Jump to content

Obamacare and Jobs


Lewdog

Recommended Posts

Canadian do indeed wait for nonemergency procedures, usually about a month or so. However I have gone to the emergency room here 3 times for kidney stones and NEVER had to wait more than an hour, and even then they gave me a pain shot within ten minutes so I didnt really mind waiting. I lived in the States until about 5 years ago and my wait times were MUCH longer with no initial pain shot or anything.

My parents use the programs from the drug companies for cheap or free drugs, and yes, if you need service you won't generally be denied it. My point is, why should a person have to beg for help when confronted with a medical emergency. I worked for a hospital company in Ohio for a while and their average write off of patient claims was approx 30%. That is 30% that has to be picked up by those who ARE paying for health insurance.

I don't understand companies' argument that UHC will cost them more. Taxes pay for the UHC here in Canada, more specifically sales taxes. While everyone's costs will go up with this, think of the huge savings a corp would enjoy if they didnt have to pay such huge benefit costs for their employees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jim Finklestein' timestamp='1352205636' post='1178130']
Canadian do indeed wait for nonemergency procedures, usually about a month or so. However I have gone to the emergency room here 3 times for kidney stones and NEVER had to wait more than an hour, and even then they gave me a pain shot within ten minutes so I didnt really mind waiting. I lived in the States until about 5 years ago and my wait times were MUCH longer with no initial pain shot or anything.

My parents use the programs from the drug companies for cheap or free drugs, and yes, if you need service you won't generally be denied it. My point is, why should a person have to beg for help when confronted with a medical emergency. I worked for a hospital company in Ohio for a while and their average write off of patient claims was approx 30%. That is 30% that has to be picked up by those who ARE paying for health insurance.

I don't understand companies' argument that UHC will cost them more. Taxes pay for the UHC here in Canada, more specifically sales taxes. While everyone's costs will go up with this, think of the huge savings a corp would enjoy if they didnt have to pay such huge benefit costs for their employees.
[/quote]

Absolutely agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1352223448' post='1178201']
Absolutely agree.
[/quote]

You guys are using a three sided coin here. You can't always place blame on the health insurance companies. I punched myself in the face for saying that, but let me tell you why. If it wasn't for corporate palm greasing, kick backs, and bonuses, health care and prescriptions would be a lot cheaper. If you took into account the percentage hospitals get from insurance claims on procedures and hospital stays it's unreal how much of a difference there would be. A person could be taken to the ER because their appendix ruptured, stay in the hospital 5 days, and without insurance come out bankrupted by a $100,000 medical bill. Hell, leave me on the floor and let my appendix do gymnastics if all you are going to do is ruin my credit and take everything I have, I'm screwed either way I go. At least being left on the floor let's me die still owning my car. The other things drives up medical cost is the way doctor's are reward by pharmaceutical companies with their doctor rewards programs that give certain perks to doctors who prescribe their medicine. You know that week in August that you couldn't schedule your yearly prostate exam? Yeah that was because your doctor was fly fishing in Alaska complete on the tab of Physer and the 1,000 prescriptions for some kind of new high blood pressure pill your doctor started recommending to all his patients. Take that fly fishing trip and multiply that by a million doctor's nationwide. That's a lot of meatballs.

So here's the deal. Why isn't the government putting more regulations on these companies so that they are forced into some some kind of system similar to say resources like oil? Where the government places a cap on certain costs? That has to be better than this new law that is not only going to hurt small business owners, but almost all middle class and small class working people. This isn't a trickle down deal, it's a trickle up deal. The only way doctor's and other medical professionals going to start feeling the brunt of this, is when there are too few people to treat, because they are all ...gone. On the hand funeral directors will be happy right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is unique among developed nations with respect to health care. There is no other nation that is both so large and so diverse. Canada has slightly more than 10% of the U.S.'s population - the scale is not the same. I'm not intrinsically opposed to government-run health care, but I do believe that it should be managed at the state level, not a federal level. Perhaps the federal government can mandate baseline requirements for each state's system, but from there it should be up to the states to choose. The primary responsibility of the U.S. federal government is to support, coordinate, and defend the union.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1352234982' post='1178265']
America is unique among developed nations with respect to health care. There is no other nation that is both so large and so diverse. Canada has slightly more than 10% of the U.S.'s population - the scale is not the same. I'm not intrinsically opposed to government-run health care, but I do believe that it should be managed at the state level, not a federal level. Perhaps the federal government can mandate baseline requirements for each state's system, but from there it should be up to the states to choose. The primary responsibility of the U.S. federal government is to support, coordinate, and defend the union.
[/quote]

Who are you and who stole your motorcycle? Did you have insurance on it? HA!

I totally believe this too. Making it at state level instead of federal level evens the playing field a little more, and big business, little business, state governments, and citizens will still be allowed to choose for themselves. If it is so bad in a state that I think I am being unfairly treated because of a health insurance law, I can always move to a state that doesn't have it, likewise for businesses. States can see how things are working out in other states and there own, and change themselves accordingly. It just allows a lot more flexibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352236176' post='1178273']
Who are you and who stole your motorcycle? Did you have insurance on it? HA!

I totally believe this too. Making it at state level instead of federal level evens the playing field a little more, and big business, little business, state governments, and citizens will still be allowed to choose for themselves. If it is so bad in a state that I think I am being unfairly treated because of a health insurance law, I can always move to a state that doesn't have it, likewise for businesses. States can see how things are working out in other states and there own, and change themselves accordingly. It just allows a lot more flexibility.
[/quote]

Making states compete against each other has its downsides though. Here in Cincinnati you have the city and NKY competing over companies to move across the river. It helps their state numbers but doesn't do a thing to improve the area. It just gives the companies more tax breaks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1352239381' post='1178288']
Making states compete against each other has its downsides though. Here in Cincinnati you have the city and NKY competing over companies to move across the river. It helps their state numbers but doesn't do a thing to improve the area. It just gives the companies more tax breaks.
[/quote]

Yeah, but that is a risk that state is going to have to take. It's also a way to make the states to have to come with a plan that helps all parties involved, or at least make it so that it isn't so bad that a company moves and they lose jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1352239381' post='1178288']
Making states compete against each other has its downsides though. Here in Cincinnati you have the city and NKY competing over companies to move across the river. It helps their state numbers but doesn't do a thing to improve the area. It just gives the companies more tax breaks.
[/quote]

If we're going to have a capitalistic society we're going to have to accept competition. Competition generally breeds improvement. I don't think anyone could argue the point that the health system would be much improved if it was a free market - go down to the doc, get his list of prices for procedures, comparison shop and pick the best deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352236176' post='1178273']
Who are you and who stole your motorcycle? Did you have insurance on it? HA!

I totally believe this too. Making it at state level instead of federal level evens the playing field a little more, and big business, little business, state governments, and citizens will still be allowed to choose for themselves. If it is so bad in a state that I think I am being unfairly treated because of a health insurance law, I can always move to a state that doesn't have it, likewise for businesses. States can see how things are working out in other states and there own, and change themselves accordingly. It just allows a lot more flexibility.
[/quote]

sadly the bike is gone, I'm into boating and I can only afford one stupid expensive summer hobby!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1352240562' post='1178295']
If we're going to have a capitalistic society we're going to have to accept competition. Competition generally breeds improvement. I don't think anyone could argue the point that the health system would be much improved if it was a free market - go down to the doc, get his list of prices for procedures, comparison shop and pick the best deal.
[/quote]

Or, as Wal-Mart has done, as well as others, have a price match guarantee. Sounds like healthcare is turning into a real business huh? That doctor you've seen since your parents took you there, well he might not be part of your network, or he might charge $20 more than another doctor per visit. Are you still going to see him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352240823' post='1178297']
Or, as Wal-Mart has done, as well as others, have a price match guarantee. Sounds like healthcare is turning into a real business huh? That doctor you've seen since your parents took you there, well he might not be part of your network, or he might charge $20 more than another doctor per visit. Are you still going to see him?
[/quote]

Lets talk about Wal-Mart and companies not paying for health care. Did you know that the 6 heirs to the wal-mart fortune have more wealth then 42% of Americans. Yet they can't afford to pay for health care? Some things are better when government plays a major role.

[url="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/walmart-heirs-waltons-wealth-income-inequality"]http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/walmart-heirs-waltons-wealth-income-inequality[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1352241045' post='1178303']
Lets talk about Wal-Mart and companies not paying for health care. Did you know that the 6 heirs to the wal-mart fortune have more wealth then 42% of Americans. Yet they can't afford to pay for health care? Some things are better when government plays a major role.

[url="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/walmart-heirs-waltons-wealth-income-inequality"]http://www.motherjon...come-inequality[/url]
[/quote]

We get what we deserve. We have the choice to not make those d-bags richer until they treat their employees more fairly.

We endorse the way they treat their employees based on Wal-Mart's profits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1352241292' post='1178305']
We get what we deserve. We have the choice to not make those d-bags richer until they treat their employees more fairly.

We endorse the way they treat their employees based on Wal-Mart's profits.
[/quote]

Wal-Marts profits have skyrocketed since the economy tanked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1352241458' post='1178309']
Wal-Marts profits have skyrocketed since the economy tanked.
[/quote]

So they will continue to shit on their employees. Taking care of #1 is all that matters to pretty much 99.9999999999999% of everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1352241458' post='1178309']
Wal-Marts profits have skyrocketed since the economy tanked.
[/quote]

Well yeah, the rich people that used to shop at Trader Joe's and Dorothy Lane Market are buying stuff from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is really pretty strict, if you miss clocking in or out by specific times, you will hear about it. If it happens too much, you're kicking bricks. Wal-Mart understands the market for jobs. You don't HAVE to be a rocket scientist to work there, but on the other hand you CAN be a rocket scientist and work there. They aren't going to hire and under qualified person, but they will hire an over qualified person in a second. How often do you ever see a Wal-Mart looking for help? They don't have to, they are always full staff or there is a mile long list of people on their call list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12069/hr2.pdf"]ObamaCare and the Federal Deficit[/url] (pdf)

[quote][b]Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade[/b]

CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1). By comparison, last March CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal deficits by $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The difference between the two estimates for the 10-year projection periods is primarily attributable to the different time periods they cover. Over the eight years that are common to the two analyses (2012-2019), enactment of PPACA
and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act was projected last March to reduce federal deficits by $132 billion, whereas the repeal of that legislation is projected now to increase deficits by $119 billion. [/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am reading correctly, Obamacare is supposed to be taking 30% of the money taken in for healthcare to help pay for things on the government end, yet over a a 7 year period the difference would only be 13 billion dollars, which is a drop in the bucket so to speak when talking about the federal deficit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1352152026' post='1177900']
It's an issue because now even more businesses are going to do it. So now more than ever it will be hard to get a full time job that helps to pay the bills. Now more people will be forced to get a second job to supplement their income. Have you ever worked 2 jobs at once? I used to work as a manager at the GNC in the Dayton Mall and work selling cell phones in Forest Fair or whatever it is called now Mall. I lived in between the 2 next to the Towne Mall. I would get off work at one place, drive straight to my apartment, change cloths, grab a cold cut sandwich, and be off to my other job. I did that 6 days a week for about 6 months. I couldn't imagine doing that and have a family. I envy those people. Unfortunately this law will make it so people have no choice.
[/quote]

seems to me, that 2 people making 20k/yr is better for everyone than 1 person making 40k and 1 making nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dalton4HOF' timestamp='1352268748' post='1178417']
seems to me, that 2 people making 20k/yr is better for everyone than 1 person making 40k and 1 making nothing.
[/quote]

Well I think that would depend on exactly how much the insurance is going to be for a married couple purchasing the government mandated health care plan. I would have to see numbers show the percentage of the people near the bottom of the middle class, showing how many are single, single with kids, married, or married with kids. There really no way to point and say "See this works for everyone!" There are so many gaps and loopholes that could be worked out that weren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
From TMQ:[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
"No one likes taxes. But as Americans go to the polls today, it continues to be puzzling that commentators claim [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-2009-americans-paid-lowest-tax-rates-in-30-years-to-federal-government/2012/07/10/gJQAWc5bbW_story.html"]high taxation when federal income tax rates are at their lowest point in 30 years.[/url] One reason the national debt is soaring is that Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all cut taxes. And not just for the rich -- Bush's cuts nearly eliminated federal income taxes on the working class and lower middle class. Considering cash back from the Earned Income Tax Credit, those in the bottom 20 percent now have a federal income tax rate of [url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3277"]negative 12.3 percent[/url] -- they receive money from the United States Treasury rather than sending any in. Those in the second quintile, from 20 to 40 percent of income, have a federal tax rate of negative 4.2 percent. The middle quintile -- stronghold of the middle class -- pays just 4 percent in federal income taxes. The upper middle pays 8.2 percent in federal income taxes, and the top quintile pays 17.3 percent.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Even when payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are added, the picture is good. Between a 13 percent payroll tax and negative 12.3 percent income tax, the poor and the working poor in the United States essentially pay nothing for the many government benefits they receive: health care, housing subsidies, educational support, food stamps, pensions. The core middle class -- that middle quintile -- pays a total federal tax rate of only about 15 percent and receives in return health care, Social Security benefits, college grants, mortgage subsidies, highways, national defense, national parks, law enforcement, environmental and medical research, space science and much more.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Of course government could be made more efficient. But Americans seem to want to have it both ways -- showered with benefits but exempt from taxes. On the day Reagan took office, federal taxes were too high. They are not anymore."[/size][/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick's post above reminded me of this from earlier in the year.


[quote]
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/poll-republicans-hate-obamacare-but-like-most-of-what-it-does/"]http://www.washingto...f-what-it-does/[/url]

[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/logos/twp_logo_300.gif[/img]
[color=#000000]Print[/color]


[color=#000000][b] Poll: Republicans hate ‘Obamacare,’ but like most of what it does[/b]

[b] By Ezra Klein , Updated: [/b]
June 26, 2012

I recently [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/24/11-facts-about-the-affordable-care-act/"]mentioned[/url]that there’s [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624"]yet another poll[/url] showing that most of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions are popular, even as the bill itself remained unpopular. That poll was from Reuters/Ipsos, and Greg Sargent smartly [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html"]asked them[/url] for the crosstabs. Digging in, he found that the ironies go even deeper than that. It’s not just that most of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions are popular. It’s that they’re popular [i]with Republicans[/i]:[/color]
[indent=1]
* Eighty percent of Republicans favor “creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.
* Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance.” That’s backed by 67 percent of independents.
* Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor “requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.
* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor “allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26.” That’s backed by 69 percent of independents.
* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.” Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
* One provision that isn’t backed by a majority of Republicans: The one “expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.”[/indent]
And it’s not just poll respondents. On June 14, I did a segment on the Rachel Maddow show quoting various leading Republicans on what they wanted to keep from the health care law. If you add it all up, you get something that looks very much like the Affordable Care Act:
[center][color=#999999][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][background=transparent][color=#000000]There’s a reason for this. For the last two decades, leading Republicans have supported various health care plans that looked, well, like the Affordable Care Act. Then Democrats embraced the proposal and Republicans turned against it. But that all happened pretty quickly — too quickly, in fact, for Republicans to really develop and unite around a plausible alternative. And so when they talk off-the-cuff about what they would like to see happen in the health-care market, they tend to describe something similar to their old plan, which they now oppose. It can all get pretty confusing.[/color][/background][/size][/font][/color][/center]

The main way Republicans have dealt with this is to largely back off of health reform and instead emphasize Medicare reform. But even when they do that, their plans end up looking [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-paul-ryan-learned-from-obamacare/2012/03/20/gIQAtHIfPS_blog.html"]surprisingly like the Affordable Care Act[/url].
[color=#000000]© The Washington Post Company[/color]

[/quote]





[quote]

[b] [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624"]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624[/url][/b]

[b] Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions[/b]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=2]
Sun, Jun 24 2012[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
By [url="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=Patricia.Zengerle"]Patricia Zengerle[/url][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama's reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
A glaring exception to the popular provisions is the "individual mandate," which forces all U.S. residents to own health insurance.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate, the issue at the center of the Republicans' contention that the law is unconstitutional, while 39 percent favor it.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
"That's really the thing that has come to define the (reform) and is the thing that could potentially allow the Supreme Court to dismantle it if they decide it's not constitutional," Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson said.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
In good news for Republicans at November's congressional elections, 45 percent said they were more likely to vote for a member of Congress who campaigned on a platform of repealing the law, versus 26 percent who said it would make them less likely, the survey showed.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the 2010 healthcare reform, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, this week, possibly as early as Monday.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
The political stakes are sky-high on an issue that has galvanized conservative opposition to the Democratic president, and how the court's decision is framed politically could influence the outcome of the November 6 general election.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
PARTISAN DIVISION[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Americans are strongly divided along partisan lines. Among Republicans, 86 percent oppose and 14 percent favor the law and Democrats back it by a 3-to-1 margin, 75 percent to 25 percent, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
But in what could be a key indicator for the presidential contest, people who describe themselves as political independents oppose the law by 73 percent to 27 percent.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Opposition among independents has been growing. In a survey conducted in April, two weeks after the Supreme Court heard the case, 63 percent of them opposed the measure, and 37 percent favored it.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
"Republicans have won the argument with independents and that's really been the reason that we see the majority of the public opposing it," Jackson said.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Republicans have dominated the political message on healthcare with calls to "repeal and replace" the law, condemned by conservatives as a government intrusion into private industry and the lives of private citizens. It passed in March 2010 with no Republican support in Congress.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has promised to repeal the law if he defeats Obama, although he has not offered a plan of his own. Obama, who says he modeled the measure on a healthcare plan Romney passed as governor of Massachusetts, has defended it.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Obama critics - some from within his own party - have also questioned the president for focusing on healthcare reform early in his term instead of doing everything he could to fix the struggling U.S. economy.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Democrats back the measure as an effort to improve the lives of Americans and essential to control spiraling costs that are undermining the country's overall economic health. Healthcare expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010, over 10 times the $256 billion spent in 1980, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
A good portion of the opposition to the healthcare law is because Americans want more reform, not less of it.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
The poll found that a large number of Americans - including about one-third of Republicans and independents who disagree with the law - oppose it because it does not go far enough to fix healthcare.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
Seventy-one percent of Republican opponents reject it overall, while 29 percent feel it does not go far enough, while independent opponents are divided 67 percent to 33 percent. Among Democratic opponents, 49 percent reject it overall, and 51 percent wish the measure went further.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
"If you add the people that oppose it because they think it doesn't go far enough, you get a majority of Americans, so it doesn't mean that healthcare reform is dead," Jackson said.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
There was party division in Americans' view of the individual mandate. Overall, 61 percent of Americans oppose requiring all U.S. residents to own health insurance. Among Republicans, the percentage rose to 81 percent, and it was 73 percent among independents. But a majority of Democrats - 59 percent - favor the individual mandate.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
The survey of 1,043 Americans was conducted from June 19-23. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans][size=3]
(Editing by Alistair Bell and Doina Chiacu)[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...