Posting in Healthcare
Some 43% of those surveyed now support the law, while 45% oppose it, the poll found. Two months ago 50% supported it while 35% were opposed.
Some 43% of those surveyed now support the law, while 45% oppose it, the poll found. Last months 50% supported it while 35% were opposed.
Despite the change, the poll found health care is not an important election issue:
Registered voters remain split in three roughly equally-sized groups: voters likely to oppose a candidate who supported the law; those likely to support a candidate who backed the law, and those who say their vote won't be affected one way or the other.
Republicans respond that the "enthusiasm gap" in their favor, the likelihood of Republicans to be more enthusiastic about voting this year than Democrats, means the issue will play well for them.
This is borne out by the poll:
Republicans have an edge in intensity: 62 percent feel "very" unfavorably toward the bill, compared to 33% of Democrats who feel "very" favorably, according to the poll.
The poll was taken August 16-22, among a representative sample of 1,203 adults, most of whom said they were registered to vote. The margin of error is plus-or-minus 3%, slightly higher when subgroups are reported.
In a separate story, a Democratic Congressman who supports the law in Virginia said the tone in his town hall meetings has shifted, with fewer questions about principles and more questions about details. "Health care is not going to get you," concluded Rep. Gerry Connolly.
But the economy might.
Aug 30, 2010
Thanks for playing. The only reason I'm here is to do battle with your ideology which prevents you from examining the issues without the politics which are deeply embedded into your brain. You might be the only one in this discussion, and in this whole site, that is so clueless about how you come across with your ideological bent. You either would like to mislead others into believing that you're not ideological, or you really fail to understand what "ideology" means, or you really don't understand yourself. My point is that ideologies are bad, period. NO they're not! Ideologies are what changes the world, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But, to claim that you're not ideological when you clearly are on the side of the democrats/liberals/progressives, and on all of their issues, then you have to be lying to yourself. You can't lie to me or the folks out here becauce we know an unbending ideology when we meet it. Like I've stated before, I'm ideological, but I'll look at all ideologies and points of views before deciding which way to turn on any issue. I've been that way all my life, even when I was a liberal democrat. That's why I avoid them. Who do you think you're kidding? Certainly not anybody out here with any kind of brain. If you really think that you're not ideological, then you really have a mental handicap, just like the Taliban who cannot recoginze that their radical way of looking at their religion is what gets them into trouble. Your ideology has been burned into your brain so much, that it would take a de-programmer to get you to understand anything outside of your programmed mind. As any set of political beliefs becomes entrenched in power it risks becoming an ideology. Idelogies exist in people's minds. An ideology can become the prevalent way of a government and of a people, but it has to have an initial way to get into people's brains. When an ideology becomes the prevalent way of thinking for a group of people, one can safely say that that ideology has become entrenched, like it has with you and the liberals. Breaking away from that can be very difficult, with you being a prime example of how difficult it seems. But, if I was able to break away from my liberal ways, you too can do it. It just takes a little bit of effort to open up your mind, and eventually, you might be able to see the error of your ways and your ideology. Here's a test for you: How often have you acknowledged that someone, who has engaged you in a discussion and with an opposing point of view, might really be making a good point? From the looks of it, and especially in this current discussion, you have gone out of your way to make sure that every "opposing" point somebody else has made, is answered, one by one. Not a single time have you acknowledged that someone might be making a counter-point worth researching further. I know there was excess on the liberal side 40 years ago. You're still refusing to look around you and the current state of politics. The democrats/liberals have never been more ideological than they are at present. When they voted, by themselves, with no republican support, to "pass" Obamacare, and against the will of the people, then you can't get more ideological than that. It was ideology before country and before the people. And they've been doing it on issue after issue. And you support that! There's now an excess on the conservative side, I agree with that point. Republicans can be, at times, very ideological and very unbending. But not to the extent of the democrats who will go against the will of the people, and won't listen to them, and will do whatever it takes to get their way. That's why it's expected that the democrats will take a big whipping this coming Novermber. and your posts are a perfect example of that. I will defend my views, but I will also be open-minded. I've been open-minded alll my life, and that's why, after being a liberal for a big part of my life, I became a republican. But, I'm a republican, not because I agree with everything they do, but because their economic philosophy is more closely like mine. There are a good many points which I still disagree with the republicans about. However, like I've stated many times, I would rather cast my votes outside of party lines if I could. But doing do might result in the election, by default, of people that I fully disagree with, like Pelosi and Reid and Obama, and Schumer. So, while the Libertarians might have a lot of good points to make, and their agenda is more closely in agreement with mine than republicans, I will have to vote republican because the numbers for Libertarians is miniscule in the electorate. I realize my pointing it out won't change your ideology, but in the end facts will win out. Nonsense! Ideology has nothing to do with my way of thinkiing. Like I've stated already, my biggest disagreement with the democrats, and with many republicans, is their penchant for growing the size of government. That's not ideology. It's common sense. Big government is detrimental to any economy and to the well-being of people and their lifestyles. Fact. Japanese spend half what we do on health care and live longer. Fact. Japanese have a centralized system for health care. So do the Canadians, so do the Germans, so do nearly all the countries we compete with. And, many of those countries are having economic problems of their own, and much of those troubles they're having go right back to big government spending, including nationalized health care. Also, comparing the problems of those countries against those of the U.S. is like comparing apples and oranges. The U.S. is a much bigger country in population, in economy, in land mass, and in responsibilites. As an example, the U.S. is the policeman of the workd (like it or not), and those countries are dependent upon the U.S. for protection. Those countries are also very dependent upon a lot of the medical research conducted by the U.S., including medicines and medical equipment and techniques. Those countries don't spend as much in their research as does the U.S. Therefore, those countries can afford to re-direct a lot of the money that they would otherwise have to spend on defense and on reaearch. If those countries were to do the same exact things that the U.S. does, chances are that they wouldn't have anything left for nationalized healthcare or other social programs. It's our lack of control over rising costs that has us in an economic hole. No argument there. But, a lot of those costs are the result of heavy government regulations and heavy taxation. Remove a lot of those regulations, and the costs would come down dramatically and most people could afford private healthcare. Also, if taxes were to be reduced, the cost to healthcare organizations, including hospitals and doctors and medical plan administrators (like HMOs) would be reduced further. Remember that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporate taxes are paid by the customers fo those businesses. Corporate taxes are alsmost always passed on to business customers in the form of higher cost on the corporate products and services. But, the economic hole we're in was not caused by lack of healthcare. It was caused by the rising cost of big government and heavy government intervention into the free-markets. Most of that hole was bug for the country by liberal democrat policies, of course, with the help of many republicans. This was the first attempt to start digging us out. We won't start digging out of the hole until all politicians, especially the liberals, acknowledge that what created the mess was big govenment and big taxes and heavy and detrimental regulations. Combined with efforts by private industry, I think it will work. But it will take time. Private industry is the key. Government getting out of the way of private industry is the bigger key. No recovery will be possible until big government advocates, like you, acknowledge what caused the greatest economy in the world to take such a deep nosedive.
Thanks for playing. My point is that ideologies are bad, period. That's why I avoid them. As any set of political beliefs becomes entrenched in power it risks becoming an ideology. I know there was excess on the liberal side 40 years ago. There's now an excess on the conservative side, and your posts are a perfect example of that. I realize my pointing it out won't change your ideology, but in the end facts will win out. Fact. Japanese spend half what we do on health care and live longer. Fact. Japanese have a centralized system for health care. So do the Canadians, so do the Germans, so do nearly all the countries we compete with. It's our lack of control over rising costs that has us in an economic hole. This was the first attempt to start digging us out. Combined with efforts by private industry, I think it will work. But it will take time.
people to be blinded to the real truth. I know you're fond of rewriting history but "the American people" weren't "against Obamacare" from "the beginning." If you were to have even an ounce of decency or honesty in you, then you'd admit that the history of the attempts for govenment healthcare has not been like you state. The people were against it in 1993 when it was being called "Hillarycare", and the people were against it way before that. The democrats and Obama knew that there was major opposition to their bill, and they needed to pass the bill against all odds and against the will of the people. The town-hall meetings in the summer of 2009 demonstrated quite clearly the opposition that the people had against the bill, but people like you would like to re-write that history to make it appear like the bill was popular all along. It was a big issue in 2008. The middle class was losing its access to care, while poor people were being given Medicaid or SCHIP programs and old people were getting Medicare. Both subsidized. Healthcare has been an issue for many decades. But that still does not mean that government taking over healthcare was ever popular at all. What the democrats are good at is taking any issue that people have problems with, and trying to get government involved. It's the "no crisis should go to waste" syndrome of the democrats. What resulted isn't what most advocates wanted, The advocates were mostly democrat party leaders and democratic party shills. Most of the people who would be affected by the billl didn't want anything to do with it. wasn't what I wanted, Thank God, otherwise, we'd end up with a Venezuela or a Cuba or a North Korea or the old USSR. but the differences between what was passed and what was sought were compromises with conservative elements inside the Democratic Party. Think about what you just said up there. "Conservative elements inside the democratic party". Ain't no such thing. That phrase is like saying: a lion that won't bite too hard while sinking it's teeth into your neck and getting ready to eat you. A democrat by any other designation is still a liberal in the overall scheme of American politics. Thus, the bill contained all the elements wanted by democrats / liberals and no one else. It wasn't that liberals pushed something through that no one wanted. There is a bit of truth to that statement, but you're approaching the question from a different angle than the majority of American people. Sure enough, there are a lot of people that want their healthcare administered by government, but not the majority; the polls still say that the majority still doesn't like the bill. and would want it to be repealed. It's that the Democratic Congress passed what it could pass, given the objections. A much preferable and much more accurate way of putting it is to say: It's that the Democratic Congress passed what it could pass against the will of the people, given that the majority of people were against it. I suspect you know that, Nope! I don't agree with your misrepresentation of the issue. What I do know, and what I'm sure even you know, is that the majority of the people were against the bill, no matter how big an issue it was for the democrats and for you. but admitting to any fact that disagreed with your ideology There you go again with that stupid "ideology" word again. What you're trying to do is to paint what I believe as being just because of my ideology. But, my ideology didn't convince the majority of the people to be against the highly damaging healthcare proposal from the democrats. You're just grasping at straws. might cause your head to explode. I'm pretty secure in my beliefs and I'm also pretty sure that my way of thinking is the more prevalent way of thinking for the majority of Americans. It's you and the democrats that are out of the mainstream of American thinking. It is you that probably is having your head getting ready to explode. Kind of like a Stalinist when Khruschev came along. That's kind of silly and ironic, coming from someone who is so close to Stalin's and Kruschev's ideology. Or, can't you even see the similarity?
I know you're fond of rewriting history but "the American people" weren't "against Obamacare" from "the beginning." It was a big issue in 2008. The middle class was losing its access to care, while poor people were being given Medicaid or SCHIP programs and old people were getting Medicare. Both subsidized. What resulted isn't what most advocates wanted, wasn't what I wanted, but the differences between what was passed and what was sought were compromises with conservative elements inside the Democratic Party. It wasn't that liberals pushed something through that no one wanted. It's that the Democratic Congress passed what it could pass, given the objections. I suspect you know that, but admitting to any fact that disagreed with your ideology might cause your head to explode. Kind of like a Stalinist when Khruschev came along.
Might I recommend today's story on the real cost of malpractice. Why was the health reform bill hard to pass? Democrats aren't Republicans. Will Rogers said it best. "I'm not a member of any organized political party...I'm a Democrat." The wag says Republicans love a parade, and Democrats all think they should lead one.
One of the number 1 causes for the cost of health care in the US is something that most other countries don't have to deal with (at least on the same level) and needs to be address, the legal system. Take out all the frivolous lawsuits and hospital's, doctor's, pharmaceutical company's and medical equipment manufacturer's insurance premiums would be significantly lower which is a primary factor in why our health insurance costs are so high today. The Republicans have tried to address this but with the Democrats in total control it went nowhere because the lawyers who have everything to lose are their biggest supporters. Also, if Obamacare was so great why was it so hard for the Dems to pass when there was no reason they couldn't get any quality legislation they wanted through with their majorities.
and the democrats in congress didn't care because they passed the bill when most of the people were against it from the beginning. In fact, many in democrtic circles didn't object to it and many were proud to call it "Obamacare" thinking that they could ride the name "Obama" into a great eleciton cycle this coming November. I highly doubt that the name "Obamacare" is the reason for the unpopularity. It's like they say, "a rose by any other name is still a rose"; and conversely, "a pig with lipstick is still a pig"; or "crap that is doused with perfume is still crap".
...then why are they changing their story? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html Perhaps because it was always a lie? When any pollster breaks down the question into its component parts -- when it's not called Obamacare -- most elements of the bill that passed are quite popular. Well, of course they are. If you only talk about the cool or "free" parts without discussing the bad parts or negative externalities, almost everything can be made "popular". I think universal coverage is great. It's just the cost I'm worried about.
When any pollster breaks down the question into its component parts -- when it's not called Obamacare -- most elements of the bill that passed are quite popular. Especially popular are elements that are already law, like the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. And there was an enormous demand for some sort of reform throughout 2008. I agree the President's numbers are sagging right now, because the economy is sagging, so attaching the man's name to something renders it less popular. But these things can change. We'll see what happens.
gain support, Obamacare will never become popular with the majority of Americans. The fact is that Obamacare was never popular, and it's still as unpopular, and it will remain unpopular. Most other pollsters have shown Obamacare to be unpopular, and it's only the Kaiser poll that shows the bill to be "not so unpopular". The trend is not in your favor nor in the favor of Obamacare. But, keep hoping, even if reality is not on your side.
I suspect support is fluctuating. It will continue to fluctuate, over the next few years, as it goes into effect. I don't yet see a trend that's solid enough to call definitive. Support was down in this report, up in the previous, down in the one before that.
The right wing Republicans, who have been bought and paid for by the HMO's will try and repeal the bill because they see their huge profits, gained by exploiting the the sick an infirm, may be diminished.
Is it any wonder that medical reform is losing support, even before any major part of the bill goes into effect? The right wing Republicans, who have been bought and paid for by the HMO's will try and repeal the bill because they see their huge profits, gained by exploiting the the sick an infirm, may be diminished. It's not enough that we pay 30-40% more for our health care than any other developed country. And the way health costs continue to rise just makes it more and more difficult for US companies to compete in the international market. But the Republicans don't care about the American work force. The work force for "their corporations" have all been outsourced.
This has gone far afield. Telling the truth is never going far afield. Your comments are irrelevant to the thread. Whenever a government program is involved, every other government program has to be considered as part of the overall larger argument. The fact is that, there has not been a single government program that is self-sustainable, and the only thing that big government accomplishes is to cause more damage to the economy and to people's lifestyle. As such, the CRA is quite relevant to the discussion because it was in fact responsible for the damage to the economy and to the country. Denying it may be convenient to your ideology, but the facts can't be denied. Some people may point to the financial meltdown as the culprit, as many democrats do, but at the core of that financial meltdown was the effect from the CRA. Thus, it may be correct to point to the financial meltdown as the culprit for the economic collapse, but when looking at what caused the financial meltdown, one has to look at the root cause, and that root was the CRA, a big government intervention into the financial markets. But the right-wing myth that the Community Reinvestment Act is wholly responsible for the great recession is one of the big lies of our time. That's the same kind of line, and lie, being perpetrated against the American people for the last several years. It is very important for democratic leaders in congress and for the president to try to steer the conversation away from the damage caused by the CRA, and to do that, they will continue lying about it, even to the point of calling the damage from the CRA "a myth". But, it won't work because there are far too many people who already know the truth, and there are already too many people who have begun to understand that truth, and they're ready to toss out the vermin who perpetrated the devastation against the economy and the country. And your repetition of that lie -- your continual repetition of a falsehood -- harms your credibility on every other subject you touch. What you're calling a lie, or myth, or a falsehood, is in direct opposition to "your set of facts', and if any statement is in direct opposition to your set of beliefs, then one can be sure that you are the one with the lies. I don't worry about my credibility because I'm pretty sure that I'm correct on the issues, especially when the truth is finally coming out and the people have begun to realize how much the democrats and Obama have been lying to them. You remind of of "Baghdad Bob" who was convinced that he either knew the truth or tried to convince the ignorant that what he and Saddam Hussein had to say was the truth. Nobody was buying what Baghdad Bob had to say, and you sound exactly like him. Another Baghdad Bob in our midst is the useless piece of garbage by the name of Robert Gibbs. In fact, Robert Gibbs is the Baghdad Bob of the U.S. I might classify you as the Baghdad Bob of ZDNet/SmartPlanet. Have you noticed that the majority of posts in your blogs are against what you have to say? Or are you too blinded by your ideology to care?
This has gone far afield. Your comments are irrelevant to the thread. But the right-wing myth that the Community Reinvestment Act is wholly responsible for the great recession is one of the big lies of our time. And your repetition of that lie -- your continual repetition of a falsehood -- harms your credibility on every other subject you touch.
and if you actually do believe that, then you are truly ignorant or refuse to acknowledge the facts. Talk about ideology! If you really believe the CRA had anything significant to do with the financial melt down you're living in a fantasy world. Yep! Even you noticed that there was a financial meltdown. But, a meltdown doesn't happen without a cause. And the cause, even if you hate to admit it, was the mortgage crisis that developed as a result of the CRA. The CRA is directly responsible for allowing people to get mortgages without down payments and without good credit. Democrats and people like you would like for people out there to remain ignorant of the facts and the causes of the problems which plague the economy. But, the people are awakening and the democrats will be out this coming November, excepting for, unfortunately, that ignorant communist fool we have for a president. The only way a "free market" medical system can work and reduce costs is if you deny medical care to people who are unable to pay for it. There are many ideas for reducing costs in the "free-market" system, and the democrats blocked those ideas from getting implemented in order to either create or claim the existence of a crisis. One idea, as an example, was allowing for people to purchase their medical care plans across state lines, which would allow for competition, and with competition, prices almost always come down. I doubt you could get anywhere close to a majority of Americans to support that regardless of their ideology. I guess you aren't paying attention to the news and to the polls were the majority of Americans don't support Obamacare, which is in reality a government implemented plan. Look, you can't continue being in denial of the truth for the rest of your life. Try to face the facts for once. The evidence from around the world is that some form of universal coverage is the most cost effective way to provide medical care. That's a bunch of crap. The fact is that when government gets involved in any program, the costs inevitably go up. The cost of "free" through government is always higher than when the free-market does it. What many people don't realize is that, when government provides a service, the true cost to each taxpayer is never mentioned to the people. But, the fact is that, everything we're talking is for naught. Though the democrats shoved their healthcare bill down the throats of the people, the funding for the program won't be there in the future. Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are government administered programs which are, for all practical purposes, broke. Obamacare won't have the funding from the very beginning, even after stealing the people's money the first four years of the program when there are no services provided. The majority of the people don't want it and the majority of businesses don't want to pay for it. So, while it may not happen this year, and perhaps not even next year, the best hope for the people and for businesses is for Obamacare to get repealed. That's what polls indicate that the majority of people want. So, it is you that is apparently out of touch with the reality of what people want.
Hospital layoffs continue, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts still has not paid many hospitals the money they are owed for providing care under the Massachusetts health care law, which much of the federal law is built on. http://www.workingamerica.org/blog/2010/08/26/a-look-at-layoffs-around-the-country http://www.fiercehealthfinance.com/story/hospital-mass-layoffs-spread-california-increase-massachusetts/2010-08-18
...because once Dana makes his "you're just an ideologue" non- argument, he moves on never to return. He has no response to the factual arguments made here because there are not any. To even try to counter them would be simply embarrassing. For example, do you think he'd ever touch addressing this? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html The interest groups that so diligently marketed ObamaCare to a skeptical public are now working to make us forget the promises they sold to get it passed. The reality is that when all is said and done, we'll still be paying more than any other country for health care, and just as few people will be receiving it. But the long awaited actual goal of ObamaCare will have been achieved; complete dependence of the middle class upon the Federal Government.
Talk about ideology! If you really believe the CRA had anything significant to do with the financial melt down you're living in a fantasy world. The only way a "free market" medical system can work and reduce costs is if you deny medical care to people who are unable to pay for it. I doubt you could get anywhere close to a majority of Americans to support that regardless of their ideology. The evidence from around the world is that some form of universal coverage is the most cost effective way to provide medical care.
why not try to counter the real points that JohnMcGrew and I are making? Generically addressing "ideology" is not an answer to what John and I are saying. You mentioned the Clinton "surplus", and I countered by mentioning how they were really obtained, and who were the real people who forced that "surplus" on Clinton. You had no answer for that other than the word "ideology", which is a non-answer. Ideologically, my points are not about any party machine. It just so happens that when it comes to the points I make and the views I hold, that the republicans are more in line with how I feel about things. The reality is that, if it were up to me, there would be no political parties and every decision would have to be made outside of party affiliation. The most ideological person in all of these discussion in which we engage happens to be you. You love Obama and you love Clinton and you love Pelosi and Reid and anyone with a "D" next to his/her name. When it comes to the "D"s vs the "R"s, no one is more partisan than you. You are a big government proponent and you are a progressive or hyper-liberal, and you have never heard of any big government program that you never liked. Yet, if you were to engage any part of your brain for any kind of real analytical thinking, you'd realize that it's big government that has brought us to the brink of ruination. You and the democrats can blame Bush and the republicans all you want, but, every step of the way to that devastation, it has been a big government program that has taken us one step closer to total ruin. Even Bush took us one step closer to that ruin with some of his "liberal" policies, such as the Medicare drug program. But, the biggest culprit that took us to the brink is the CRA, passed under Carter back in the 1970s, and which took a long time to build the real-estate bubble. Sure, the bubble finally burst during the Bush administration, but he had nothing to do with what created the recession. Perhaps someday, the public will finally begin to understand what really happened, and you yourself will begin to admit the problems with big government and socialism/communism. Look, I know you're now in your 50s and it might be too late for you to change the way you think, but, do try to use your head instead of just going along with your unbending ideology.
...that even the progressive sycophants in the media don't repeat it anymore. That we even have this discussion is absurd. We all know we spend more than anyone else. But it's certainly not because of free market principals that such is the case. In fact, if left entirely to the "free market", your gripe would be that we're not spending enough on health care! Your entire argument is that we need a system that says "no", and I even agree with you! And yet your solution is to leave our fate based upon a Congress that is entirely unable to say "no" to nearly anything, at least where spending more money is concerned. Oh, yes. This time it will be different!
Look folks.....Obamacare is a NIGHTMARE ALREADY. My company just switched plans to fall in line with Obamacare regulations before the 10-1-10 deadline. Our new plan is FAR MORE COSTLY to both the employer and the insured employee. Our benefits went DOWN, our costs went UP, our deductibles went UP, our prescription costs went WAY UP ( as in from $5 to $37 for one drug) and the whole thing is a total joke. We can only hope that the GOP takes over in November and repeals that awful, awful piece of legislation. If it has YET to hit YOUR pocketbook, don't despair - it soon will.
We pay more for health care, and get less in terms of meaningful service, than citizens of any other democracy. This is the price of your ideology, John, and yours Adornoe. When government isn't powerful enough to enforce the law against large private entities, those enterprises control the market. They control the government. The result is not democracy, and it's not capitalism either. Yet that is what your notes defend, claiming it's democracy and capitalism, but that law enforcement that is equally valid against everyone is "socialism" or "creeping communism." The Big Lie didn't die with the Soviet Union, unfortunately. It exists wherever ideology clouds mens' minds.
...to describe how Clinton achieved the economic miracle that even Reagan could never achieve. (at least with a Democrat- controlled House) Although Clinton was certainly more business- friendly (or at least not aggressively free-market hostile) as the current administration, he was not a limited-government kind of guy. In fact, only months before the first Federal budget surplus was realized in '98, the Clinton Administration was still aggressively lobbying Congress for tax increases to address the deficit they were convinced was going to get worse! The "experts" in his Harvard-trained army of economist literally did not see the surplus coming until it was over. But the real reason for prosperity in the latter half of the '90s was "gridlock". In '93, the economy was in lock-down mode, much as it is today with a unpredictable and activist Congress and Administration making executing any business plan a risky proposition. Once the spectre of HillaryCare, the BTU Tax, the 401K tax, the Imputed Income Tax and other Democrat tax-and- spend schemes were washed away in the '94 elections, gridlock between Congress and the Administration meant it was possible to invest and do new business with a reasonable expectation of freedom from interference for at least a few years. With business free to expand, the economy flourished. (One of the first pictures I took with one of those new-fangled "digital" cameras was a sign outside of a fast-food restaurant advertising "signing bonuses" for burger-flippers; such was the demand for labor at the time) With government growth held in check by a Republican-controlled congress, (a discipline that unfortunately, the GOP only maintained for about 5 years) government receipts exceeded expenditures, which was the core precept of Reaganomics. Of course, Dana's tired canard of blaming the current dismal state of the economy on Bush when in less than 18 months, Obama has amplified the economic flaws of the Bush years by orders of magnitude, brings to mind an idea of what economic historians might compare this age to in 40 years or so; As mediocre a President as Jimmy Carter was, his GOP predecessors, Nixon & Ford, were not my any standard "limited government" kind of guys. As Bush set the state for the Keynesian orgy we now are experiencing, they set the stage for the "malaise" of the Carter presidency, which is the only thing that made Reagan not only possible, but inevitable. One wonders if our nation will wake up again in this decade, or if it's too late.
government stepping in and doing those things for people. The phrase was meant as the ideal situation for "people" to go about their lives in trying to create their "own" lifestyles and they saw fit. In that context, government intervention was not intended. The only thing that government should be intervening in is the creation of infrastruce in which people can live their own lives, and infrastructure is not the same as providing healthcare or medicare or medicaid or social security or welfare or free housing or free transportation... well, you get my drift. The infrastructure at the federal level was meant to keep the people safe from external enemies, such as with armed forces. Internal infrastructure was meant to be carried out mostly by state governments, even if that included social programs. Get it? Local government is where social programs belong and according to state/local laws and regulations, not federal. That way, if someone does not like how a state operates, then he/she is free to move to another state. If one state has a social program that another state lacks, then the state with the program might be a more invitiing place for some people to live, or it could be a state with such heavy taxation that people might prefer living elsewhere. People should have choices at the local/state levels; federalizing programs removes the choices that people would otherwise have had.
and that the "surplus" that occurred towards the end of Clinton's administration was a direct result of Clinton and congress having to hold back spending after the republicans passed the "Balanced Budget Amendment" in the mid-90s. The fact is that Clinton fought tooth-and-nail against the balanced budget amendment and even campaigned against it. Clinton became the "beneficiary" of the bill from republicans and ended his administration claiming that he left a surplus when in fact it was republicans, with their bcalanced budget amendment, who created the surplus. But, even then, there wasn't any real surplus when most of what went into accounting for the surplus was gimmickry with the numbers. Furthermore, when Clinton left office, he also left the country in recession, and during recessions, there is no such thing as a surplus. The democrats and Clinton have been getting away for a long time with claiming a surplus when there clearly wasn't any after Clinton left office. And, if there was even a balanced budget, it was because of republican legislation which Clinton opposed. The fact remains that, during the first few years of Clinton's tenure, the deficit and national debt were going up. And spending was being increased until the balanced budget amendment took hold. Had it not been for the balanced budget amendment, Clinton's administration would've added tremendously to the deficit and national debt.
For most progressives, government "taking responsibility" is usually thought of only in terms of redistributing wealth from politically unpopular groups to politically favored ones. In the health care debate, this usually means taxing "rich" people & employers/corporations to pay for their health care. But from his previous postings, Dana has made the point (and I would agree) that most of America's most expensive health problems are entirely self-inflicted due; the results of poor lifestyle decisions. (poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking, etc) This is where his vision of the "responsibility of government" gets disturbing: In order to work, "taking responsibility" will mean much more than just transferring wealth, because even he admits that there just isn't enough of it. People in government will have to be making personal decisions for your behavior, and will be using the power of government to make you behave. Now I have no doubt that Dana would not feel particularly comfortable with someone such as myself having the power to decide what foods he should be eating, what habits he should partake in, or otherwise making other mandates as to how he should live. And yet as the weather changes, so do political fortunes, and I can easily see a time when people he'd consider less enlightened than himself will be in power, and will be in the position to exercise the power now being established by the progressives. They will inherit the ability to make and enforce personal decisions he will not be comfortable and happy with. Sooner or later, the Obama-Berwick-Sebelius-Pelosi-Reed regime will be swept away and replaced with something else. Does he really want some future Palin-Beck regime making personal health and lifestyle decisions for him? I sure don't. And his knowledge of economic history is as sorry as his politics. From a historically comparative perspective, Obama is as much Hoover (bailouts, stimulus, etc) as he'd like to be FDR. The economic success of the latter half of the Clinton years was entirely due to a unwitting application of the principles of Reaganomics; low taxes and limited growth of the Federal government; an agenda politically and economically anathema to those now in power.
Questions about politics are always about the responsibility of government as well as the rights of the governed. Denying what I said doesn't mean you have answered the point. And stop the lectures about "spending other peoples' money" please. Clinton left a surplus. Bush left a train wreck. And Herbert Hoover won't get us out of it.
I was discussing the term "right". There is a big difference, not that many people who spend other people's money so freely know or care.
I prefer to consider it a basic responsibility of government. What is more important to the general welfare than keeping citizens alive? You know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- life comes first. Every other free nation on Earth has recognized this responsibility. Statistics show they benefit -- they live longer and spend less as a result.
Do tell @Gandalf The Grey, exactly how or where is "health care" one of our "most basic rights"? I can think of many things that are far more vital to my day-to-day existence than health care. And of course I couldn't help but notice your homophobic smear at the end as you accuse others of being "neuro-linguistic". Humor or irony?
Obamacare is the WORST thing that has happened with this Idiot. I think you should go home and rethink your life
ResqDogz - I am one of the "long-term unemployed" and paying for my own health insurance. It has a 2K deductible, NO copays for Dr. office visits and is going up to $532 per month (pre-existing conditions - ht./wt. and B.P.). This is DESPITE the fact that I have not made the deductible either this year OR last! The increases are due to this pile of bovine excrement that this ZERO has foisted on the American people. If I can afford this on my income, there is bound to be a policy out there you can afford for you and your daughter. zackers - as you point out, Obamacare does NOT actually go into effect until 2014. HOWEVER, we are ALREADY paying for this boondoggle. Ask yourself - have you EVER paid for something that you won't be able to use FOR FOUR YEARS?? Not bloody likely! That would be like buying a car and not getting to drive it for four years. It is NEITHER RIGHT NOR FAIR!
The general welfare is not about making people sheep. It's about giving everyone opportunities, and treating everyone with humanity.
I used Obamacare in the headline because I'd done the same in the previous story. I get accused of bias often enough here and preferred not to commit it here.
Sadly, once Obamacare kicks in at full force in 2014, it will probably get widespread support. Elimination of preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, and subsidies for those who cannot afford it are just too powerful a lure for most people, especially when it will appear that they get it for free. Sure, it will cause huge waits, lack of choice, poor quality of service, and other massive problems. But Social Security, Medicare, the VA and other government entitlement programs have just as many bad side-effects and yet they're very popular. In the post-war US we've eliminated only one massive entitlement -- welfare -- and that because only a small minority of people "benefited" from it. I don't like it, since even more people will be turned into sheep, but that's the way it is going to be.
What we needed was a public option. The privatization of one of our most basic rights, health care, is about one thing and one thing only: Money. And if you think $35,000 a year is a lot of money you need to get real. P.S. I'm sick of that neuro-linguistic word "Obamacare" that has been programmed into the tea-baggers.
...that the very same interest groups that fought so hard to get it passed are now working diligently to distance themselves from the empty promises they made to get it passed; promises like it would reduce costs or the deficit: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html
Perhaps a post with "Obamacare" (the Right's dismissive and derisive label for The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) in the title lacks a little objectivity. Ultimately, I think that a complex bill like that is difficult to explain to the public and confusion often leads to emotional discomfort and that to dissatisfaction. I think that most who support it are not excited about it but believe that it's a step in the right direction, for the most part.
than this month. Some 43% of those surveyed now support the law, while 45% oppose it, the poll found. Last months 50% supported it while 35% were opposed. Hmmm... If even the Kaiser Foundation is finding negative approval for Obamacare, then the true rating for Obamacare must be way lower. Do you remember the real poll conducted in Missouri last month where the people actually went to vote and they actually voted against Obamacare by a margin of 71% to 29%. I would suspect that the true nationwide margins would not be like those in Missouri, but I'm pretty certain that the disapproval would be a lot higher than what the Kaiser poll shows. BTW, do you have the breakdown of the polling that shows the number of democrats vs republicans vs independents vs libertarian? I tried to look at the "study" in their website but the downloads take forever to get, so I gave up. And, oh... It is not true that healthcare is not a hot issue anymore. While it is true that jobs and the economy take precedence in determining how people will vote, the majority of those people have also decided that Obamacare is not for them and they keep the issue in mind when voting. That's what happened in Missouri. The issue will become very hot again in the last few weeks before November voting. After all, Oobamacare will very negatively affect the economy and job growth.
I wonder if the poll asked "why?" after the interviewee answered the question about favoring Obamacare or not. I assume the "favor" question had a scale from 1 to 10, with 1, perhaps, the least favorable; 10 the most favorable. While it's good to know the various percentages, I find it more important to know why people say they favor the plan or not. Re law_n_disorder's remark: My MD and OD friends no longer accept Medicare patients because of the low reimbursements. They all report having to hire another clerk just to handle the paperwork. I'm not clear on whether all physicians & surgeons will have to accept the Obamacare reimbursement, whether they may refuse to treat such patients, or as is the case with Medicare + a supplementary insurance, Medicare pays so much (about 80%), the supplementary insurance pays about 20%, but if it doesn't, you, the patient must pay the rest. I believe that professionals like physicians, surgeons, RNs -- those delivering health care who have had education beyond the bachelor's degree, who are board certified, and who have to take courses/seminars/workshops regularly to keep up with the latest developments should be compensated far better than Obamacare or Medicare provides. Just as when I hire a master plumber, electrician, or carpenter, I expect to pay more than I would if the person were only a journeyman. How much simpler and fairer it would have been had the congress included all the rest of us in the same plan that they and federal employees have. But then some citizens are more equal than others.
In a related issue, many local governments are leaving the hospital business. "Faced with mounting debt and looming costs from the new federal health-care law, many local governments are leaving the hospital business, shedding public facilities that can be the caregiver of last resort."
I, for one, would gladly contribute, as it is for the good or all of America. Forget the un-American naysayers.
ResqDogz And what reputable physician, dentist, or optometrist will accept the low reimbursement rate the gooberment is going to offer? Thanks for screwing all Americans!
dhensley... Speak for yourself, please! Your major caveat - "and has health insurance" excludes millions of us (yes, I make more than $35,000 but cannot afford insurance for my daughter and myself... other than our state- sponsored care programs which charge healthy premiums - no pun intended - for services contracted at such low reimbursement rates that virtually no reputable physician, dentist, or optometrist will accept patients beyond their minimal 10% participation requirement. So I continue to pay premiums for services no one will provide - from those very same providers - and yet have to pay out-of- pocket for those same services... at substantially higher prices than insurance groups have negotiated to reimburse at. What's the point of that? At least President Obama's healthcare plans will provide reasonable access to services - at reasonable rates - for myself, and those millions who make considerably less than I do. Glad to hear you're so satisfied with the status quo - at least, for yourself. Don't presume to generalize "acceptance" of your statement on behalf of all others - about whose coverage and access, you apparently could care less...