"Support for Healthcare Plan Falls to All Time Low"

[Professor S]

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.

Source: www.rasmussenreports.com (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

[Szymon]

What's your position on the current system and the proposed plan?

[Professor S]

What's your position on the current system and the proposed plan?

LOL! Is this a real question?

In case it is, I apologize but I've been a vocal dissenter here for quite a while. Please read this thread if you desire a more thorough explanation of my stance on the subject. Just ignore my and The Game's quibbling over semantics:

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20145&highlight=public

In any case, I'd like the discussion, if any, to concentrate on the news item quoted above and not delve back into an argument on the merits (we've done that to death). Just the public opinion, please.

[Fox 6]

LOL! Is this a real question?

In case it is, I apologize but I've been a vocal dissenter here for quite a while. Please read this thread if you desire a more thorough explanation of my stance on the subject. Just ignore my and The Game's quibbling over semantics:

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20145&highlight=public

In any case, I'd like the discussion, if any, to concentrate on the news item quoted above and not delve back into an argument on the merits (we've done that to death). Just the public opinion, please.

Szymon hasnt really been around here for a while, so try not to make a scene there prof.

Also, would you say that the current plan does need to change, be it anything (as long as its better)?

[Professor S]

Szymon hasnt really been around here for a while, so try not to make a scene there prof.

My apology was sincere. I wasn't sure if he was pulling my leg knowing the epic threads surrounding this topic. I meant no offense and I'm sorry if any was taken.

Also, would you say that the current plan does need to change, be it anything (as long as its better)?

The current plan doesn't need to change, it needs to be blown up and then have them try again. The current plan is such an ungodly mess of half-hearted compromises and brazen vote purchases/ear marks that it has been tainted to the point of being a legislative plague if passed. I'd prefer a purely socialist endeavor over this hot mess of a plan. If it actually passes in it's current form, or God forbid is tainted further, it will be a vote that costs legislators their jobs.

As for my point of view, I am generally a fan of John McCain's proposed healthcare reforms.

[Bond]

Szymon hasnt really been around here for a while, so try not to make a scene there prof.
Speaking of this, welcome back Szymon! Where have you been?

[Szymon]

I've spent hours and hours reading all sorts of arguments, and some of them sounded really well thought out and completely feasible. Both the Democrats and Republicans are capable of producing fantastic results, assuming the opposing political faction and ideology were non-existent. As long as the people are this evenly divided, there will always be squabbling, sabotage, filibustering and political stalemate. From what I understand, bad regulatory decisions and seemingly boundless corruption have ruined your current health insurance. Can anyone explain to me why insurance companies cannot operate out of state? I only just heard of this today. I think regulations like these, that restrict the options for people to find better health insurance is a huge problem.

I believe a lightly regulated free market option is ideal, but getting to that stage is probably impossible. Moving from where you are now, going to a socialist system might not be that bad. In my experience, the system we have up here is pretty good, but like the Professor says, each system will be unique to their government. A few greedy senators could easily ruin any sort of socialistic health insurance programs just as well as they've ruined the current capitalistic program.

Ultimately it's my opinion that until you get a program that the entire nation can get behind and support that you'll continue to have poor health insurance due to concessions to an opposing political faction in order to get a bill through and because any sort of sabotage or filibustering done in an attempt to stop a bill will leave it warped.

[Szymon]

Speaking of this, welcome back Szymon! Where have you been?

Trundling through Internet, slowly making my rounds and discovering what it has to offer and what I want from it and from life. I've discovered that I'm comfortable here.

[TheGame]

Can anyone explain to me why insurance companies cannot operate out of state? I only just heard of this today. I think regulations like these, that restrict the options for people to find better health insurance is a huge problem.

The reason why simply breaking this boundary isn't so simple, is because there are a lot of state laws that requlate health insurance companies as-is. So what will end up happening if this limitation is simply dropped, is that health insurance companies will go to states that have the most appealing laws to them (or even worse, go over seas), and sell packages that may be considered illegal by the other state's laws 'Across state lines'.

Its not illegal for a company, even now, to exist in more then one state. Its just illegal to sell a plan across state lines due to the different variations in laws from state to state.

There's no easy fix for this, that's for sure.

[Szymon]

Why not make these laws regulated federally?

[TheGame]

Why not make these laws regulated federally?

That would be ideal, but then we'd be back at seat #1 where people are complaining about the Fed taking power away from the states. I personally wouldn't mind this change, but don't hold your breath for it to be the politically popular move.

[Combine 017]

As for my point of view, I am generally a fan of John McCain's proposed healthcare reforms.

I thought you said "John McClain" for a second, which would be way cooler.

[Professor S]

Washington (CNN) -- Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday he would join a Republican filibuster to block the final vote on any health care bill that has a government-run public health insurance option.

Lieberman's vote is crucial to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hopes of passing a health care bill that includes the controversial public option. Reid announced Monday he would send to the full Senate a health care bill that has a public option but also allows states to opt out of that provision.

Lieberman said he would support a vote to launch debate on the health care bill but would oppose a motion to end debate if the public option remains in the legislation. Democrats would need 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to close debate on the bill, and the Democratic caucus has 60 members, including Lieberman.

"I can't see a way in which I can vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated and run insurance company," the Connecticut senator said. "It's just asking for trouble."

Also Tuesday, two other conservative-leaning Democratic senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, said they would decide how to vote once they see the final bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/index.html

[BreakABone]

Not so much on the issue, but how the hell does Liberman still have a political career? The man can't seem to stand on one leg before hopping to the other foot.

[Professor S]

Not so much on the issue, but how the hell does Liberman still have a political career? The man can't seem to stand on one leg before hopping to the other foot.

Actually, I'd say he's one of the most consistent politicians going today. His stance on issues remains largely the same as it's ever been. He was against Bill Clinton's public healthcare plan as well.

He hasn't moved to the right... the Dems have moved to the left.

[TheGame]

imo Liberman isn't a real democrat, nor does he have the best intentions for the party at heart. Never has. He just says whatever he can to keep his seat. So I don't see this as either Liberman moving to the right, or the Dems moving to the left.

[Dylflon]

Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-

Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?

[Professor S]

Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-

Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?

My knee jerk reaction to any universal government run healthcare system would be to say "No", but I will entertain any plan that is offered. As for targeted gov. healthcare, I currently like the idea of MedicAid, if not everything about it's delivery.

I will support any plan that controls costs, allows people to choose what type of healthcare they will receive (including their own doctors) or even if they want it, and does not ration care to make ends meet. I have never seen a government run plan that meets any of these requirements.

I actually think government "assistance" is a great idea, meaning using the government to organize the 15% of Americans who don't have health insurance and then present them as a group to insurers to bid on the group as a whole. This is called "risk pooling" and would make this group an economically viable group to insure at reasonable rates. Right now the uninsured must shop as an individual, and the system is built to address groups and manage risk, leaving the individual with few products aimed at them and they are all expensive. I would even be in favor of tax credits to help these people afford the care if they aren't poor enough to qualify for MedicAid.

My main problem with government run anything is that it tends to provide low service and stagnate innovation. Look at telecommunications: For years this was an industry carefully regulated by the government to ensure that everyone had access. While everyone had access, the access was terrible. For decades you had to be issued a phone from the company, rotary phones at that, and eventually push buttons. If you wanted to save mesages, you had to buy an answering machine.

Since deregulation, the products and services have gone through the roof and prices have never been better due to intense competition between companies. We're starting to see it now in Cable TV as well, as Verizon and Comcast start beating each other up. That doesn't mean "free" markets are always the answer. I think cell phone companies need to have the trust-busting hammer come down on them to unlock phones from contracts because I think these "phone-to-service" contracts are artificially raising costs of data service to mobile phones (I mean you, AT&T and Verizon). I don't believe in free markets, I believe in competitive markets (and no, that does not include the US government as a competitor, just a regulator and arbiter). Free markets can become uncompetitive one company dominates the rest and then it harms the consumer because once there is no competition there is no reason to control costs (only to maximize profit).

Yes, I know healthcare isn't phone service, but it shares many of the same challenges (universal service being the main one) and they've managed to control costs and improve service 10 gold by carefully deregulating and ensuring competition. Right now, healthcare remains one of the most regulated services in the country, not even being able to compete over state lines. There is no room for competition to naturally reduce costs and increase service. Those that claim that the current healthcare problems are caused by open markets don't know what an open market is.

Hope that better illustrates my point of view.

EDIT: Game, if your posts are aimed at me, I wouldn't bother. I set you to ignore after our last debate. I find thats the best way to have a rational conversation with you.

[Typhoid]

I've always found the idea of "Health Insurance" silly. Smart in a beurocratic way - everyone is alive, and frequently people get hurt - so you'd make a lot of money on insurance.


I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about American healthcare, nor healthcare in Canada for that matter.

This much I know, and this much I think should be offered to everyone:

I was out of work because of a car accident, and due to not working full time previously - I don't have a medical plan (due to not being able to afford it, and not having a full-time job, not being covered) - yet I still needed to get X-Rays on my back and legs. Instead of having to repay massive debts, I don't even get a piece of paper to sign. No "The mail will be sent to you." Just right out the door. If you can't afford it, it's provided for you. When you can afford it, you pay for it as you should. However, healthcare is the probably the most basic of needs aside from food and water, and I think that everyone, everywhere should be entitled to it nomatter who they are, where they are, or how much income they have - and whatever the cost to make it happen is. Your body is not a car or a house.

That wasn't directed at everyone, just my thoughts.

[Professor S]

This much I know, and this much I think should be offered to everyone

I think we can agree on that point. In America, regardless of whether or not you are insured, you receive healthcare. It's the law. You can't be turned away (I know here are horrible exceptions, but they remain in every country, regardless of healthcare systems) and every year our healthcare system loses millions if not billions of dollars treating the uninsured, and in the end everyone else ends up paying for it with increased premiums to insurance companies, and part of this is what makes insurance so expensive for individuals.

We all agree that there needs to be a solution that gets everyone covered, from both a health and cost perspective. I simply differ on the idea that universal government control is the best solution, and have presented my best arguments to support that idea. Government backstop plans like MediCare (wow, did I really spell it MedicAir before, like it's an airline?) are useful and necessary, but I just don't think they should be the norm as they are inefficient, provide a lower standard of care by their nature and are extraordinarily poor payers.

[TheGame]

The problem with a 'backstop' government program is that there's no way for it to do anything but add to the deficit and be paid for by tax dollars. Since it can't take the bad with the good, like a private insurance company, it's set up to fail from a financial perspective.

At least a public option has a CHANCE of lowering the deficit and paying for itself, since it could be collecting premiums from the healthy.

(By the way, I'd vote against the extremely compromised version of the public option they have now.)

[Dylflon]

Prof, despite the fact that people can't be turned away from hospitals, would they not still incur massive debt? From what I understand, illness can be financially ruinous in your country. And on a fundamental level, I don't think that could stand.

A friend of mine from New Mexico who is currently in my program in at my university cut himself pretty bad about a month back. He's unemployed and has no medical coverage and he was terrified about going to the hospital thinking that it would deplete his tuition fund.

He went got treatment, and only had to sign a form.

How does this not seem like a good thing to you? Is this not the kind of thing your government is trying to do? Shouldn't you guys be more like Canada?

[Szymon]

Also, trying to steer this conversation back towards the original topic, I think it's worth asking the general population how much they know about the proposed plan. Politics in the USA is a popularity contest. Public opinion on the issue is easily influenced by motherfucking Oprah and equally politically inexperienced social icons. Polls are biased, votes are changed (even in the presidential election!) and data is skewed for specific reasons. My outlook on politics is pretty cynical today.

[Professor S]

Prof, despite the fact that people can't be turned away from hospitals, would they not still incur massive debt? From what I understand, illness can be financially ruinous in your country. And on a fundamental level, I don't think that could stand.

While I think you overstate the problem, I don't wholly disagree with your statements. The problem of the uninsured is very real, and either financially ruins the uninsured or we as tax payers pay a ridiculous amount to cover the cost. Any way you cut it, it's a problem we need to address, and I've said that repeatedly. I simply disagree on how to address the problem, and not every answer should be "let the government handle it". In most cases, that has shown to be the worst way to handle problems in terms of quality and cost effectiveness, at least in America.

A friend of mine from New Mexico who is currently in my program in at my university cut himself pretty bad about a month back. He's unemployed and has no medical coverage and he was terrified about going to the hospital thinking that it would deplete his tuition fund.

He went got treatment, and only had to sign a form.

How does this not seem like a good thing to you? Is this not the kind of thing your government is trying to do? Shouldn't you guys be more like Canada?

1) If he goes to any accredited college he is likely insured by that college. I was insured by my college and received healthcare with the charges handled by that insurance, I just had to visit the on-campus nurse-practitioner first. He was probably ignorant of what his tuition entailed and/or paranoid. This is actually a pretty good example of how the idea of healthcare in the US is far worse than the reality.

2) I will stand by my statements I made in my posts above this one. I am not against government run healthcare, per se, I am against terrible healthcare plans and the fact that none of the plans offered meet any of the reasonable criteria I've set as my standard. Also, since the US has never had a entitlement program that has met cost and/or quality standards, I want to see very detailed evidence that it WILL do what the politicians say it will before supporting it.

[Dylflon]

Fair enough.

Strange crossroads you guys seem to be at. Poor people need surgeries and Fox News has everyone freaked that government controlled health care is fascism or socialism or something, and if the government tried to regulate the current system, everyone would shit their pants.

Would your personal concerns lie with the fact that you feel your tax money would be going to a government system that is less effective than you would like it to be? From what I understand, the HMOs already in place won't be tampered with so your quality of health care shouldn't change right?

The sad issue at this point is for people with no coverage, an average government health plan is better than no plan.

[Professor S]

Would your personal concerns lie with the fact that you feel your tax money would be going to a government system that is less effective than you would like it to be? From what I understand, the HMOs already in place won't be tampered with so your quality of health care shouldn't change right?

Thats what the politicians say, but it's not the truth of the legislation, and certainly wouldn't be the end result. Example:

The current public option based plan was passed, companies would be fined if they didn't offer insurance to their employees. The problem is the fine ($8,000 I believe) would be far less per employee than they pay for their healthcare (average of $12,000+ per year I think. Mine is $9,000 a year). So why would any company keep offering insurance? Instead, they'll drop the private insurance (why not if the public option is there to meet the demand?) and pay the fine.

The sad issue at this point is for people with no coverage, an average government health plan is better than no plan.

I understand that. But that still makes up 15% of the American people. I don't feel that universal coverage should come at the cost of quality of care. We're better than that and we can improve care, increase innovation and reduce costs while covering people who need it and want it.

The problem is the current arguments have little to do with healthcare, and are more based in ideology instead of pragmatic solutions.