propaganda.
Mark cites Imaginary Polls, that he pulled out of his Arse.
The public option is not designed to be a fallback for anyone who can’t afford insurance. That’s how this poll frames the question, so the question is not accurate.
I do believe that the CBO has said the HR3200 PO might be 10% less. It will only be available to very few – the question is not accurate.
The purpose of the PO is to provide competition, the purpose is NOT to be a fallback for everyone who can’t afford insurance.
“It is called a Public Option, because it would give people an Option.”
Only a small percentage of folks would have access to the PO as currently envisioned. For instance, it would not be an option for me. Wrong, Liam.
It is an Option, Moron. That means that any one without Insurance could opt, as in option, to enroll in the Public Option.
Nothing is an Option for SBJ.
He wants to send lots and lots of young people to their deaths in Afghanistan, but he just happens to be “too old, too fat, and G@y” so he can not enlist.
Like I said before; he is just a greedy prick, so it is no surprise that he is a glutton, and someone who is eager to send many others to their deaths in Afghanistan.
And yet, he is so full of concern for those who got killed by drones in Al-Qaeda compounds.
Why does SBJ care more about Al-Qaeda families, than he does about the fate of American Troops.
@Liam: Retreating to your Afghanistan tirade, eh?
“That’s how this poll frames the question, so the question is not accurate. ”
Your whole argument depends on “sponsored” meaning “funded.”
Once again you rely on semantics and deflection to argue your case against fact and common sense.
“Your whole argument depends on “sponsored” meaning “funded.”
No.
The question describes the plan as being designed for people who “can’t get affordable private insurance.” That is not true. The PO is designed to compete with private insurers while offering coverage at market rates. It’s not intended as a fallback – for that we are going to provide subsidies so that folks can purchase private or public insurance.
There is only one way to find out how effective a Public Option would be. Make it available, and let the people decide if they like it or not.
Polls show that a majority want it.
Private Insurance does not want it passed, so that must mean that they are convinced that it would work.
Let us find out, the only way we really can. Pass it, and let the people decide if it helps them.
“Private Insurance does not want it passed.”
Well, they probably don’t want your version of it passed. Because your version – available to everyone, same services for 25% less – would mean the end of the industry and literally hundreds of thousands of jobs and the destruction of untold wealth.
Luckily no one is proposing what you seem to understand as the public option.
Why don’t they ask THIS question:
Would you prefer a health care plan with:
A. Some form of government-sponsored insurance option that any individual or business could choose to participate in, even if it were not supported by any Republicans?
B. Some form of government-sponsored insurance option available only to people who can’t afford private insurance, even if it were not supported by any Republicans?
or
C.A plan that is supported by Republicans in Congress, but does not contain any government-sponsored insurance option?
THAT’S the question they should be asking!
@Pirate wench: Interesting–”Some form of government-sponsored insurance option available only to people who can’t afford private insurance.”
You’d have to add [even when subsidized].”
Too bad no one is offering that option.
Why should people pay their money to keep Private Health Insurance in business.
I love how those Right Wingers are against the Government creating make work jobs, but they now argue that we should make sure to allow private insurance companies to do exactly that.
Since Private Insurance is not in the health care business, and just in the profits making business, then there is no reason to treat them like they are “too big to fail” They are a Ponzi Scheme that only returns 70% of what they take in. Bernie Madoff returned a higher percentage than that.
Let them fail. With all the extra uninsured now going to be covered, we will create just as many useful jobs, as we would be killing useless Private Insurance positions.
Let them go work in the medical fields. They can process records there, or become nurses, or hire on with the government to administer the public option transactions.
Why not spend the 25% extra that becomes available, on real health care, instead shoving it into Insurance Execs bonuses,etc.
Treat patients, not Ponzi Scheme operators.
sbj – Consider it added…was thinking off the top of me head and forgot that part
.
Cost shouldn’t even be brought up by a Republican.
Since health care costs went up a trillion anyway under George W Bush these last 8 years, and since every American could be insured for $900 billion or so over the next 10 years, the Republicans’ rants and raves about cost is disingenious, at best.
I didn’t hear any of the Republicans griping about the trillion dollars plus, wasted and / or obligated for a war in Iraq that didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
I didn’t hear any Republican want to REALLY do anyting about the trillion increase the last 8 years for health care costs.
I didn’t hear any Republican want to talk about the hundreds of billions Bush’s Interior Department gave away to the Big Oil companies via rengegotiated contracts (Dutch Shell) for oil being taken off federal property.
I didn’t hear Republicans gripe about the 86 percent increase in national debt under George Bush, who promised to pay off the debt by the end of 2009.
I didn’t hear Republicans complain about the $1.35 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthy to spur job growth, only to see the last administration produce the fewest jobs, per year, than anyone since before Harry Truman.
I didn’t see any Republican complain of the $220 billion per year required (interest) to finance the DEBT accumulated under George Bush’s administration ALONE.
Yet, the Republicans seem to want to gripe a lot about spending now, even though health care costs continue to rise and even with 50 million Americans without health care coverage.
This is an outrage. It is time that the Republicans become irrelevant in American politics. It’s obvious they HAVEN’T cared for the past 8 years and don’t seem to care much right now. They spew hatred, lies and obstruction.
The time is now for real change. Public Option. Period.
“50 million Americans without health care coverage”
Wow! Not true.
The American people is NOT stupid. Who would have thought, if the media asked the right question they would get a definative answer?
article about poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
“”"“50 million Americans without health care coverage” Wow! Not true.”"”
Hilarious that you picked out that one tiny element to respond to…
As if to say, “Iraq War? Meh. Trillions in debt? Meh. Tax breaks for the wealthy? Meh. Corporate welfare for the oil sector? Cool. BUT DON’T YOU DARE GET THE HEALTH CARE NUMBERS WRONG!”
sbj, that’s pretty nuts even for you.
a State run system is the only viable one & the only one that makes sense. You want to avoid it? Set the way-back machine to 1975 and find the political will to do avoid it. But we are here & the system is broke.
Greg – one very small disagreement I have is where you say, “a majority wants the partisan, Dem-only bill with the public option.
The fact that this reform is supported only by Democrats is not equivalent to being partisan. “Partisan” implies something mostly intended to give one party an advantage over the other –like Tom Delay’s partisan re-districting in Texas– often when it has little public support.
The public option is intended to provide choice and competition, not give Democrats a partisan advantage over the GOP. Republican opposition, by contrast, is entirely partisan and intended to be a “Waterloo” for Obama as Republicans themselves have said.
Can someone explain to me why the people who are supposed to be the most sensitive to and in touch with love, brotherhood and spirituality (Christians) would not demand the same level and quality of medical care that they receive themselves. To say that Jesus would accept it any other way is simply wrong, regardless of what or who you believe in. Twist away, but people who play it fast and loose with their espoused beliefs versus their real world actions are going to soon be held to account. The truth is the truth.
SBJ, whether it’s 30 million or 50 million is really not the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the Republican party in bringing the cost issue into the debate. That’s the real issue.
According to the Census, I believe they’re using 50 million as the number now. Many more have been added recently as the unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent and the number will continue to grow, presumably, over the next year.
I find it a bit comical that the insurance companies immediately identified $100 billion in savings over the next 10 years; just as soon as Congress and the Obama administration got serious with Health Care reform.
The fact that the insurance industry could find that amount of savings so quickly ought to be an indicator of just how much they have been ripping off the American consumer for the past few decades. The fact that the insurance companies readily and immediately identified SO much savings is the primary reason that some of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, including Jim Marshall of Georgia, has been hesitant to sign on as a supporter. He KNOWS there is much more savings that can be had from the insurance companies.
Again, it’s REALLY not relevant whether we’re talking 30 million or 50 million Americans. What IS relevant is that health care costs have gone up a trillion the last 8 years and we still have so many uninsured. For less than THAT amount, we can insure all over the next decade.
I assume it’s okay for the insurance industry to dictate your health issues, but somehow when the government gets involved, it becomes an issue of ’socialism.’ How shallow is that?
All this is notwithstanding the additional trillions that the Bush administration has wasted enumerated above.
I do not care about bi-partisanship. The issue of true health care reform is not about political parties, it is about what is correct for the people of our country. Further, the Republicans have behaved terribly on this issue, and they clearly deserve absolutely no consideration whatsoever in the passing of a bill that will help us and hopefully bring America up to par in the industrialized world. We are shameful in not providing affordable health care to all our citizens. There is absolutely no reason bi-partinship should be a part of this endeavor.
The questio also pses it as an option as a fall back only for people that cannot afford insurance. This suggests only a select and desperate group.
I think the results would have shown even stronger had they implied it was to keep insurance companies honest and open to more. ok, the honest might be too much but even suggesting it could be on option for more or most would make it even more positive for the option.
SJB has distorted the Bill that would include the Option.
It WOULD be avaliable to anyone who wanted to opt out of private insurance….and would cover those who are unable to afford private insurance.
People need to realize that private insurance has hired HUNDREDS if bloggers to go online to sites such as this one and distort the conversation…….ignore them or recognize them for the poorly paid hacks they are…unable to find gainfull employment anywhere else.
What a slant- take the “either or question” that does not give the respondent a chance to say no and say what is better. This does not mean that a majority supports a Democratic health care plan. Question 6 in the poll shows that a majority are agianst the congress proposed changes.
6. Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
——– Support ——– ——— Oppose ——– No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
10/18/09 45 26 19 48 12 36 7
9/12/09 46 30 16 48 12 36 6
8/17/09 45 27 18 50 10 40 5
…and how many people were surveyed in the poll? One thousand? Big deal.
What are you people, on dope? Those of you who think that Big Daddy Government is going to come rushing in to save the day on health care ought to go talk to some of our servicemen and women(who you claim you care so much about)and ask them about their government run health insurance.”Government run” is never a good thing.By the way,let’s don’t fool yourselves that the Democrats care about the poor any more than the Republicans.This is a lie.In fact,everytime i see someone mention their concern for the poor on this thread,they’re lying.People here use the term “the poor” in the abstract to make their points but in reality the term means nothing to them.You’re not fooling anyone.People care about what directly affects them,everything else is just bullshit.Many people who visit this blog could care less about the lives being lost overseas,they care about the money being spent on these wars.The Democrats by their very nature are just as responsible for the situation our country is in at the moment.Some of you,apparently,in your righteous indignation (you are so precious) believe the President is pushing so hard to pass some kind of health care reform strictly out of the goodness of his heart,because he’s a nice guy.I sometimes wonder who the bigger liars really are…
This is an emotional issue for many Americans. This so-called “public option” in Government run health care presents serious challenges for us. As Consumers we should be able to compare the cost and quality of health care services. How much is a specific surgery at one hospital, as compared with another? http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/media/
to SBJ:
You win. You have broken my heart with your sad tale of the possible demise of the health insurance companies. Boo-hoo, I agree, the economy could probably not survive such a dastardly act.
On the other hand (and as far as I’m concerned), the demise of the predatory profit-based insurance companies whose profit has increased 435% over the last ten years, even as they refuse care to more policyholders and refuse policies to even more, wouldn’t cost me a minute’s sleep.
Why anyone in their right mind believes that any corporation should be able to take 35% off the top of all healthcare simply to hand your money to your doctor is beyond me.
In fact, I love the idea of the health insurance companies going out of business tommorrow (including HMOs). I can’t think of anything more beneficial to the health of Americans than that!
Both parties lie – seems only ‘kooks’ don’t like Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinish ! Right now no matter – lib or conserv – if the INSURANCE reform continues w/o openness and reasonable evaluation, EVERYONE will be out of luck, because the country doesn’t have the resources, medical or financial to support whatever seems to be coming.
Oooops – proof read – Ron & Dennis only ones who don’t consciously lie !!
good ie shoe
Most Americans do not understand the “Public Option” currently being debated in Congress along with other healthcare reforms. Few, if any, will read the entire final bill before it is voted on, and that includes those doing the voting. Both sides are making promises and predictions on what will happen to healthcare if/when the Public Option does (not) become law. Wouldn’t it be great if we could look into the future to see how a government run single payer program will likely function in 5, 10, 20, 30 years and beyond? Luckily, we can. There are many potential parallels between the proposed healthcare Public Option and the current “Public Option” in our education system.
Our public schools-
Are supported by taxes paid by all, either directly or indirectly, whether they are in school, have children in school, have, ever had, or will ever have any children in the future.
Most people have little or no choice of which school their child attends, nor which classroom and teacher their child is assigned to.
Private schools are an option, for those that can afford them … but those parents still have to pay taxes for the public schools their children don’t attend. Public schools today have the hardest time in areas with many private schools, because those taxpayers are not inclined to vote for bond measures and taxes on themselves for something they don’t use.
When there are budget shortages, reduction of teachers and increases in class sizes are the typical response. This is “rationing”, the same practice that will be used when healthcare costs exceed their budgets. Doctors, nurses and clinics will be expected to see more patients for the same or less money.
Not all schools are bad, many are very good.
Not all teachers, principles and administrators are bad, many are great!
The average per student expenditures does not necessarily translate into higher test scores or students with a better education.
The larger the school system, the greater the chance it performs poorly. You could look at New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, etc. but the best examples are the Washington D.C. public schools. Right there in Congress’ backyard, where they live, where their staff lives, where they come face to face with area residents everyday whose children attend those local public schools. That is the children of the residents, not members of Congress, because their children usually attend elite private schools. How can we expect Congress to deliver a quality nationwide medical care system, when they can’t even provide an adequate school system for their own community??
We have vast bureaucracies at the Federal, state and local levels dedicated solely to education. School board members are either elected directly or appointed by elected officials. So they are much closer and more accountable to the people they serve than they would be in a single national system. A national healthcare system would be managed from afar, more like the IRS than our current schools.
Teacher’s salary is rarely tied to performance, because there are few, if any, metrics or standards for teacher performance. A teacher’s pay is typically related to their number of years of service, not their teaching skills nor results.
Poor teachers, principals, and administrators are often shuffled around, typically to areas with less political influence, because real discipline and termination are very difficult. Powerful unions actively refuse teacher performance measurements. (Personal note: I firmly believe there is a secret backroom deal to give “Free Choice” to all healthcare workers to join the SEIU. And since doctors are easily out numbered by nurses, orderlies, medical technicians, etc., all doctors will get swept into, forced to join, pay dues and follow union rules.) What kind of performance measurements do you think will be enforced upon doctors and nurses in a unionized nationwide system controlled by Congress??? What kind of doctors and nurses should you expect to find at your local clinics and hospitals?
Virtually every politician campaigns with education as one of their top priorities and promises they will do all they can to solve the problems and make improvements. But the overall quality and performance of our schools continues to decline. When you hear politicians talk about healthcare, or insurance run by the government, listen carefully to see if you can determine where these promises are different from those they made about our schools. Do you hear any reason to believe their healthcare promises will come true, when their school system promises have not? I’m not talking about their sincerity, or their honest belief that the schools (or healthcare) should be better. What we need to focus on and evaluate are the results!! Regardless of your thoughts on why our schools are in such poor shape, do you really believe those same politicians will be able to do for healthcare what they have been unable to accomplish with our schools??
Another indicator of what will happen with universal healthcare provided by the government – school vouchers! Ask yourself why won’t the government allow you to use your tax allocation (or medical insurance premium) to send your child to the school of your choice? Wouldn’t that make schools better, because they would be forced to compete with other public and private schools? Once the government controls the healthcare industry do you really think you will be allowed to use “voucher-like” funds to visit the doctor or hospital of your choice??
Please take a few minutes to think about the schools you attended, those your children attended and/or those in your current community. How would you feel if you and your family had to depend on a similar system for all your healthcare needs? Remember, our public schools only support 5 to 18 year old’s that do not attend private schools. Universal healthcare will need to support every person in America!!
Many people are happy with their education, their local schools, and would not have any concerns about a government run healthcare system. They may actually look forward to a government controlled healthcare system. BUT, most people are not thinking in terms of how the schools systems are being run today when considering nationalized healthcare. They are “assuming” the current level of medical care, skills, availability and the dedication of those in the medical industry will be provided to them by the government. I can’t make that assumption, for many reasons. Also, I know too many talented educators that left teaching because of how the system works, or doesn’t. I can’t believe there won’t be many doctors and nurses that have the same reaction to a government controlled medical system burdened by similar procedures and practices imposed by a huge centralized bureaucracy. These are motivated, talented, well educated people that will be able to find good jobs in other industries. But will you be able to find medical professionals to replace them for the medical goods, treatments and services you’ll need in the future??
Additional points to ponder about your schools and how they might apply to clinics and hospitals in the future:
Are your schools well maintained, clean and safe, with adequate facilities and equipment for all students? Are the heating and air conditioning operational, and can they afford to run them, keeping classrooms at a comfortable temperature?
Are there enough desks, chairs, computers, musical instruments, athletic equipment, playground balls, band and sports uniforms, for all interested students? And are they well maintained, and quickly repaired when needed? Are they promptly replaced when they’ve become too old, obsolete or fail so often they can not afford to be repaired?
Do your schools have adequate supplies of books, paper, pencils, markers, poster board, art supplies, etc.? Or will you be holding bake sales and pancake breakfasts to assure your local clinic has enough sterile bandages, antibiotics, antiseptics, disinfectants, tape, alcohol, cotton balls, band-aids, sterile needles for injections, sutures, protective eyeglasses, sterile gowns, and other medical supplies to properly care for their patients?
Do you think the quality and variety of food provided at your schools will be satisfactory for hospital or nursing home patients?
What about transportation? Kids are usually provided transportation to and from public schools. Will the government be shamed into providing transportation for medical treatments and services? (What good is free healthcare, if you can’t get there to receive it?)
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, so I imagine most people will be able to come up with better examples than I provided above.
This is not intended to imply that we don’t need healthcare reform. We do! And the sooner the better! There are critical flaws in our current system that must be changed. But the “Public Option” isn’t the only way to fix the system.
If Congress knows how to eliminate 50-100 Billion dollars in MediCare and Medicaid fraud and waste, do it. Do it now!! Don’t wait until a vast expansion of them or a similar system is forced upon the American public. Remove the fraud and waste now!!!
If Congress knows how to run a massive nationwide bureaucracy that delivers efficient, fair, high quality services, use it to fix our public schools. And do it now!! Why wait until we have a government controlled healthcare system to show us how it can be done???
If Congress knows how to attract, retain, measure, evaluate, motivate, and if necessary, punish a workforce to assure the highest quality staff, why start with doctors and nurses? Why not implement those policies and practices in our schools now?? Why wait??? Or worse, why only implement them for healthcare professionals??
If Congress knows how to prevent the “unavoidable cost overruns”, “unforeseen conflicts”, “unpredictable outcomes” and especially “unintended consequences” that might destroy this universal healthcare concept, why haven’t they demonstrated this ability in other areas, programs and laws???
If Congress is so concerned about the profits and high salaries of the insurance companies, why are they afraid to address the billions and billions wasted each year on frivolous, extortion and lottery-like litigation. Do you really think the public is better off when Congress tries to reduce the income of doctors and hospitals that provide your medical services, without addressing the lawyers who earn millions, but do nothing to provide or improve medical services? When I get sick, I’d rather go to a well paid doctor to be cured, than to a rich lawyer to litigate my treatments and a settlement. Personally, I’d rather our best and brightest go to medical school, instead of law school.
Please, just stop and think for a few minutes about what a government run single payer or healthcare “public option” really means. What happens when the glow of a great new public service offering wears off and the administrators have to face reality and are forced to make the tough decisions needed to balance their budgets? Do you have confidence that this Congressional, politically driven, scorched earth approach to reform is the only, or even the best solution to our healthcare problems?? If not, please take the few minutes required to communicate it to others, including your elected officials.
Very interesting idea, we’re glad you like it. Are there any forums that you recommend I join ?
Hello!
is it work? test
Kneessbegitty
abbd
青森出会いカフェ山形出会いカフェ福島出会いカフェ埼玉出会いカフェ神奈川出会いカフェ