Obama is losing the independent vote.

[Ruined]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090709/pl_politico/24717

Can't say I'm surprised. With his recent pushing of Cap & Trade, Universal Healthcare, and other far left initiatives that will drive America further into debt while taking away various freedoms from the average American, it looks like the independents are abandoning ship.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'm cranky in the morning and you're bad with money.

[Msut77]

There should be "" marks around independent when politico and ruined use the word.

[Ruined]

Gallup too? :)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24025.html

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Rasmussen also says Obama's numbers are dropping.

[RAMSTORIA]

There should be "" marks around independent when politico and ruined use the word.

why would he need four apostrophes

[camoor]

It's all over, Obama has lost 2012. Also, PS3 is calling it quits due to last months sales numbers.

[Ruined]

It's all over, Obama has lost 2012. Also, PS3 is calling it quits due to last months sales numbers.

Despite the polls, Obama has a much better chance of winning 2012 than PS3 pulling out of last place ;)

[rabbitt]

I like how universal healthcare is a "far left initiative" in America, yet to the rest of the world it is "common sense." Woo boy.

[Ruined]

I like how universal healthcare is a "far left initiative" in America, yet to the rest of the world it is "common sense." Woo boy.

Many other areas of the world have governments that lean far left, Europe as an obvious example. Just because the people in those areas are now essentially forced into that type of system (i.e. "common sense") does not mean America has to go down the same road, nor does it mean that Universal Healthcare would be a good thing for the country.

Take a look at the slow train wreck that is the State of California if you want a model of how excessive government intervention, programs (health or otherwise), and taxes can cause a society to crash.

[rabbitt]

LA just spent $1.4 million on Michael Jackson's funeral. Their main problem is a priority issue.

[Ruined]

LA just spent $1.4 million on Michael Jackson's funeral. Their main problem is a priority issue.

So if you realize the government has serious priority issues, why exactly would you want them in charge of your healthcare?

[rabbitt]

If we're the best nation in the world, we should be able to do what plenty of other countries can.

I am completely against the autobailout and the others like it, don't misunderstand me. I said from the start that the billions that went to the big three should have gone to building a better healthcare system because, in 10 years, that's where jobs will be. I just think that we can be a "moderate" country and still have government do something.

[Cheese]

California's problems stem back the 70's when they instituted their Proposition system allowing public votes on nearly any issue. It has bogged down their government to such a degree that making any change is nearly impossible. There are too many restraints and obsolete laws that were hastily voted in twenty years ago that now stop them from doing nearly anything.

California has some of the lowest property taxes in the union, albeit the second highest sales tax.

The US is the last major western country without any sort of public healthcare system. The current plan is an opt in plan that you can either take or stick with your private insurance. No one is forcing anyone onto a plan they don't want.

For me the argument has always been philosophic: What is the driving force of the insurance industry? Is it to provide the best care available? No. It's to make a profit for it's share holders. What is the driving force of something like Medicare? To make oodles of cash for the Government? No, it's to provide a service.

[Ruined]

If we're the best nation in the world, we should be able to do what plenty of other countries can.

Of course we can do it. But why would we want to?

I am completely against the autobailout and the others like it, don't misunderstand me. I said from the start that the billions that went to the big three should have gone to building a better healthcare system because, in 10 years, that's where jobs will be. I just think that we can be a "moderate" country and still have government do something.

Big two, remember Ford didn't take the bailout money and is actually doing reasonably well + putting out solid cars.

But, auto bailouts aside, how many things has the government been able to efficiently address in a successful manner? Why are so many government programs going bankrupt? Why are so many trillions spent by the government for so little useful gain? Why would you want these same people that waste so much money and get so little done making decisions about your personal healthcare?

[Cheese]

Of course we can do it. But why would we want to?

Because 15% of America has no health insurance and can't see a doctor when they get sick? And that often these people who have to pay $150 to see a doctor are the lowest income people?

But, auto bailouts aside, how many things has the government been able to efficiently address in a successful manner?

The Military.

[Ruined]

The US is the last major western country without any sort of public healthcare system. The current plan is an opt in plan that you can either take or stick with your private insurance. No one is forcing anyone onto a plan they don't want.

But it is forcing some people to pay for healthcare twice. One charge for their own healthcare, then a second charge for unused public healthcare... Why should people be forced to give even more hard-earned money than they already do away for something they don't even want or use?

Also, how slippery is the slope? What if public healthcare goes bankrupt like many other government progarms and the fee/tax/etc for it - even for people that don't use or want it - becomes so large that private healthcare becomes noncompetitive/too expensive to addon? If it ever goes to public healthcare only, then you are stuck with whatever the government thinks is best for you with no other option - and that is a very scary place to be!

For me the argument has always been philosophic: What is the driving force of the insurance industry? Is it to provide the best care available? No. It's to make a profit for it's share holders.

If an insurance company provides inferior care to another insurance company, they lose business and hence lose profit. Thus, it is in their best interest to provide both efficient and high quality care in order to retain business.

What is the driving force of something like Medicare? To make oodles of cash for the Government? No, it's to provide a service.

That is debatable. Medicaid provides a service, but it does so by increasing the size and power of government. Those new government regulation, social work, and administration jobs must be filled by people - thus creating more government programs is actually "profitting" government in a way. Universal healthcare will do the same.

Because 15% of America has no health insurance and can't see a doctor when they get sick? And that often these people who have to pay $150 to see a doctor are the lowest income people?

Then 15% of Americans need to learn how to get themselves to their local social services agency and apply for Medicaid/Medicare/etc. The programs are already there, they just need to be used.

The Military

...which is largely funded and favored by the gov't party that for the most part opposes Universal Healthcare.

[SpeedyG]

Because 15% of America has no health insurance and can't see a doctor when they get sick? And that often these people who have to pay $150 to see a doctor are the lowest income people?



The Military.
Well we socialized the Fire Departments, Police, Libraries and the Post Office as well. By in large most of those work out pretty well.

[speedracer]

Since I know you'll be back here Ruined, I would love to see your take on this post.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6044619&postcount=25

...which is largely funded and favored by the gov't party that for the most part opposes Universal Healthcare.
How exactly do you support that statement? That's the kind of statement that always rubbed me the wrong way. I hated the way people politicized my military service as if their pretending to support me did me some kind of favor. Of course, they'd never work hard to make sure that military hospitals were the best, that the barracks I lived in weren't condemned (they were), etc... yet it always was connected to how big the gun contracts were. Didn't you feel the same way while you were serving?

[homeland]

I like how universal healthcare is a "far left initiative" in America, yet to the rest of the world it is "common sense." Woo boy.


And polls have shown that most americans want universal health care.

[SpeedyG]

Nice to see someone who's actually served feel the same way I feel about "Supporting The Troops"

[KingBroly]

And polls have shown that most americans want universal health care.

Do you think those people know what it will entail though? I best most of those think their health care plan (if they have one) will be unaffected, which won't be the case. And the people that don't have it think they'll get something good, which they won't.

[UncleBob]

You mean the military is effective?

Because from what I've seen/read about Iraq, Afghanistan, from the mere continued existence of Osama Bin Laden, combined with our own unsecured borders, I'm not seeing this "effective military".

And to those who have served, please take this not as a personal attack - but, quite frankly, the way our government uses and abuses our military is far out of whack with the way it should be used.

[SpeedyG]

The military is plenty effective. It's the Generals and the other asshats at the top who need to get a fucking clue.

[UncleBob]

The military is plenty effective. It's the Generals and the other asshats at the top who need to get a fucking clue.

Which is my major point of view - return the power to govern to the states and local governments. We need to cut off the asshats at the top. ;)

[SpeedyG]

And since when are the local governments any less corrupt?

[spmahn]

And polls have shown that most americans want universal health care.

That's a ridiculous question to ask in a poll. How many people out there really understand what "universal" health care really means, and the impact it will have. Most people would assume that "Universal" means Free, and the media and the politicians have yet you educate the public that that is not the case at all.

I'm not taking a side on the health care debate, just wanted to point out the ridiculousness of framing a question in such a way.

[UncleBob]

They're easier to overthrow. ;)

Honestly, they're easier to vote out. My town's last election for Mayor - Port 681, Brown 574, Blake 481, Gott 204. Also, it's far more reasonable to expect someone to run for local office rather than national office. I doubt it cost any one of those four even 1% of 1% of what it cost Obama and McCain to run. Plus, local officials know more about what the local community needs than Washington DC.

[smarkbran]

And polls have shown that most americans want universal health care.
Amen!

[soonersfan60]

People would take a "free" car or house if you offered it to them also, so a poll doesn't mean that it's the best thing to do or the right thing to do.

[elprincipe]

The Military.

Welcome back. Try Googling the phrase "military efficiency" along with the word "oxymoron." It's famous, even. The military is successful, yes, but at an unbelievable cost. "Efficient" is not a word I would associate with it at all, even if they do get the job done.

[Ikohn4ever]

Well we socialized the Fire Departments, Police, Libraries and the Post Office as well. By in large most of those work out pretty well.


commie, stop using common sense to win an argument

[elprincipe]

commie, stop using common sense to win an argument

Since when did commies use common sense?

[UncleBob]

commie, stop using common sense to win an argument

I'd hardly call that common sense. Libraries are losing funding all over the country - wasn't it the state of Ohio that was looking at closing them down state-wide? And the Postal Service... wow - aren't they looking at cutting another day of delivery because they're losing so much money? If you need to ship something, and you absolutely have to have it there - do you honestly use USPS?

[Msut77]

I'd hardly call that common sense. Libraries are losing funding all over the country - wasn't it the state of Ohio that was looking at closing them down state-wide? And the Postal Service... wow - aren't they looking at cutting another day of delivery because they're losing so much money? If you need to ship something, and you absolutely have to have it there - do you honestly use USPS?

Because no one can name a single private entity losing money or doing poorly today.

At all.

[UncleBob]

Because no one can name a single private entity losing money or doing poorly today.

At all.

But name one that's "losing money or doing poorly today" that is also "working out pretty well."

[Msut77]

But name one that's "losing money or doing poorly today" that is also "working out pretty well."

You missed the entire point didn't you?

[spmahn]

You missed the entire point didn't you?

No, I think you're missing his point. Yes, we do have socialized libraries, police, and postal service (Although the USPS is a privately run entity protected by the government), but they have all been proven to be completely inefficiant when compared to their private sector counterparts.

If there's a new book out that you want to read, do you go to the library to get it? No, because the library probably doesn't have money for new books to begin with, and even if they do get it, they'll only get one copy two months after it's release, and you'll have to wait six months after that because it'll constantly be checked out. Instead, you'll just go to Borders and just buy the book and then resell it afterwards through Amazon.

Ever try and hire police security? It's outrageously expensive, in the neighborhood of 50 dollars an hour, and since the cops are union, they aren't going to give a shit anyways, and will provide lackluster service compared to the private security you can get for 20 bucks an hours and hires ex-marines.

Don't even get me started on the Post Office

[thrustbucket]

Because from what I've seen/read about Iraq, Afghanistan, from the mere continued existence of Osama Bin Laden, combined with our own unsecured borders, I'm not seeing this "effective military POLICIES".


Imo, the American people can no longer stomach effective military policy.

You can have all the best tools in the world to build a house, but if you insist on only using one hand, only working at night with sunglasses on, and using a hand crank to generate power for your tools, it doesn't really matter - your ability to build a house is going to be pretty shitty, and the house will likely turn out shitty.

[lilboo]

The military is a joke.

[Msut77]

How many people out there really understand what "universal" health care really means

Probably a higher percentage than certain posters in healthcare related threads.

but they have all been proven to be completely inefficient when compared to their private sector counterparts.

No.

If there's a new book out that you want to read, do you go to the library to get it?

Yes, because I don't mind waiting a few days or weeks.

Also it is not as if getting new books fast is the only criteria libraries can or should be judged by.

I cannot believe that has to be pointed out.

[UncleBob]

Must: Where does Obama, President of the United States of America and grand-champion of all things government... Where does he send his children to be educated?

[depascal22]

Well we socialized the Fire Departments, Police, Libraries and the Post Office as well. By in large most of those work out pretty well.

The Post Office is losing money hand over fist. They're talking about closing 10% of all branches in the next couple years. I think it's a good move but not all government agencies are the model of efficiency.

On the other hand, the public library system is an example of money well spent.

[KingBroly]

Must: Where does Obama, President of the United States of America and grand-champion of all things government... Where does he send his children to be educated?

Not to a DC public school.

[Ruined]

Obama's numbers plummet, biggest shift from moderates:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-20-obama-poll-economy_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular

WASHINGTON — Qualms about President Obama's stewardship of the economy are growing, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, as Americans become more pessimistic about when they predict the recession will end.
At six months in office, Obama's 55% approval rating puts him 10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at this point in their tenures. When he took office, he ranked seventh.

...

* By 49%-47%, those surveyed disapprove of how he is handling the economy, a turnaround from his 55%-42% approval in May. The steepest drop came from conservative and moderate Democrats.

* By 50%-44%, they disapprove of how he is handling health care policy.

* A 59% majority say his proposals call for too much government spending and 52% say they call for too much expansion of government power.

* Expectations of the economy's turnaround are souring a bit. In February, the average prediction for a recovery was 4.1 years; now it's 5.5 years.

• The administration's stimulus package isn't seen as a benefit by most whether viewed in the short term or the long term, in how it will impact the country or individuals. Only a third think it will help their own family's finances in the long run.

[HowStern]

5.5 years is an incredibly high expectation. This debt has been in the making for about 6 times that long.

[RAMSTORIA]

5.5 years is an incredibly high expectation. This debt has been in the making for about 6 times that long.

its a usa today poll, what did you expect?

[Ruined]

AP poll seems to have found the same:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_ap_poll

Perhaps most troubling for Obama may be where he is losing ground. His approval rating was down 9 points among Americans overall but 20 percent among independents. Similarly, the increase in those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction came mostly from independents and Democrats.

Dissatisfaction among independents grew disproportionately on Obama's handling of a range of issues, including the economy, taxes, unemployment, the environment and more.

[RAMSTORIA]

still, losing the independent support is not the same as losing the independent vote. just because this segment is unhappy with obama doesnt mean they are going to flock to a GOP candidate come 2012.

[UncleBob]

still, losing the independent support is not the same as losing the independent vote. just because this segment is unhappy with obama doesnt mean they are going to flock to a GOP candidate come 2012.

Yup Yup. If Sarah Palin is put forth as a serious (heh) candidate, the GOP will lose (again).

Independents should flock to an independent candidate...

[elprincipe]

Yup Yup. If Sarah Palin is put forth as a serious (heh) candidate, the GOP will lose (again).

Independents should flock to an independent candidate...

I saw a new poll that did 2012 matchups (just a wee bit early, but all in good fun):

Obama 45, Romney 45
Obama 48, Palin 42

[hostyl1]

But it is forcing some people to pay for healthcare twice. One charge for their own healthcare, then a second charge for unused public healthcare... Why should people be forced to give even more hard-earned money than they already do away for something they don't even want or use?

Well I've asked a similar question about Public Education. I went to private school K-12 but that didnt allow my parents to opt out of paying for public schooling.

That being said, even conservative politicians believe that there is a role for some sort of public education. A majority of American believe that access to education is one of the best things to help a person of any background to make the most of him/herself. But if you're not even well enough to go to school, how can you ever have a reasonable chance of success?

I'd argue that having basic access to healthcare is an even more important "public good" than education. Even a dumb person can dig a hole. A sick person cant do much of anything ;)

Additionally, Your question is based on the assumption that people *currently* do not pay for the care of others, but that's simply not true. Go to any hospital Emergency Room and you'll find a post that says something to the effect of 'you have the right to stabilizing care regardless of your ability to pay'. If they cant/dont pay, everyone else does in the form or higher insurance premums. On top of that Emergency Room care is some of the most expensive are around. It would be much better off for someone to see a Family Doctor/Nurse for that persistant fever/cough/headache than to go to the ER.

But my problem with the whole debate is even if there is a "public option" that is offered to Americans, there is no mandate that doctors have to accept it. Here in Virginia, we have a sort of 'public option' (it's a state assistance program admistered by private insurers) but good luck finding a doctor who actually accepts this insurance. That is the point no one is talking about.

(sorry if this is OT)

[UncleBob]

Why won't any doctors accept the government-provided insurance?

Anywhoo, your issues with double-paying for education is exactly why we need a voucher program for schooling. But that's for a different thread.

[Msut77]

Why won't any doctors accept the government-provided insurance?

Any?

[hostyl1]

There are "some" doctors who take the insurance, but they are few and far between (at least in the NoVA area). On top of that, those that *do* take the insurance have a long backlog of prospective patients.

And the doctors are private people, they can choose to accept/reject whatever insurance they like. Maybe the private industry pays them off if the reject the state care. Maybe the doctors are morally opposed to state care. Maybe they just dont want more patients. Who knows? But nobody "in charge" is even asking the questions so I doubt we'll get the answers anytime soon.

Oh and you dont have to sell *me* on vouchers.

[spmahn]

Surprised no one has talked about tonights press conference. I thought it was pretty much a joke, Obama purposely dodged all the tough questions and beat around the bush at just about every turn. I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything he was trying to say tonight, other than, "It's George Bush's fault" and "I'll let Congress worry about planting the money tree we're going to need to make this happen". Obama needs to stop with all the rhetoric, and actually live up to some of his campaign promises. 2012 is coming sooner than Obama seems to think, and if things don't start heading in a different direction soon, he's going to dig himself into a hole he won't be able to get himself out of, and will end up becoming the Jimmy Carter of our era.

As for the Healthcare reform bill, it's not coming for at least 2 more years. If the Dems can gain even more seats in Congress next year (All signs right now seem to point to this not happening however), then there's a good chance it'll end up on the table for 2011. For now though, there's enough opposition from both sides that it will probably get delayed until next year, which is of course an election year, and the Dems will start having flashbacks to 1994 and suddenly get cold feet on the issue.

[mykevermin]

I'm curious where you came to the conclusion that he dodged issues about money, given that he specifically stated that 2/3 of the appropriated funding exists now, and the last 1/3 will come from a reduction in what kinds of itemized deductions can be made by households with incomes of $1m/year or higher.

What were the tough questions he avoided?

I thought he did a fine job - the point he was trying to make is that the current system is broken. As he said, (paraphrased) "if I proposed a bill that would double costs, reduce coverage, and leave people uninsured all over the next decade, you'll call the bill preposterous; well, that's our current system."

Moreover, the "guh?" inducing moment for me was when he mentioned that a very small portion of the population would likely go uncovered by his policy. While this made me question his sanity at first, his rationale reinforced why the foundation of his plan is a fine idea - and it's not a scary socialist "single-payer system" with "mandatory health care."

Whether you like his plan or not, I'd like to see this debate moved into an area where we compare plans, instead of boogeyman the Obama plan to death by screaming "SOCIALISM!" instead of talking about issues of substance and importance.

[spmahn]

We may have 2/3rds of the funding appropriated NOW, but what happens in 5, 10, or more years?

The specific questions I noticed him completely dodging was the lady who grilled him about transparency in government as he had promised.

[Sarang01]

Frankly I find Obama to be a failure. This man defends the same Anti-Civil Rights policies as Bush, even going further as to endorse premature detention just in case someone might attack.
We need to put pressure in Congress to make it clear to Obama this is not acceptable. Besides this the spending needs to be curtailed. He needs to stop backpedaling on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as well.
If Congress won't do their fucking job then we throw them all out and vote Greens and Libertarians in(whoever has the better shot in said area) to clean up Obama and Bush's mess as well as making it clear the Constitution actually means something.
Oh and before some of you protest again voting for a Green if you're a lot more Libertarian or vice versa, trust me when I say they'll be too busy on the common ground in terms of fixing things. Seriously they won't have time to do anything other then that. It would also give a clear signal to the Democrats and Republicans that their shit will not be tolerated any more, this two sides of the same coin crap.
Now, besides the obvious I think one of the first things they would need to do to help "Global Warming" would be to legalize Hemp. It would save a lot of trees from being cut down right and there really wouldn't be a worry so much about paper being used.

[KingBroly]

A Congress controlled by a single party isn't going to put pressure on someone from their own party, no matter what the people say. You want change? Start voting the opposite way for President and Congress in terms of which ticket they're on.

[elprincipe]

Whether you like his plan or not, I'd like to see this debate moved into an area where we compare plans, instead of boogeyman the Obama plan to death by screaming "SOCIALISM!" instead of talking about issues of substance and importance.

Agree. The problem here is there really isn't a plan. Obama has not laid one out himself and there are about 10-15 different plans circulating in Congress. Of course, that leads to the question of why Pelosi won't even promise to give the public and her fellow congresscritters even 72 hours to consider the final legislation before a vote, much like the BS that occurred in ramming through the "stimulus" bill and the most poorly crafted legislation I've ever seen pass either house of Congress, cap-and-trade.

[Sarang01]

Agree. The problem here is there really isn't a plan. Obama has not laid one out himself and there are about 10-15 different plans circulating in Congress. Of course, that leads to the question of why Pelosi won't even promise to give the public and her fellow congresscritters even 72 hours to consider the final legislation before a vote, much like the BS that occurred in ramming through the "stimulus" bill and the most poorly crafted legislation I've ever seen pass either house of Congress, cap-and-trade.

Cap-n-Tax you mean. Seriously what a joke. If you're in the Green Movement and you give a shit then realize there are better ways to handle this and realize you've being co-opted, at least in the media. Seriously Conservation with mention of sustainability and next to none on self-sustainability?! Fuck no. Being Green should be about empowerment, getting people OFF the Grid and using a combination of things like Solar and Biomass as well as Conservation to do it. If you have the land try Wind as well. If not Wind, how about Geothermal? I haven't even mentioned tidal energy but make sure YOU own it or you own it co-operatively and pay for the cost evenly to maintain it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Take a deep breath. Exhale slowly. Remember; it is only the Internet.

[shrike4242]

Msut77 and spmahm, enough with the petty name calling.

Take a deep breath. Exhale slowly. Remember; it is only the Internet.Agreed.

[elprincipe]

Cap-n-Tax you mean. Seriously what a joke. If you're in the Green Movement and you give a shit then realize there are better ways to handle this and realize you've being co-opted, at least in the media. Seriously Conservation with mention of sustainability and next to none on self-sustainability?! Fuck no. Being Green should be about empowerment, getting people OFF the Grid and using a combination of things like Solar and Biomass as well as Conservation to do it. If you have the land try Wind as well. If not Wind, how about Geothermal? I haven't even mentioned tidal energy but make sure YOU own it or you own it co-operatively and pay for the cost evenly to maintain it.

Cap-and-trade is poorly crafted not because I agree or disagree with the underlying goal of the legislation, but because it imposes an enormous cost on every American to achieve virtually nothing as regards that underlying goal. Consider that, even if you take current theories as gospel truth, the effect of cap-and-trade, if implemented according to plan (never happened ever or will happen when it comes to government), would be to reduce global temperatures by 0.1 degree C by 2100. That's not 1 degree, it's one-tenth of one degree, indistinguishable. So if you believe global warming is a big problem, cap-and-trade is a useless distraction, which is why it is opposed by groups like Greenpeace. And obviously if you think global warming is a hoax or isn't a big problem, cap-and-trade is a costly wild goose chase. In the end, no matter where you stand on the issue, you're getting screwed...unless you are one of the special interest groups that will get free carbon credits to sell for a fat wad of cash.

[Ruined]

"Rasmussen: Obama Double-Digit Negatives

Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:07 PM

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that President Barack Obama's rating in Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index has hit negative double digits for the first time.


The survey found that 29 percent of voters strongly approve of Obama's job performance, while 40 percent strongly disapprove.


Rasmussen calculates its Presidential Approval Index by subtracting the "strongly disapprove" figure from the "strongly approve" figure. As a result, Obama's overall score is a minus-11. That's the first time his rating has reached negative double digits.


Other results of the poll:



49 percent somewhat approve of Obama's performance.


50 percent disapprove of Obama's performance.


76 percent see Obama as liberal.


48 percent see Obama as very liberal.


54 percent primarily blame former President George W. Bush for America's economic woes.


25 percent say the U.S. economy has been aided by the economic stimulus package.


53 percent oppose the Democratic healthcare reform package.


37 percent say deficit reduction should be Obama's top priority.


20 percent say healthcare should be Obama's top priority.


The poll is based on answers from 1,500 likely voters. It has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points."

Looks like Universal Healthcare and Cap & Trade are murdering Obama's approval rating swiftly.

[mykevermin]

53 percent oppose the Democratic healthcare reform package.

53% of randomly sampled adults clearly place ideology above knowledge, as there is no proposed package yet.

So they more or less disapprove of whatever it is that they don't know it is. Lovely.

[Snake2715]

For me the argument has always been philosophic: What is the driving force of the insurance industry? Is it to provide the best care available? No. It's to make a profit for it's share holders. What is the driving force of something like Medicare? To make oodles of cash for the Government? No, it's to provide a service.

Kind of like Social Security right?

Do you realize how much of a cost shift there is from Medicare and Medicaid to the private insureers, and private insureds.... This service is in the red big time and its effecting all privately insureds pocketbooks.

[Ruined]

53% of randomly sampled adults clearly place ideology above knowledge, as there is no proposed package yet.

So they more or less disapprove of whatever it is that they don't know it is. Lovely.

I think the ideas the president and numerous democrats have put forth thus far have been enough to scare people off, even if there is no 'official' package completed yet - not to mention the astronomical costs our own gov't calculated. Myself, the much-discussed public healthcare option is enough to keep me staunchly opposed to any package containing it going forward.

[Snake2715]

Why won't any doctors accept the government-provided insurance?

Anywhoo, your issues with double-paying for education is exactly why we need a voucher program for schooling. But that's for a different thread.

C'mon, when you can charge 80-150 per visit to a private carrier and the government says whoa thats way too much you need to cap that at $45-$60 they get a little bent... Then 3-6 months later they get paid for the visit. How long would it take you to not accept it?

[mykevermin]

I think the ideas the president and numerous democrats have put forth thus far have been enough to scare people off, even if there is no 'official' package completed yet - not to mention the astronomical costs our own gov't calculated. Myself, the much-discussed public healthcare option is enough to keep me staunchly opposed to any package containing it going forward.

You mean the inaccurately estimated CBO report?

And you saying that you don't support the public option actually reinforces that the opinion is based on ideology and not knowledge. I wouldn't be proud of that.

[kram]

Some food for thought:

1) Out of the 50 million people that don't have health care in the USA, 10 million of them are illegal aliens. So 20% of the statistic most often used in the media (even by Obama himself) is deceiving.

2) The 1000 health reform bill states that medical educational institutions (med-schools) who show RACIAL preference will be given priority in receiving government funding. So there basically is an affirmative action clause right there in a health care bill. This bothers me greatly because I would like my tax dollars going towards the schools that offer the BEST medical programs, not those which are most diverse. I want the doctor operating on me to be an example of excellent studies and hard work, not someone who attained their position by the color of their skin.

3) The bill requires that businesses provide health care to their employees or pay the government for the public option. Small businesses will see significant increases in their expenses (i've seen stats in the 7-10% range, I believe) and will respond by laying people off. They simply can't afford it and unemployment will result.

4) In my town there have been a few protests in which many people have signs that read "People not Profits". I truly don't understand this. If this bill were to decrease profits in the medical field (which it seems like it will, but I admit that I need to do more research in this regard) what incentive will people to have to become doctors, surgeons, nurses? People enter the medical field because they wanna make a shit - load of money! You take away the profit, you take away the incentive for aspiring doctors to do their best, and the medical services you receive will suffer for it.

I share these thoughts just cause I don't think that they've really been mentioned enough. What do you guys think?

[homeland]

Some food for thought:

1) Out of the 50 million people that don't have health care in the USA, 10 million of them are illegal aliens. So 20% of the statistic most often used in the media (even by Obama himself) is deceiving.

2) The 1000 health reform bill states that medical educational institutions (med-schools) who show RACIAL preference will be given priority in receiving government funding. So there basically is an affirmative action clause right there in a health care bill. This bothers me greatly because I would like my tax dollars going towards the schools that offer the BEST medical programs, not those which are most diverse. I want the doctor operating on me to be an example of excellent studies and hard work, not someone who attained their position by the color of their skin.

3) The bill requires that businesses provide health care to their employees or pay the government for the public option. Small businesses will see significant increases in their expenses (i've seen stats in the 7-10% range, I believe) and will respond by laying people off. They simply can't afford it and unemployment will result.

4) In my town there have been a few protests in which many people have signs that read "People not Profits". I truly don't understand this. If this bill were to decrease profits in the medical field (which it seems like it will, but I admit that I need to do more research in this regard) what incentive will people to have to become doctors, surgeons, nurses? People enter the medical field because they wanna make a shit - load of money! You take away the profit, you take away the incentive for aspiring doctors to do their best, and the medical services you receive will suffer for it.

I share these thoughts just cause I don't think that they've really been mentioned enough. What do you guys think?

I think links to where you get your stats and data would be splendid.

[kram]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443

Talks about the 10 million illegal aliens.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

Talks about racial preference in the bill.

http://www.miamiherald.com/454/story/1147098.html

Talks about the 8% fee if small businesses do not provide health care.


I found all these in a quick google search of each. They may not be the best articles out there for their issues, because I literally spent less than 4 minutes finding them.

[mykevermin]

Please spend 4 more.

[kram]

Haha you're a funny dude mykevermin. Everything I talk about is directly in the articles I posted. Please read before typing.

[perdition(troy]

Please spend 4 more.

Please spend four more minutes reading said articles.

[mykevermin]

A conservative news site and a blog? Pish-posh. Those simply aren't reliable sources.

[kram]

Hahahaha you get even funnier. These are statistical facts. Not things that can be slanted or biased. Maybe YOU should do a 4 minute Google search and see the MANY other sites which you can find this information. Thanks for playing.

[Msut77]

Everything I talk about is directly in the articles I posted.

It isn't which would be the point.

For example the link from cns "news" talks about census info concerning foreign born Americans, foreign born isn't the same thing as illegal even non-citizen isn't the same thing as illegal.

Ten million illegals without health insurance might not be wrong but the article shows no indication that is included in the numbers cited of Americans without health insurance. It instead harps on foreign born apparently since they don't count as "real" Americans.

It also excludes certain facts such as A) Any expansion of healthcare doesn't have to include coverage for illegal immigrants and B) In our current system we are paying for illegal immigrants healthcare through ER visits.

Your sources are either sloppy or intentionally misleading.

These are statistical facts. Not things that can be slanted or biased.

This does not bode well.

[mykevermin]

Hahahaha you get even funnier. These are statistical facts. Not things that can be slanted or biased. Maybe YOU should do a 4 minute Google search and see the MANY other sites which you can find this information. Thanks for playing.

The CNS News link says "foreigners." Are all foreigners illegal aliens, or are you failing to take your own advice?

[homeland]

Oh shit my French wife is foreign which i guess = illegal!! And we both have no health Insurance!

And 37 million uninsured people is ok? I love the empathy for fellow countrymen. God Bless America.

[Cheese]

A conservative news site and a blog? Pish-posh. Those simply aren't reliable sources.

A conservative news site, a blog and an op-ed. FACTS!

[fullmetalfan720]

I think we need a new rule around here. You can only cite DailyKos and the Huffington Post as sources. All the other sites are just lies.

[Cheese]

In my town there have been a few protests in which many people have signs that read "People not Profits". I truly don't understand this. If this bill were to decrease profits in the medical field (which it seems like it will, but I admit that I need to do more research in this regard) what incentive will people to have to become doctors, surgeons, nurses? People enter the medical field because they wanna make a shit - load of money! You take away the profit, you take away the incentive for aspiring doctors to do their best, and the medical services you receive will suffer for it.

From a surgeon friend of mine:

If I opened a surgical practice in Canada, I would, depending on the specialty, earn anywhere from zero to twenty percent less than I would in the United States. That sounds no good, right?

The prospect of working in a place where negotiation with insurance companies is no longer a consideration and where all of 1,200 malpractice lawsuits were filed in the year 2004 (compared with about 85,000 filed in the United States for 2006) with 82% being decided for the physician and where malpractice insurance is provided by the government is worth this hit in income.

It is ridiculously preferable. I would work in Canada in a fucking heartbeat if I had no other considerations.

Also, A) It's not the doctors anyone is crying about, it's the cost of drugs and hospital visits which have skyrocketed in the last 20 years, and B) the idea that people only become Doctors and Nurses out of greed is absurd.

[Cheese]

There's also this...

From Gul Banana over at Somethingawful (http://pub.gamingw.net/54767/Why%20Universal%20Health%20Care%20Is%20Unambiguous ly%20Necessary%20For%20America%20-%20The%20Something%20Awful%20Forums.htm?threadid=2 732476&userid=45119)

the link above has many links to his sources, here is just the text:

There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all - usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic - the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.

Why The Current Situation Is Bad

At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies.

Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP - the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value, either - obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.

What Is Universal Health Care?

Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:

In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation.

How UHC Will Improve Things

The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable - insurer decisions and lack of money - will no longer exist.

The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost - which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397

The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

Frequently Raised Objections

There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common.

"America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here
The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent.

Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. - but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America.

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

"It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare."
You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.

"This is socialism."
It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence.

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.

"I don't want more government bureaucracy."
UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state.

"Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help."
It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services.

The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow.

"Doctors will be paid less."
They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less - for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors - but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine - such as subsidising their education.

It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go.

"Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced."
It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased.

Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.

"With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up."
This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system!

"Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs."
This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD:

Canada: 17.7%
Germany: 15.2%
Iceland: 13.3%
Australia: 13.3%
US: 12.4%
Sweden: 12%
Ireland: 11.6%

In Conclusion

Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.

[elprincipe]

If I opened a surgical practice in Canada, I would, depending on the specialty, earn anywhere from zero to twenty percent less than I would in the United States. That sounds no good, right?

The prospect of working in a place where negotiation with insurance companies is no longer a consideration and where all of 1,200 malpractice lawsuits were filed in the year 2004 (compared with about 85,000 filed in the United States for 2006) with 82% being decided for the physician and where malpractice insurance is provided by the government is worth this hit in income.

It is ridiculously preferable. I would work in Canada in a ing heartbeat if I had no other considerations.

Interesting, but let's take lawsuits per capita instead of overall numbers because the U.S. has a much, much larger population than Canada (still more in the U.S., but this will show the difference more accurately). Notwithstanding the year difference, let's just go with current populations so we have a rough estimate:

U.S. population (US Census) = 307 million
Lawsuits (from you) = 85,000
Lawsuits = 1 per 3,712 people

Canada population (Statistics Canada) = 33.7 million
Lawsuits (from you) = 1,200
Lawsuits = 1 per 20,083 people

So there are about five times as many malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. - a lot more, to be sure, but not 70 times as many (as your raw statistics implied). However, I completely take your point (and agree with it) that malpractice lawsuits are out of control and are a significant driver of higher health-care costs.

I do wonder several things, though.

1. Where did your friend get his "0 to 20 percent less" idea? Is there a link to that stat? It would be interesting to see since that contradicts what we've been told by many people.

2. Why aren't there more doctors in Canada if this is the case? We see stories that the doctors they have are insufficient to handle the number of patients and delays are worsening.

2. In your subsequent post, which was very informative, there is no answer to the main question about a government-run health-care plan, which is limited access to care. Opponents of government-run health care will point to data like cancer survival rates being higher in the U.S. as opposed to Canada because of delays in treatments in Canada from rationing of care. Any answer to this, or is it just to be expected?

[Msut77]

If prince doesn't think the US system has "rationing" and "limited access to care" then there is no point responding to him.

[fullmetalfan720]

It found waits of between 58 and 77 weeks for psychological therapies in two areas covered by NHS Highland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8048685.stm
Below is a selection of your comments.
I suffer from anorexia nervosa. The NHS eating disorder clinic in my area has assessed me and deemed that I do in fact need treatment, but I've been waiting three months so far for treatment and could be waiting another three or more. Waiting times for operations may have gone down, but as far as I can see waiting times for specialist services are insanely long. In the meantime, my life is an absolute misery - all because there aren't enough spaces for eating disorder patients who aren't minutes away from dying.
Francesca, Leicester
Who uses the Median as a measurement anyway? The whole point of this achievement is that the worst extremes have been dramatically reduced, so that NO ONE waits more than 6 months for treatment now. That is the real achievement here.
Mark Herriot, London
I've no complaint about waiting times for hospital appointments but was recently referred by my GP to a local hospital as an emergency (he feared I had suffered an embolism). I arrived at the Medical Assessment Unit at 4:22pm, was seen by a triage nurse at 7:30pm and seen by a junior doctor at just before midnight. I was finally discharged at just after 1:00am. Target time to see a doctor - 4 hours. Time I had to wait to see a doctor - over 7 hours. Staff were all excellent but the system needs serious attention.
Liz Gardiner, Monmouthshire
My 4 yr old son has been under the ENT department since he was 18 months old, he had sleep apnoea so had his tonsils & adenoids removed & grommits in his ears. I hassled the consultants secretary for weeks as we were told he was an urgent case & when they finally did the sleep study he was called straight in as he needed to be monitored. He is now supposed to have follows ups every 9 months, we get the date & then the app is cancelled again & again. We have an appointment for July, 18 months after his last check up as long as they don't cancel that one either. If they make the appointment, they make the waiting list targets, they just don't keep the appointment.
Lisa Price, Southampton
I prefer to look at hospital waiting times in more realistic terms than numbers. I was told I would be waiting 6-8 months for a big bunch of extractions in hospital which would enable me to retain further use of non damaged teeth. 13 months down the line i've got more holes in my mouth than when I started, and have lost the ability to eat crunchy foods. So I prefer to look at hospital waiting times as such: If you're told you have to wait, don't expect to have anything done. Ever, or at least not until it's too late, even if you can't eat because of it.
John Knight, Neath, S. Wales
Yeah.. I was on a 6 month fast track surgical waiting list 5 years.. that's right.. FIVE years ago!!. Due to a clerical error in updating my records I was dropped from the lists and I am still waiting for my surgery. I have been waiting longer that the allowed 18 weeks now to see the initial consultant again.. Can anybody spell neglect?
joolz, wigan uk
My appointment to see a consultant has been cancelled and moved three times so far. I'm still waiting. Do the figures include this? I doubt it.
Barbara Scott, Dagenham
What's the big deal about hospital waiting list. What's important is waiting in general. I had tried to get CBT (Cognitive behavioural therapy) in Wokingham and it's well over 18 months waiting list. The doctor just talks you out of going on the list as it's pointless!
Mike Bilsborough,
What a typical BBC mealy-mouthed take on NHS good news! Is there nobody there that feels just a little bit anxious about your determined crusade to prove - by whatever convoluted logic you can dredge up - that everything to do with the NHS is rotten? Jack Heery
Jack Heery, Wirral
I think we're getting better at massaging the numbers but my own experience has been one of getting bounced backwards and forwards through a disastrous appointment booking system and getting told that the "18 weeks" hasn't even started yet. When someone does hit that 18 weeks limit then they get shipped off to a private hospital at great expense. Very nice for an occasional lucky patient and no doubt very nice if you own a private hospital, but I doubt it helps Joe average very much.
Ian Nartowicz, Stockport, England
How about the weeks and weeks of waiting as a number of tests are carried out BEFORE one gets on the waiting list ? It's there that the time passes - 6 weeks for this test, 3 weeks for its result, another 6 weeks for the next test and so on. No wonder we have such a poor record for cancer recovery etc
Jackie Staniforth, Croydon, UK
I injured my knee last January and wasn't treated for 10 months. The 18 week target was satisfied (multiple times) as I had appointments with various different medical professionals throughout that period to assess my injury. I felt that many of these appointments were used to delay the time of actually treating me whilst still satisfying targets, particularly as the surgeon who operated on my knee was able to identify the problem within minutes of examining the joint. As a consequence of waiting 10 months, I now have pemanent damage to my knee that cannot be repaired .
Maybe there should be some figures published that show waiting times to treatment rather than simply being seen by a doctor.
Claire Massow, Bristol
My Dad is finally going for his hip operation in April. This is after 3 YEARS of constant pain. They simply don't put you on the list until it's low enough, they make stupid excuses like blood pressure (was low for his age, they said high), cholesterol (same), weight (how does a nearly-crippled person do exercise anyway?). None of these things have changed, all of a sudden he's allowed to have the operation. Why? Because there's a space on the list. Middlesbrough PCT probably look really good on the graphs, but it's all lies. In reality people are waiting even longer for operations.
Claire, Middlesbrough
One does wonder about the real significance of these numbers. if those below the median are made to wait longer in order to reduce the median wait. You could quite easily get a reduction in median and in maximum but an increase in mean. An apparent reduction in waiting times actually would be an overall increase in man-days waited (albeit more fairly distributed). If you know what you're doing you can make statistics say anything.
Graham Spiller, Stevenage
I have several hospital appointments per year for an ongoing condition and have found that when I am given an appointment it is fairly quick so as to count towards these statistics. However almost all of these appointments are then cancelled and a further appointment made much further ahead which means I am waiting just as long as ever but probably deemed a success due to the first appointment made.
Andy Jamieson, Farnborough Hampshire
Of course, one other reason why waiting times have fallen is that if you have been on a waiting list for a long time you get a telephone call to ask whether they can remove you from the waiting list.... My relative had to insist several times that she wanted to remain on the list. She was clearly low priority and never received the pain-relieving treatment she was waiting for. However, she did move out of the catchment area for that hospital, so they succeeded in having her removed from the list eventually.
Kay Sanders, Huddersfield, UK
Waiting times are very deceptive. They dont take into account the time waiting to get on the waiting list
Philip Griffin, Milford Haven

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7965785.stm

[kram]

Excuse me mykevermin, but the media and the Obama administration repeatedly use the saying that 50 million AMERICANs are uninsured. But I'm pretty sure foreigners (meaning citizens of other nations) are NOT Americans, and thus should not be included in this statistic. My point remains valid, the article quotes the US Census Bureau (or is that a questionable source to you?). While 40 some million is still a large number I would like my president to be using the correct statistic before he increases my taxes.

[mykevermin]

So you make > $1m per year? Then your taxes are going up.

Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.

[UncleBob]

So you make > $1m per year? Then your taxes are going up.

Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.

It makes me sad that you honestly believe this. :(

[fullmetalfan720]

So you make > $1m per year? Then your taxes are going up.

Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.

I suppose you didn't watch Obama's speech last week?

[mykevermin]

watch, no. listen, yes. this is what he said.

[UncleBob]

Obama says a lot of things. Obama does a lot of things. The two don't always match up.

[mykevermin]

So you're rolling on 100% speculation then.

[Msut77]

But I'm pretty sure foreigners (meaning citizens of other nations) are NOT Americans, and thus should not be included in this statistic.

Including American citizens?

Why are you ignoring facts A and B I pointed out earlier?

[fullmetalfan720]

watch, no. listen, yes. this is what he said.
If I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I’m going to be opposed to that
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23obama.html?_r=2&hp
I take that as meaning middle-class families taxes might go up. Notice how he adds the word primarily instead of just saying this:
If I see a proposal that is funded through taxing middle-class families, I’m going to be opposed to that.

[UncleBob]

So you're rolling on 100% speculation then.

Yup. My magic crystal ball broke the other day when my wife was cleaning and knocked it off the counter. It was a big mess and every so often, we still find tiny shards of glass. Perhaps I could borrow your crystal ball, since it seems to work so well.

[elprincipe]

Excuse me mykevermin, but the media and the Obama administration repeatedly use the saying that 50 million AMERICANs are uninsured. But I'm pretty sure foreigners (meaning citizens of other nations) are NOT Americans, and thus should not be included in this statistic. My point remains valid, the article quotes the US Census Bureau (or is that a questionable source to you?). While 40 some million is still a large number I would like my president to be using the correct statistic before he increases my taxes.

Actually that number is even more inflated than you think. Here you go:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

Turner also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.

The "47 million Americans don't have health insurance" is a crock. The true number is 8-14 million, if we don't count those who can afford insurance but decline to have it because they don't want to pay for it even though they have the means. Now, that many people without insurance who are unable to pay for it is still a big problem, of course, and there are many other problems with our system, rising costs being a big one. But typically proponents of systemic change have vastly exaggerated what we are talking about here.

[spmahn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/senate-group-dropping-dem_n_245839.html

Looks like Health care isn't even on the table anymore. The special interest groups and lobbyists win again, not that I mind much as this is one issue I feel pretty strongly against.

Either way, next year is an election year, and a lot of the Democrats are going to have tough enough battles as it is, including Dodd, Boxer, Bennet, and Specter, as well the seats in New York and Illinois which will be a complete toss up as of now. Don't expect anyone running for re-election next year to touch any of these hot button issues with a 50 foot pole, unless they're in a situation where their re-election is all but assured. The same goes for the House where there are numerous seats that will have tough re-election campaigns as well.

[Ruined]

Looks like Health care isn't even on the table anymore.

Awesome! :D

Looks like the dem politicians in the swing states want to keep their jobs, as they would surely lose them in 2010 if they saddled the country with more debt while simultaneously destroying the best healthcare system in the world.


And just pre-emptively in case someone whips out the "us is 37th" misinformation, here are some links on how socialistic countries rigged that study to make themselves look better:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

The only downside is that the best care in the world isn't the cheapest care in the world, but what is more important spending money on than your health? Surely not video games.


EDIT: Also wanted to comment that I do see the "preexisting condition" clause mentioned in the article you posted that some insurance companies use to prevent coverage or charge huge premiums as a problem due to some people who have chronic health problems; I could see that being worked on. It would also be nice to see them work on reducing the cost of COBRA in between jobs, though I don't see that as a critical matter.

[HowStern]

Yeah, awesome! We can continue spending 3 times more per person on med supplies than every other developed nation despite offering lousier quality healthcare and going into more debt because of it!

[RAMSTORIA]

It would also be nice to see them work on reducing the cost of COBRA in between jobs, though I don't see that as a critical matter.

COBRA is crazy expensive. i mean, just unbelievable really.

[mykevermin]

^ Ayup. We never opted for Cobra. The only thing it has going for it is a cool name.

[RAMSTORIA]

i would think sotomayor is very low on the reasons why obamas polls have taken a dip

[Msut77]

^ Ayup. We never opted for Cobra. The only thing it has going for it is a cool name.

What is needed is a public option. Not having one (and Cobra is no substitute) is the cost of coddling insurance companies and other mega corporations just like with the Medicare prescription drug expansion, it happens because these companies buy off politicians. It is not even as if that fact is hidden.

[elprincipe]

With picks like sotomayor I can see why.

Regardless of how you feel about Sotomayor, her nomination is one thing that is not bringing Obama's poll numbers down. The huge deficit and massive spending increases top the list, then add debacles like cap-and-trade and all the crazy trial balloons being floated on health care to the "stimulus" being predictably ineffective and the unemployment almost certain to hit double-digits -- that's what's driving poll numbers. The funny thing about Sotomayor is if Republicans actually believed what she said at the hearings, she'd be unanimously confirmed (obviously they don't believe her at all; time will tell, eh?).

[trq]

...while simultaneously destroying the best healthcare system in the world.

And just pre-emptively in case someone whips out the "us is 37th" misinformation, here are some links on how socialistic countries rigged that study to make themselves look better:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

The only downside is that the best care in the world isn't the cheapest care in the world, but what is more important spending money on than your health?

You linked to John Stossel. You get both a FAIL and a "come the fuck on" for that one.

[KingBroly]

i would think sotomayor is very low on the reasons why obamas polls have taken a dip

I think Cobra is like...$500 a month. It's been a couple of years since I heard a number so it might be higher.

What I find funny is that Obama's been talking about health care reform a lot for about 2-3 weeks straight, and during that time period, we've seen a good decline in his poll numbers (or at least the media starting picking up on it).

[Ruined]

You linked to John Stossel. You get both a FAIL and a "come the fuck on" for that one.

Thanks for the intelligent & well-thought out response.

Anyway, Obama's numbers on healthcare look like they are continuing to plummet:



* 69% of respondents believe Obama's plan will hurt the quality of their own healthcare.

* 73% believe it would limit their access to tests and treatment.

* 62% believe Democrats' proposals would require them to change doctors.

* 76% believe healthcare reform will lead to them paying higher taxes.

* 77% expect their healthcare costs to rise.

Its pretty obvious why independents are bailing on Obama when he is pressing this unwanted healthcare plan on the general public. IMO the more he presses it the more his numbers will drop. Same goes for Cap & Trade.

[archangelreb]

He was asked about a HR on pg 16 of the bill that would grandfather current coverage but would make writing a new policy illeagal. What's up with that??

[mykevermin]

We're so proud of the success we're having convincing the American public that this misinformation is actually true!

I read Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion" a few weeks ago. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. The best worst book I ever read. But you're really peddling, indirectly, that the thesis of Hedges' book is correct. We're not a society who is interested in facts, or a society interested in disputing things with evidence. We're a society so inundated with numbers that are manufactured, arguments that have no basis in the real world, and elements of intellectual debate so nonexistent that we're willing to link to a John "HE HAS A MOUSTACHE" Stossel editorial that's incorrectly thought out as genuine evidence that someone out there is wrong.

How many people believe in God? How many live their lives according to these beliefs? Correct or not, we modify out behavior based on mere perception, with no interest in genuine discovery for ourselves. If you want to argue that the plan is a bad idea, feel free to (though there is no plan, yet, haha). But arguing that the public isn't interested in a plan is immaterial to the point - it just shows what people believe - the same people who live in a society where we're all woefully anti-intellectual and perpetually misinformed.

FFS, turn on the news and you might get THIS chestnut of "data" and/or "facts."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuEkyzTKFY

[elprincipe]

FFS, turn on the news and you might get THIS chestnut of "data" and/or "facts."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuEkyzTKFY

Wow, that is stunningly stupid. Probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard O'Reilly say.

[Msut77]

I think Cobra is like...$500 a month. It's been a couple of years since I heard a number so it might be higher.

What I find funny is that Obama's been talking about health care reform a lot for about 2-3 weeks straight, and during that time period, we've seen a good decline in his poll numbers (or at least the media starting picking up on it).

And yet support for a public option is almost universally strong in polls.

Maybe people are getting upset because whatever plan that passes might not be socialist enough?

[spmahn]

We're so proud of the success we're having convincing the American public that this misinformation is actually true!

I read Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion" a few weeks ago. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. The best worst book I ever read. But you're really peddling, indirectly, that the thesis of Hedges' book is correct. We're not a society who is interested in facts, or a society interested in disputing things with evidence. We're a society so inundated with numbers that are manufactured, arguments that have no basis in the real world, and elements of intellectual debate so nonexistent that we're willing to link to a John "HE HAS A MOUSTACHE" Stossel editorial that's incorrectly thought out as genuine evidence that someone out there is wrong.

How many people believe in God? How many live their lives according to these beliefs? Correct or not, we modify out behavior based on mere perception, with no interest in genuine discovery for ourselves. If you want to argue that the plan is a bad idea, feel free to (though there is no plan, yet, haha). But arguing that the public isn't interested in a plan is immaterial to the point - it just shows what people believe - the same people who live in a society where we're all woefully anti-intellectual and perpetually misinformed.

Sadly this is true, and the worst part is that there seems to be absolutely no voice of reason anywhere, or at least not one anyone is listening to. On the one side you get wharrgarbl from Bill O'Reilly, but on the other side you get the same crap every time you turn on the news and see a commercial essentially telling you that if you don't support public health care, you're going to end up uninsured, get cancer, and die. Why is it so hard for any of our leaders to lay the facts out on the table as they are and let the public decide, rather than trying to sway the opinions of the woefully uninformed through the use of extreme, or emotional arguments, half-truths, and straight up lies?

[trq]

Thanks for the intelligent & well-thought out response.

No. Seriously. The guy once advocated price gouging even in dire emergencies because then "the resources go to those who really need it." Aside from being so dumb he can't tell the difference between "need" and "afford," he's an unequivocal free market fundamentalist. He's the farthest thing from a trustworthy source regarding any topic even peripherally connected to the economy, since he's always going to take the same stance, no matter how asinine.

In short, he's a colossal douche with a questionable grasp of logic.

If you're trying to make your case by posting some information, whatever's coming from Stossel's mouth ranks somewhere between "whatever the fuck Glen Beck is crying over tonight" and "a Dennis Miller joke about Sirhan Sirhan and Fawn Hall."

That is to say: it's worthless.

[mykevermin]

Sadly this is true, and the worst part is that there seems to be absolutely no voice of reason anywhere, or at least not one anyone is listening to. On the one side you get wharrgarbl from Bill O'Reilly, but on the other side you get the same crap every time you turn on the news and see a commercial essentially telling you that if you don't support public health care, you're going to end up uninsured, get cancer, and die. Why is it so hard for any of our leaders to lay the facts out on the table as they are and let the public decide, rather than trying to sway the opinions of the woefully uninformed through the use of extreme, or emotional arguments, half-truths, and straight up lies?

NYT, C-Span, and NPR are good food.

[fullmetalfan720]

I saw this in the paper today, and I thought, you've got to be shitting me:
Poor people would get subsidies to help them buy care after spending 12 percent of their income on premiums, instead of 11 percent in the existing bill.http://www.newsday.com/a-look-at-the-deal-worked-out-on-health-care-1.1335267
They seriously expect poor people to give 12% of their income to health care? I wonder how many will actually be able to afford that? Especially when its mandated.

[thrustbucket]

NYT, C-Span, and NPR are good food.

I sure hope you aren't referring to the New York Times.

[perdition(troy]

He probably is.

[mykevermin]

Of course I am.

It's just like a roller coaster, thrust. You're only scared because you haven't tried it and your big brother told you it's mean and nasty.

[thrustbucket]

Well C-Span is ok, and NPR is tolerable if you pretend Democracy Now doesn't exist, so 2/3 aint bad.

[Ruined]

NYT lost its credibility quite a while ago. Hence their near-bankruptcy, people just don't care to read the obviously slanted "news" anymore.

[mykevermin]

Pish-posh. People with little to no credibility have lambasted the NYT as "liberal" since McCarthy was in office, if not sooner.

[trq]

NYT lost its credibility quite a while ago. Hence their near-bankruptcy, people just don't care to read the obviously slanted "news" anymore.

Uh-huh. Then explain the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times.

[elprincipe]

NYT lost its credibility quite a while ago. Hence their near-bankruptcy, people just don't care to read the obviously slanted "news" anymore.

Agree that NYT has lost a lot of credibility, mainly for things like the McCain mistress story that turned out to be a fabrication and other partisan hackery. Conversely, The Washington Post has gained credibility, with me at least, over the years as they have slowly moved more toward the center from a NYT-left position years and years ago. Now they are center-left and don't reflexively mock any and all conservative positions or ideas.

But I digress. Your conclusion about slanted news is far off the mark. NYT is the exception, not the rule. The increasing popularity of things as diverse as Fox News and Huffington Post is testament to this trend. Unfortunately, many people, I'd say the vast majority, are intellectually lazy and much prefer to read something that they agree with as opposed to something challenging their viewpoint.

Bottom line is that there's nothing wrong with reading the NYT, HuffPo, Washington Times or watching Fox News, as long as you understand that you are most likely getting a very biased perspective. If you rely solely on the NYT for your news, you'd have just as slanted a view as if you watched Glenn Beck daily and nothing else.