NYT: Public overwhelmingly supports public option for healthcare.

[TheCouga]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/he...cy/21poll.html

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.

Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.

And a plurality, 48 percent, said they supported a requirement that all Americans have health insurance so long as public subsidies were offered to those who could not afford it. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.

In a follow-up interview, Matt Flurkey, 56, a public plan supporter from Plymouth, Minn., said he could accept that the quality of his care might diminish if coverage was universal. “Even though it might not be quite as good as what we get now,” he said, “I think the government should run health care. Far too many people are being denied now, and costs would be lower.”

Three of four people questioned said unnecessary medical tests and treatments had become a serious problem, suggesting that they would support calls by health researchers for a payment system that would better reward appropriate care. But an even higher number, 87 percent, said the inability of people to have the needed tests and treatments was a serious problem. One in four said that in the last 12 months they or someone in their household had cut back on medications because of the expense, and one in five said someone had skipped a recommended test or treatment.

What do you know? The American public actually cares about their fellow countrymen and women. The normal conservative propaganda and fearmongering is falling on deaf ears.

[TheCouga]

And, of course, cowardly "socialist" Democrats are still afraid to put a public option into place.

Honestly, if Democrats can't get a healthcare plan passed with a public option with this much support, than this country is seriously messed up, and probably hopeless.

[sloan]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

What do you know? The American public actually cares about their fellow countrymen and women. The normal conservative propaganda and fearmongering is falling on deaf ears.

oh god, give it rest would you

[sinister porpoise]

But what do the big $$$ interest groups think? ... money talks

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by sloan

oh god, give it rest would you

I'll rest if the Republican propagandists rest. Which is never. So, no, I won't give it a rest.

[Oblong]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

What percent think we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job? What percent think OJ didn't actually do it? What percent thinks the world is run by Jewish, er excuse me, Zionist, bankers in Switzerland?

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by Oblong

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

What percent think we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job? What percent think OJ didn't actually do it? What percent thinks the world is run by Jewish, er excuse me, Zionist, bankers in Switzerland?

I heard all those have overwhelming support.

[Deleterious]

Power Line - Dueling Polls on Health Care

The New York Times trumpets its own CBS/NYT poll which, it says, shows "Wide Support for Government-Run Health."

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Wow. So the American people are longing for socialized medicine? Maybe not. As always with polls, you have to read the fine print. Here is who answered the pollsters' questions:



Since Obama won the election by a 53%-46% margin, the poll obviously skews left. That is reflected in the relative proportions of Democrats and Republicans as well. The Times claims that its poll shows a surprising degree of bipartisan support for government-controlled health care:

[I]n the poll, the [government-run insurance] proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

But wait! If the poll does a lousy job of randomly selecting between Democrats and Republicans, what reason is there to believe that it somehow represents a valid cross-section within either of those groups? Whatever caused the poll to skew left, it obviously resulted in sampling a remarkable number of "Republicans" who say they voted for Barack Obama. A bad poll, in other words, is a bad poll, and you can't draw any valid conclusions from it.

Coincidentally, Rasmussen polled the question of a government insurance plan at almost exactly the same time, and got very different results:

Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults believe it would be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that an identical number (41%) disagree.

This is an "all adults" poll, not a "likely voter" poll, so it should be an apples-to-apples comparison with the NYT/CBS survey. You can draw your own conclusions about what the conflicting results mean.

Actually, what I think is most striking about the Times' poll is the lack of any real enthusiasm for socialized medicine. A large majority of respondents in that survey think that major changes need to be made in our health care system. Yet 77 percent are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their own health care, and 63 percent are "very" or "somewhat" concerned that government medicine will make their own health care worse.

Somehow, many Americans (although not, I suspect, a majority) have been persuaded that government-run health care represents a kind of moral imperative, even though it will likely prove worse and more expensive than the health care we enjoy now. This strikes me as profoundly stupid: how can there be a moral necessity to make our health care system worse, just so we can all be in the same boat? Yet in many countries that kind of leveling argument has proved successful, and it might at some point be here, as well.

[Deleterious]

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults believe it would be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that an identical number (41%) disagree.

President Obama is now aggressively campaigning to build support for creating such public-sector competition. Later today, he is expected to give a major address to the American Medical Association that outlines his health care reform goals including the creation of a government-run health insurance company.

Just 32% of Americans believe that the addition of a public sector insurance option would reduce the cost of health care. Forty percent (40%) say it would not.

Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s likely that a government insurance company would lose money and require taxpayer subsidies. Just 20% say that’s not likely.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans believe private insurance companies will provide better service and more choice than the government option. Thirty-four percent (34%) hold the opposite view.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

Support for creating a government health insurance company has changed little since April.Rasmussen Reports will track support for this proposal as the public debate continues.
The inclusion of a new public sector insurance option has emerged as a key sticking point in the congressional debate over health care reform. Virtually all congressional Republicans oppose the idea, and their concerns are shared by a number of moderate Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats have said that a public option is essential.

Among the general public, 61% of Democrats favor the idea while 67% of Republicans are opposed. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.

Half (50%) of the nation’s Democrats believe the public-sector competition will reduce the cost of health care. Most Republicans and a solid plurality of unaffiliateds disagree.

A review of recent polling on health care reform shows mixed reviews for the consensus plan emerging in Congress.

The underlying political challenge is that just 35% of Americans rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent.That offers plenty of room for improvement. However, among those with insurance coverage, 70% rate their own coverage as good or excellent.This generates strong opposition towards any proposal that would force them to change their current coverage.

In practical terms, the other big challenge is paying for reform. Only 19% of Americans believe health care reform will lead to lower costs while 45% think it will raise costs even more. Current estimates are that the reform plan emerging from Congress will cost more than a trillion dollars over the next decade.

Voters remain closely divided on the urgency for health care reform, given the troubled state of the economy. Forty-six percent (46%) believe the Obama administration should move ahead with health care reform, while 45% say it should wait until the economy improves.Support for health care reform has slipped slightly as more voters think the president should work harder on his promise to cut the federal deficit in half in the next four years.

Just 32% of Americans say they are willing to pay higher taxes for health care reform. One specific idea currently being floated by some in Congress attracts an even more negative response. Americans hate the idea of taxing health insurance benefits and oppose it by a 77% to 11% margin.

While 65% of Americans support the concept of providing health care coverage for all, the details are more problematic. For example, some young and healthy adults are uninsured because they choose not to buy insurance. Most voters oppose making health insurance mandatory for all Americans. Also, there is strong opposition to any plan that would provide government health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants.

[Blue Square Thing]

Just 32% of Americans believe that the addition of a public sector insurance option would reduce the cost of health care. Forty percent (40%) say it would not.

Ahh, the sweet smell of, err, well it's do to with horses...

[sinister porpoise]

When 53% of voters picked Obama, and 48% of respondents report that they voted for Obama, that is not evidence that a poll "obviously skews left"

I would attribute the difference in findings to the phrasing of the question. The NYT/CBS poll suggested the program would be like Medicare but for people under 65, the Rasmussen poll did not analogize to Medicare.

[sinister porpoise]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option

[Blue Square Thing]

So, 60% a decent estimate?

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option

Looks like Rasmussen, as usual, skews to the right. And in this case, their poll is the outlier.

[JohnJMS]

Doesn't matter who is for it. We don't have the money to pay for it. You just can't keep spending and spending and spending. Money isn't like Doritos, you just can't make more - without serious consequences. At the end of the day, you won't even be able to get the Democrats on the Hill to come to a consensus, let alone the GOP.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Doesn't matter who is for it. We don't have the money to pay for it. You just can't keep spending and spending and spending. Money isn't like Doritos, you just can't make more - without serious consequences. At the end of the day, you won't even be able to get the Democrats on the Hill to come to a consensus, let alone the GOP.

Single payer healthcare saves money in the long run. I'm not concerned about the start-up cost in the short term. The problem with our previous government was that they only focused on short-term solutions.

[MrDeeds]

HAHAHA


Great to see people duped by the CBS/NY Times propaganda.


They should be ashamed of themselves for releasing such a biased and dishonest poll. What a ****ing joke these "news" organizations have become.

[MrDeeds]

It should be interesting to see the public's reaction now that we have a major news network dedicating prime-time slots to promoting Obama's agenda. I think all of this spin for Obama being provided by the media is going to backfire. Enough is enough.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Looks like Rasmussen, as usual, skews to the right. And in this case, their poll is the outlier.

Rasmussen was the most accuarte of all the major polls in both the '04 and '08 Presidential elections.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Doesn't matter who is for it. We don't have the money to pay for it. You just can't keep spending and spending and spending. Money isn't like Doritos, you just can't make more - without serious consequences. At the end of the day, you won't even be able to get the Democrats on the Hill to come to a consensus, let alone the GOP.

Which is exactly why the GOP runs huge deficits whenever they get a chance. It reinforces the idea that government can't do anything right, and adds pressure to curb spending that is useful.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

Rasmussen was the most accuarte of all the major polls in both the '04 and '08 Presidential elections.

They were?

FiveThirtyEight's polling regression analysis was more accurate than Rasmussen. And if you look at the polling averages, it looks like the support for a public option is plenty strong.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Which is exactly why the GOP runs huge deficits whenever they get a chance. It reinforces the idea that government can't do anything right, and adds pressure to curb spending that is useful.

Exactly. The GOP's deficit and economic collapse shouldn't prevent this country from moving forward in the right direction.

[Oblong]

Does this mean that gay marriage can never happen? Since we're doing things by polls now.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

A public option would be great, if it is run wisely. That is the crux of the issue. That will involve raising taxes and a whole bunch of other things. Which is fine, if done correctly, because I don't really care if I pay my money to a big business or big gov't.

I also think this is funny, because this democratic plan in my opinion could potentially help most what's typically the republican mantra: small business.

[holygoat]

The NYT/CBS poll is junk - and bad news for Obamacare

This is what propaganda looks like:

"Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind [72%] one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

Bruce Kesler points out that — in traditional NYT/CBS fashion — the sample is badly skewed:

"According to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain."

This is a good example of why reading a poll is as much art as science, because the first problem is the percentage who say they voted in the 2008 election. In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote… or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner.

Does that mean the sample might be more valid than Kesler suggests? Not in this case. In this poll, the sample identified as 27% liberal, 37% moderate, and 29% conservative. In contrast, last week’s Gallup Poll showed Americans identify as 21% liberal, 35% moderate, and 40% conservative.

But wait… there’s more. The same NYT/CBS poll previously published more information about this very sample, showing that 16% was temporarily out of work, and another 10% was not in the market for work. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg tells us that those who have been unemployed within the past year (or have an immediate family member in that category) are the most supportive of a government takeover of the US healthcare system. So a sample with much higher unemployment than the national average tells us something about the skew here also.

While the NYT trumpets the supposed support for a public plan among its skewed sample (which was not asked about support in the event they were to be dumped into the public plan by their employers), the rest of the results are bad news for Obamacare. The number who say the system needs fundamental change is almost exactly what it was in 1993-94. The number who trust the president to make the right decisions on healthcare policy is almost exactly what it was in 1993 — the number who trust Congress has actually declined. Both are below 40% in trust.

The number who would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund Obamacare (57%) is lower than in 1993. Of those willing to pay higher taxes, only 43% would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more in taxes. That means fewer than 25% of a sample largely skewed towards liberals are willing to pay an amount far less than what Obamacare may actually require.

In short, the skewed NYT/CBS poll is no better for the Democrats than any of the other recent polls. In some ways, it is worse.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Which is exactly why the GOP runs huge deficits whenever they get a chance. It reinforces the idea that government can't do anything right, and adds pressure to curb spending that is useful.

Yeah. That's why they do it.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by holygoat

The NYT/CBS poll is junk - and bad news for Obamacare

This is what propaganda looks like:

"Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind [72%] one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

Bruce Kesler points out that — in traditional NYT/CBS fashion — the sample is badly skewed:

"According to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain."

This is a good example of why reading a poll is as much art as science, because the first problem is the percentage who say they voted in the 2008 election. In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote… or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner.

Does that mean the sample might be more valid than Kesler suggests? Not in this case. In this poll, the sample identified as 27% liberal, 37% moderate, and 29% conservative. In contrast, last week’s Gallup Poll showed Americans identify as 21% liberal, 35% moderate, and 40% conservative.

But wait… there’s more. The same NYT/CBS poll previously published more information about this very sample, showing that 16% was temporarily out of work, and another 10% was not in the market for work. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg tells us that those who have been unemployed within the past year (or have an immediate family member in that category) are the most supportive of a government takeover of the US healthcare system. So a sample with much higher unemployment than the national average tells us something about the skew here also.

While the NYT trumpets the supposed support for a public plan among its skewed sample (which was not asked about support in the event they were to be dumped into the public plan by their employers), the rest of the results are bad news for Obamacare. The number who say the system needs fundamental change is almost exactly what it was in 1993-94. The number who trust the president to make the right decisions on healthcare policy is almost exactly what it was in 1993 — the number who trust Congress has actually declined. Both are below 40% in trust.

The number who would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund Obamacare (57%) is lower than in 1993. Of those willing to pay higher taxes, only 43% would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more in taxes. That means fewer than 25% of a sample largely skewed towards liberals are willing to pay an amount far less than what Obamacare may actually require.

In short, the skewed NYT/CBS poll is no better for the Democrats than any of the other recent polls. In some ways, it is worse.

Pure propaganda. The mainstream networks have employed a full-court press in trying to get Obamacare shoved down our throats.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

They were?

FiveThirtyEight's polling regression analysis was more accurate than Rasmussen. And if you look at the polling averages, it looks like the support for a public option is plenty strong.

Nope. FiveThirtyEight(run by self-professed liberals) does not dconduct their own independent polling, but is rather a collection of the major polling groups. Here is FiveThirtyEight's latest pollster ratings based upon recent regional races: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: pollster ratings

Rasmussen is current ranked as the third most fair and is one of the most trustworthy polling organizations. They would never run a fraudulent poll like the propaganda that the NY Times/CBS released this weekend.

[apabruce]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Doesn't matter who is for it. We don't have the money to pay for it.

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we paying for it now? Either we're paying for it in the form of private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or uninsured people are going to emergency rooms and getting "free" care, which means in the long run we all pay for it.

I can see an argument that says there will be more care delivered if there is a public health plan, but otherwise, if people are getting cared for somehow, either they, or we, are paying for it.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

Nope. FiveThirtyEight(run by self-professed liberals) does not dconduct their own independent polling, but is rather a collection of the major polling groups. Here is FiveThirtyEight's latest pollster ratings based upon recent regional races: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: pollster ratings

Rasmussen is current ranked as the third most fair and is one of the most trustworthy polling organizations. They would never run a fraudulent poll like the propaganda that the NY Times/CBS released this weekend.

Sorry. We're talking about the last 6 months here. Those ratings are over a year old.

The best solution is to look at all the polls, not just one pollster. That's why fivethirtyeight is the best one to look at.

BTW, Rasmussen is run by a staunch Republican, so if you disregard fivethirtyeight, you should disregard Rasmussen, too.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by apabruce

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we paying for it now? Either we're paying for it in the form of private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or uninsured people are going to emergency rooms and getting "free" care, which means in the long run we all pay for it.

I can see an argument that says there will be more care delivered if there is a public health plan, but otherwise, if people are getting cared for somehow, either they, or we, are paying for it.

You aren't paying for MRI's, lots of surgeries, multiple follow ups, etc.....

I don't think you appreciate the scope of what is being proposed.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Sorry. We're talking about the last 6 months here. Those ratings are over a year old.

The best solution is to look at all the polls, not just one pollster.

?? Rasmussen has always scored high based on statistical differences when compared to other polls. You can't discredit a Rasmussen poll because it doesn't reaffirm how you see the world, and most certainly you can't call them a right-wing outfit. They are damn near the best:

#1 2008 Election Texas on the Potomac: The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate?

Even the Daily-Kos agrees.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The best solution is to look at all the polls, not just one pollster. That's why fivethirtyeight is the best one to look at.

BTW, Rasmussen is run by a staunch Republican, so if you disregard fivethirtyeight, you should disregard Rasmussen, too.

Who disregards FiveThirtyEight? Once again, FiveThirtyEight does not conduct their own polling.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by apabruce

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we paying for it now? Either we're paying for it in the form of private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or uninsured people are going to emergency rooms and getting "free" care, which means in the long run we all pay for it.

I can see an argument that says there will be more care delivered if there is a public health plan, but otherwise, if people are getting cared for somehow, either they, or we, are paying for it.

This is a really good point. People without insurance now go to the emergency rooms and run up astronomical bills for a common cold. Everyone pays for these. If we had universal healthcare, they could go into a clinic that is more fit to deal with those kinds of things, and we could cut costs.

No new payments need to be made regarding government healthcare. We're already paying through the nose. We're just changing what we pay into. Paying into a government plan would cost people far less in total.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

This is a really good point. People without insurance now go to the emergency rooms and run up astronomical bills for a common cold. Everyone pays for these. If we had universal healthcare, they could go into a clinic that is more fit to deal with those kinds of things, and we could cut costs.

No new payments need to be made regarding government healthcare. We're already paying through the nose. We're just changing what we pay into. Paying into a government plan would cost people far less in total.

This is beyond a simplistic view of what's happening. You say "people" as if everyone is doing this. If that was the case, the ER's would be lined up into the parking lots 24/7.

Look, I'm not necessarily against health care in some form, but trying to accomplish it with mis-information (ala Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" garbage) will only serve to hurt the cause, not help it.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

?? Rasmussen has always scored high based on statistical differences when compared to other polls. You can't discredit a Rasmussen poll because it doesn't reaffirm how you see the world, and most certainly you can't call them a right-wing outfit. They are damn near the best:

#1 2008 Election Texas on the Potomac: The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate?

Even the Daily-Kos agrees.

The Kos thread is from 2006. Again, I was talking about the last 6 months.

I am aware of Rasmussen's past track record. But as I've repeatedly said, I'm talking about the last 6 months. You keep ignoring this. I don't know why. Since the 2008 election, Rasmussen's results have been skewed conservative, and, in some cases, far out of line with the consensus of other polls. Now, either they know something everyone else doesn't know, or they have a problem. But I find it hard to believe that everybody else is wrong and Rasmussen is right. It's possible, but unlikely.

But it's funny you bring up those links, because tied with Rasmussen for most accurate poll is Pew, whose latest healthcare results, like all other polls on the subject, contradict Rasmussen's findings.

Obama's Ratings Remain High Despite Some Policy Concerns: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

This is beyond a simplistic view of what's happening. You say "people" as if everyone is doing this. If that was the case, the ER's would be lined up into the parking lots 24/7.

Look, I'm not necessarily against health care in some form, but trying to accomplish it with mis-information (ala Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" garbage) will only serve to hurt the cause, not help it.

Have you been to an ER lately?

I was in there for a staph infection on a Sunday night about 8 months ago. It was packed...standing room only. From the looks of things, most of those people weren't there for emergencies, and most of them didn't have insurance. They skipped me ahead of about 100 people, though, because my situation was urgent.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The Kos thread is from 2006. Again, I was talking about the last 6 months.

I am aware of Rasmussen's past track record. But as I've repeatedly said, I'm talking about the last 6 months. You keep ignoring this. I don't know why. Since the 2008 election, Rasmussen's results have been skewed conservative, and, in some cases, far out of line with the consensus of other polls. Now, either they know something everyone else doesn't know, or they have a problem. But I find it hard to believe that everybody else is wrong and Rasmussen is right. It's possible, but unlikely.

But it's funny you bring up those links, because tied with Rasmussen for most accurate poll is Pew, whose latest healthcare results, like all other polls on the subject, contradict Rasmussen's findings.

Obama's Ratings Remain High Despite Some Policy Concerns: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

There are major differences in all the polling because they are not asking the same questions in regards to healthcare. As for the Pew Poll specifically, that poll did ask the exact same questions 16 years ago. It shows an across the board drop in support for what is generally considered government increasing control in the healthcare industry.

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Have you been to an ER lately?

I was in there for a staph infection on a Sunday night about 8 months ago. It was packed...standing room only. From the looks of things, most of those people weren't there for emergencies, and most of them didn't have insurance. They skipped me ahead of about 100 people, though, because my situation was urgent.

If you can use Canada for an example, I don't think that going to public health care makes that problem go away. In fact, based on the cities that I have seen, it will likely get worse. People go to the hospital FAR more for absolutely nothing from what I have seen.

[ssmoore]

I dont want anything from the Government but for them to stay out of my life and pocket as much as possible. This Government is already running huge debt and no end is near.

I didn't like Bush and at this point I like Obama less. Both sides of the political Isle are infested with corruption. These are not the people or so called leaders I want running my healthcare.