Reuters Poll: Most in U.S. want public health option

thepoliticalcarnival



Still another poll. For what it's worth, it supports my belief that a majority of Americans want to see a robust public option in the health care legislation. Without one, insurance companies would be able to charge whatever they felt like without competition, and health care reform would be reduced to one big giveaway bonanza for the insurance companies.

Also, like many of those polled, I don't expect to see results from any health care legislation for several years. We need reform right away but it seems that the government can't move that fast.

reply to post by Sestias


Rasmussen polls have it flipped. Overwhelming opposition
to the public option.
62% oppose Single Payer Health Care System.

ooooooh, a Reuters poll? who owns Reuters again?

"they do"


fixed link



[edit on 3-12-2009 by vermonster]

reply to post by Sestias


I would not base a poll on some 2,999 households on the base of all the Americans in the US, makes me wonder which households they went to get the information from maybe most of the NWO

reply to post by vermonster


Reuters called James Carville 2,400 times.
Nobody will believe that Reuter poll.

reply to post by Sestias


Did you even read the article you linked.

* Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.

* 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

* Quality of healthcare will be better 12 months from now: 35 percent strongly disagree. 11.6 percent strongly agree. 29.9 percent put themselves in the middle.

* Believe the amount of money spent on healthcare will be less 12 months from now: 52 percent strongly disagree, 13 percent strongly agree.

* 23 percent believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now.

Not really all that positive when you really look at the results now is it?

The main question was "Do you believe in a Public Option?". That is like asking "do you believe Taco Bell exists." Answering yes doesn't mean you want to eat taco bell, just means you know there is one down the street.

And for the opposition.

Calls elderly person....

~Hi what do you think about having healthcare ran by the government?

Don't you dare think of it! I like my medicare and I won't stand for a gov ran program.

~ I see... So do you think everyone would be better off if they had something like medicare?

Yes of course they would, how else could you afford the care you need in today's world with rising costs? Do you know how much pills and checkups cost?

~ what if i told you that medicare was ran by the Government?

I would say your a damn liar and probably listen to that CNN Channel that is ran by the devil obama. You know he is black right?

~ ok thanks for your time

End

reply to post by Eurisko2012


I would just like to point out that single payer is different than public option...thus the term "option". Perhaps that's why the polls are so different...

reply to post by Avenginggecko


It means the same. A government option will run the rest out of business.
It's a sneaky way to bring the Canadian Health Care System down
here to the USA.
Take a number & good luck.

Still another poll. For what it's worth, it supports my belief that a majority of Americans want to see a robust public option in the health care legislation. Without one, insurance companies would be able to charge whatever they felt like without competition, and health care reform would be reduced to one big giveaway bonanza for the insurance companies.

reply to post by Sestias


I can't take it. Kool-aid drinkers such as you do not deserve the freedom given by this nation. You are more then willing to give away OTHER PEOPLES money to keep you happy.

1. Allow cross state competition for Insurance companies.
2. Limit tort law to $250,000 awards.


Cost to America? ZERO.
Cost to you? Your weird blind loyalty to a failed Presidency.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


No, no it's not.

When they pas the mandate making you buy health insurance, and don't give us the public option maybe then you'll see.

Without the public option this law will make people who can't or won't buy health insurance criminals.

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

No, no it's not.

When they pas the mandate making you buy health insurance, and don't give us the public option maybe then you'll see.

Without the public option this law will make people who can't or won't buy health insurance criminals.

Actually the Repubs and the Health industry would LOVE just that!
It would generate billions in new profits. That's the ONLY reason Repubs oppose the public option, having the majority of insurance bucks is not enough, they want to make sure they get it all! And the brainwashed believe it's un American to have it any other way!

reply to post by crmanager


Under the proposed health care reform, everyone would be required to carry insurance, and insurance companies would be required to cover everyone regardless of illness or pre-existing condition.

Without a public option that operates on a non-profit basis, there would be nothing to keep the insurance companies from charging a million a year based on health history. They could basically charge anything they wanted to and have their outrageous prices subsidized by the government in the cases of people who couldn't afford their insurance.

What's to keep them from getting together and price fixing? Suppose they all agreed that the price of their coverage would not go below an agreed-upon level?

The whole raison d'etre of insurance companies is to make profits. They would not be truly interested in offering the lowest rates to their customers. Getting all these new customers and still keeping their prices high would be a bonanza.

The rationale for a public option would be to provide a non-profit alternative. This would allow people a genuine choice and keep the insurance companies honest.



[edit on 3-12-2009 by Sestias]

reply to post by Sestias

The whole raison d'etre of insurance companies is to make profits. They would not be truly interested in offering the lowest rates to their customers. Getting all these new customers and still keeping their prices high would be a bonanza.

That is why it is called "Free Market Capitalism."

Profit is not a dirty word but for some reason all of you Socialist Obamaites think that profit is something that belongs to the "people."

The reason they CAN'T charge whatever they want is that people will not use their services. 'Price Fixing" has been illegal since the 1920's. Collusion as it is called could not be performed no matter HOW much you hate business because the CEO's would be in jail in weeks.

Please realize that business is in business for profit. If we allowed insurance companies to compete more freely then prices would drop. BO loves to point out that in Louisiana 98% of all insurance is from 2 companies. True but ask WHY? Because the STATE MANDATED that these companies have this share. WHY? The dirty politicos are getting paid to make it that way.

Allow cross state competition. People will go to the companies that give the best service. COM-PE-TI-TION.

reply to post by crmanager


Ahhh "free market capitalism"!

Yeah, it's worked so well for us in the Bush years didn't it!
I'm nostalgic for the zooming oil profits! Wall street really came through for America didn't it?
Free market means free reign, unregulated capitalism suffers from the same fatal defect as Communism, human greed. There hasn't really been a free market system for a century. as for competetion, the object is to win! Then you have a monopoly, a pesky result!
Now you can post ( or someone will ) a long BS explaination of why our current mess is not the fault of "free market". If you buy this your nuts!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by OldDragger]

[edit on 4-12-2009 by OldDragger]

The only ones that doesn't want or benefit from a public option is the profiteers of the health care bill, private insurance companies.

Anybody that can not afford to pay for a health insurance now, will neither be able to pay for a private mandatory health care insurance after the bill, no matter what the government is telling.

They will be more than happy to have the public option, plain and simple, the same way that I will rather keep my private insurance and have no need for public option and probably will no qualify anyway.

I always find it amusing when people take these polls as gospel. You can asked questions that no matter what suites your needs or ask even reasonable questions but if areas that are extremely biased. If I were liberal and wanted a poll to reflect a liberal perspective, all I need to do is head to Boulder and I suspect I could get a 90% of any question.

reply to post by crmanager


I'm not against capitalism, though I don't believe in a totally unregulated market.

There are just some social welfare programs -- like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and hopefully a public health insurance option--that government can do better, cheaper and more efficiently than capitalism.

The need to make a profit will push all costs of health insurance reform much higher. And that is the problem to begin with.

Capitalism is okay except when it tries to get a bite out of people's need to eat, sleep, be fed and clothed, and have medical care. Those are basic needs that should not be available only to the rich.

Remember the movie "Wall Street?" "Greed is good." That's the motto of "free market" capitalism.

Conservatives, for whatever reason, don't appear to want health care to be available to all citizens at a reasonable cost. But then they scream when there are proposed cuts to Medicare.

They want both enormous profits and budget cuts at the same time.

reply to post by Sestias

Conservatives, for whatever reason, don't appear to want health care to be available to all citizens at a reasonable cost. But then they scream when there are proposed cuts to Medicare.

Where the heck did that come from?

Pull your socialist head out. What is "resonable" to you? Are you the decider for that number? Is it free? 1% of your income? Sliding scale?

50 MILLION seniors will see Medicare cuts. Your advice to them is simply "Shut up old rich people?"

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by crmanager

 

Ahhh "free market capitalism"!

Yeah, it's worked so well for us in the Bush years didn't it!
I'm nostalgic for the zooming oil profits! Wall street really came through for America didn't it?
Free market means free reign, unregulated capitalism suffers from the same fatal defect as Communism, human greed. There hasn't really been a free market system for a century. as for competetion, the object is to win! Then you have a monopoly, a pesky result!
Now you can post ( or someone will ) a long BS explaination of why our current mess is not the fault of "free market". If you buy this your nuts!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by OldDragger]

[edit on 4-12-2009 by OldDragger]

I love the arguement you socialists trot out..."You have more them me so give it to me."

Here is a thought...Work harder. Earn more. You need help there is Medicare and Social Security.