Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:45 AM ET, 12/28/2010

Voters really don't like ObamaCare -- still

By Jennifer Rubin

Yesterday, I noted with some bemusement liberals' stubborn lack of appreciation for the depth of opposition to ObamaCare. Two polls bear out just how widespread and persistent that opposition is.

Rasmussen reports:

For the second time this month, 60% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the national health care law, while the number who expect health care costs to increase is at its highest level since August.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 49% Strongly Favor repeal of the plan. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose the law's repeal, including 29% who Strongly Oppose repeal. . . . But last week also marked the first time a majority of voters believe the measure is likely to be repealed.

Likewise, a CNN poll tells us:

According to the poll, six in ten oppose the requirement that all Americans get health insurance, with 38 percent saying they favor the provision. . . .

"Among Democrats, 54 percent favor the insurance requirement, but more than six in ten Independents and Republicans oppose it," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Women are more likely than men to support that provision, but even among women, 53 percent oppose it."

If there is a silver lining for the White House in the CNN poll, it is that although 54 percent oppose ObamaCare, that is down five points from a high in March, while support is up to 43 percent. Yes, those are still rather dismal figures for such an "historic" piece of legislation.

Now, recall that Obama even in his more accommodating moments, has signaled he's not interested in significant (or frankly, any) revisions in his signature legislative accomplishment. But we're going to test just how attached to ObamaCare the rest of his party is, especially red state senators up for re-election in 2012.

The House will hold an up or down vote on repeal. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have a problem: does he allow a vote, thereby exposing his members to the wrath of voters? And if so and a number of those moderate Democrats bolt, where does that leave Obama's argument that there is broad-based support for his legacy legislation?

Last time around, the White House and the Democratic leadership convinced their members to ignore the polls and vote for ObamaCare. But in the wake of a midterm election wipeout, will Democrats again defy the will of the voters? Stay tuned.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 28, 2010; 9:45 AM ET
Categories:  Obamacare  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What will 2011 bring?
Next: Doing nothing about Saudi promotion of Islamic extremism

Comments

"But last week also marked the first time a majority of voters believe the measure is likely to be repealed."

And that is before the next Congress starts its hearing into what is really in this monstrosity and all the corrupt arrangements that were involved in its being passed.

Posted by: nvjma | December 28, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse


I'm curious about the right's new-found love of opinion polls. Where was it during the Bush years? Bush famously forgot to consult polls when making his decisions, while Clinton was mocked endlessly for relying on them too much. An example that comes to mind is the widely unpopular (at the time) troop surge in Iraq. Where was this noble concern for the "will of the voters" back then?

In my opinion, we elect representatives to do what they think is best at any given time. We didn't elect the survey participants at Rasmussen, whoever they may be, to govern the country, and our politicians shouldn't bow to their opinions.

Posted by: TyrantofReason | December 28, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

There's quite a difference between a poll on a piece of legislation that fundamentally affects every taxpayer and purports to be representative of their will, and a military tactical decision.

Posted by: steviethek | December 28, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Let's scrap it,start over and do it right. If Obama gets reelected in 2012 with a large majority of extra liberal types in Congress(LOL, OK People),then he can do a makeover. His new bill needs to emanate from FDR's 2ND Bill of Rights,and be implemented by expanding the Medicare program for everyone,WE ARE BANKRUPT ANYWAY,so further spending is not a biggie.
What happens after the Great Default,I predict that we will become a laissez faire nation that would please both the Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged,and her offspring Ayn Rand Paul.
Until then we may as well party hardy.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Bush is gone, dude. You gotta let him go...

Posted by: sold2u | December 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Republican "De-mock-racy":

1. Get Faux News to scream about "death panels", etc. 24-7.

2. Get Pharma, insurance industries to spend hundreds of millions on anti-healthcare advertising, hundreds of millions on political ads. Lie with crazy abandon until even you are believers.

3. Take poll of bamboozled and ignorant citizens.

4. Get partisan media hacks (that would be you, Ms Rubin) to write shallow attack articles that declare the poll as "proof" that health care is unpopular.

Victory is sweet!

Proud of yourself Ms Rubin? Do you see yourself as an "bold independent thinker" Hah! You are just a cog in a vicious class warfare game, set into play by players far, far, above your pay grade.

Ever wonder how banana republics kept going in the face of democratic elections? Look in the mirror, Ms Rubin. You are part of it.

Posted by: pekoe1 | December 28, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Dear pekoe1,

Thank you for the nuanced and informative analysis.

Sincerely (not),
Peter Shalen

Posted by: shalen | December 28, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm a little jealous of the lefties. They can dismiss any inconvenient facts by saying "Oh, you must have heard that on Fox News." It's like a religious fanatic who proves his religious beliefs are right by citing the Bible. Fox is the anti-bible of the left. Anything said on Fox is, by definition, false. And since they never actually watch Fox, they don't even have quote the anti-scripture. They just ASSUME that if they don't like a particular fact, it must have come from Fox.

And when I think about all the time Aquinas wasted actually THINKING about the validation of his faith... If only he had the "Satan News" television network to cite, he oculd have cut through all that, you know, cognition.

Posted by: Larry3435 | December 28, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Conservative Republicans seem to have an almost pathological inability to sympathize with the plight of those less fortunate than themselves. We're talking about insuring 30 million poor people here, not searching for a way to humiliate the president. If Ms. Rubin truly believes health care reform should be repealed, then she should volunteer to stand outside the emergency room and explain to poor people why they should continue to suffer because of her political ideology.

Posted by: Southernwriter | December 28, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

gotta love this one:
========================
Conservative Republicans seem to have an almost pathological inability to sympathize with the plight of those less fortunate than themselves. We're talking about insuring 30 million poor people here, not searching for a way to humiliate the president. If Ms. Rubin truly believes health care reform should be repealed, then she should volunteer to stand outside the emergency room and explain to poor people why they should continue to suffer because of her political ideology.
==========================

Let me translate this: what the liberals have demanded that we do about the poor over the last 6 decades just isn't enough. the liberals want more of our money and they intend to destroy what they see as a disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" by raping the haves. It is just that simple.

We've transferred trillions from productive people to non productive people. We've spent on AFDC, TANF, Section 8, Medicaid and Medicare etc and we still haven't won the LBJ's war on poverty.

the liberal solution is just to tax more and spend more and engage in slander should anyone have the unmitigated gall to object.

the conservative way is provide basics and recognize that life is fundamentally unfair. Instead of hammering away at those who get up in the morning and drag their butts to work, we believe that those who don't bother with those kinds of habits don't really deserve much beyond the largesse they've currently chivied from us.
Rather than confront the fact that the Americans who are still poor are not poor materially, but are poor in spirit, the liberals seek to rob those of us still foolish enough to hold down jobs so that they can give our money to those smart enough to know that America is apparently filled with dupes who will gladly work so they don't have to.

Spare me the sanctimonious responses and the inevitable bigotry. I live in the 'hood and I work in healthcare. I know the game because I see in played each and every day.

Remember that old bumber sticker "work hard, millions on welfare are depending on you"? Well it still applies today.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 28, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Skipsailing must live in the hood so that he doesn't have so much of a commute when he ridicules those poor people he has so much contempt for. This post proves my point. Conservatives are immune to the suffering of others.

Posted by: Southernwriter | December 28, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The left wanted a public option but that was not possible with the Republicans opposed to everything. What we got is about the best you can get when one party votes no 100% of the time.

As Bill Clinton said, the health care bill will be appreciated when it gets going. Especially when the people who don't think they need health care and oppose the mandate find that they really do need health care.

When the tea party newly elected try to take us back to the old days before medicare, social security, and learn that the trickle down theory doesn't really work, then they will want health care themselves.

Did you know that until Wallace ran for president, the South was totally blue? Yes, the South like the programs the Roosevelt admin passed until the civil rights bill was passed and then they became red!

Republicans made the death panels a talking point, but they don't mind denying 30 million people a chance to get health care. Inprove it if you want, but don repeal it!

Posted by: LL314 | December 28, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

skipsailing28

I agree with you and your logic,and that's why I'm a born again secessionist. All that want to live in your version of America should move to Red USA which needs to be sovereign. Ditto,all those like me that want healthcare/FDR's 2ND Bill of Rights,for everyone including conmen,shirkers,and other unpleasant parasitic types. Bottom line,I would rather the US be broken up into ideological units than be governed by your ideology,and I'm sure you feel the same way. As far as our current situation," a House divided etc etc" as true now as ever. Lincoln,great as he was,made an error,Freedom,even if illusory, is more important than a unity that is unsustaneable.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

@LL314: "What we got is about the best you can get when one party votes no 100% of the time."

And it's more than what Republicans and conservatives got in regards to Social Security reform. So, a win for the left, overall.

"Yes, the South like the programs the Roosevelt admin passed until the civil rights bill was passed and then they became red!"

That's right! The only reason anyone ever votes against a Democrat is because they're (those GOP voters) all backwoods rubes, askeert of people with brown skin.

Sheesh. Nuance.

BTW, I mentioned this on the previous posts but I thought I'd mention it again: I heard on the most recent Ricochet podcast that Jennifer Rubin ignores the comments (or almost entirely ignores the comments) on this blog. I wonder if this is true.

Is this true, Jennifer? Do you never read the comments? Are you sure that's the best strategy for a blog, if true?

Or were you just showing out for Rob Long, as I suspect?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | December 28, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Ah yes, the inevitable bigotry of the left took seconds to arrive. Well done southernman. I'm impressed at the alacrity with which you hurled insults at my response.

Tell me, is that autonomic for you at this point? When pavlov rings the bell, like say the mention of Sarah Palin, do you drool?

I will tell you for whom I have contempt: the people who fit Einstein's definition of insanity while demanding my money for their futile efforts.

I also note that instead of responding to my point you went personal. That is a sure sign of two things:
(1) You are a liberal
(2) You don't think about things much but are very in touch with your feelings.

No doubt you feel that if we just rob more from the rich and give it away to the "poor" we will no longer have failure in America. Your conscience will be salved and you can do that with other people's money.

How cool that must be for you.

If you really want to help the poor then shut up and get to work in your hood. Open a business and take a stand against the dynamics that really have people mired in poverty.

All the liberals have managed to do in the 40 years since LBJ's wet dream is empty the treasury and fill the prisons.

Way to go southern boy. Way to go.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 28, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

RC:

You can secede if you want to, but we're keeping all the gold! LOL

Posted by: 54465446 | December 28, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis

Here's the way Jennifer operates. She is paid a bonus on the # of comments she generates,WAPO's decision to put here in their system is marketing,they are hoping she will attract new customers (I'm not sure that's a good bet.)But JR has no interest in the Comments whatsoever.
I comment here becauseI like to interact with many other interesting types ,but all Jennifer does,is throw the first ball in,they really don't need her at all,we all could have just as good a time without her stupid opinions.

Posted by: rcaruth

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

skip:

We need a foreign policy column so we can renew our enjoyable conversations!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

RC:

You can secede if you want to, but we're keeping all the gold! LOL
Posted by: 54465446

What Gold? Double LOL

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The reason why this health care / insurance reform is so unpopular is it managed to alienate both the conservatives and the liberals. If there were a public option, There would be a solid 10% bump to the plans overall popularity. (Conservatives already hate the plan so their numbers aren't going to change).

This is a classic case of pleasing none of the people when you try to please all of them.

Posted by: pdxgeek | December 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

My mother -in -law, who is 90 this year, still believes that the health care law will bring on death committees to deny her health care if she needs it. The lies of the opposition will persist until the law has enough time in effect to prove its value. Lincoln was right. One can fool part of the peole all the time and only all the people part of the time. Soon enough time will be up and it will be as popular as Medicare.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | December 28, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

My 2 senators in Virginia voted for this piece of crap legislation that a majority of their constituents did not want this bill passed. They do not represent the people and that should be remembered when election time comes back around.
We need to elect people who represent us and not the party. the party does not vote in the election.

Posted by: jerry110 | December 28, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"But last week also marked the first time a majority of voters believe the measure is likely to be repealed."

Over a veto?

Count again.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | December 28, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

So pack your bags and leave rcaruth. Just go. I'm taking a stand right where I am. You don't like that? TFB.

Let's see to where the "parasites" migrate.

I lived in San Diego for a decade. Great weather and something called "general relief". That little program guaranteed every one residing in the county a small stipend every month. It amounted to a hobo magnet and it was just a little while before the parks on mission bay were off limits to families because they were over run with ruffians.

I have nothing against the hobo/bum life style. I just don't want to fund it.

I also have nothing against children born out of wedlock, I just don't want my government and my money used to promote that.

What liberals refuse to see is their own failure. Face it, the liberal approach to the problems they saw has exacerbated them, not solved them.

Here's a simple fact for the southern boy and you rcaruth: the illegitimacy rate amoung American blacks is now greater than 70%. That's right more than two thirds of the black children born in America today are born to a single mom. It is a prescription for continual failure so why does it happen? The answer is simple: an illegitimate child is the key to the treasury. I see this routinely in my work. It is among the things that drove me away from liberalism.

It is a failure but the folks who support this failure have managed to smear anyone who points that out. Look at the response from the southern dude. Right on cue and exactly as I predicted.

the biggest problem that liberals will face in 2011 is that the congressional black caucus took all the magic away from the liberals' favorite spell: "Racist!" We know we aren't and we know we aren't hard hearted either. We just know that what we've done so far hasn't really worked that well and believe that it is time to try something else. In other words, using Einstein again, we aren't crazy.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

13% of those who were opposed also checked the box that said, "because it was NOT LIBERAL enough."

Posted by: cile92 | December 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

obamacare? obama no care what the majortiy thinks or wants. this fool his whiners and fellow travellers believe whatever BS scheme comes to mind is the gospel according to st. obozo. homos,abortion and the other touchie feelie social engineering programs are fine but focus on the real problems. i.e. economy,jobs and getting us out of the crapholes of the world,where our people are in harms way from the scumlims.

Posted by: pofinpa | December 28, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

RCAR,

1. How do you know that the paper pays bloggers by the number of comments?

2. Jennifer did read the comments at Contentions at least once. Remember the time she misspelled respite?

Posted by: Inagua1 | December 28, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The American system of economics does work. Look at the advancements in medicine, technology, and the standard of living improvement in this country as well as abroad. These advancements did not come from higher taxes, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, school lunch programs etc. These programs, some good all came out of the hard work and innovativeness of the American economy. With the ever expansion of those programs , and the weakening of the U.S. economy due to a variety of reasons, the system can no longer support those unproductive programs as much as we all would like. Our political leadership has sold us down the river since the sixties. We should just be honest and say as sad as it is, in order to maintain a vibrant economy and a reasonable standard of living in this country people are going to have to sacrifice and their standard of living will go down. The illusion that someone's entitled to anything except life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness is false and dangerous to our republic.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | December 28, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

So pack your bags and leave rcaruth. Just go. I'm taking a stand right where I am. You don't like that? TFB

I've never lived in your version of our nation,so I don't know what exactly you mean here,but it's time for an amicable divorce,the last time we tried 600000 died.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

coming to a supreme court near you....

guess what? you are the punchline of either verdict.

Posted by: docwhocuts | December 28, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Calling it "ObamaCare" instead of it's real name is only fueling the fire. Why don't you call it by it's real name, instead of using slang that is quite obviously slanted and biased? I'm aware this is an opinion piece, but I thought the rules of journalism (not using slang or overly-partisan language) still applied.

Posted by: rsw3 | December 28, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Hands off my body! Defund and repeal Messiahcare!

Posted by: thebump | December 28, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

We'll like it, when it's repealed.

Posted by: hared | December 28, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Over 50 million Americans now do not have health insurance and it is growing. The "general welfare" of the nation is in trouble. What is the Republican plan to fight this serious and ever-growing problem? Are those crickets I hear?
Or are the Republicans simply going to regurgitate their laughable reply that the "free market" will solve all problems when, in fact, it has largely created this problem.

Posted by: fishman2 | December 28, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Rubin feels that people enjoy the "freedom" to go bankrupt due to medical problems, they enjoy the "freedom" of their insurers denying/canceling coverage during chemotherapy or other life-saving procedures, they love the "freedom" of having their sick children unable to get coverage.

Of course, those "freedoms" aren't so loved by the teabaggers elected goose-steppers, as very few of the "rein in big government" crowd are giving up their "big government social safety net" when it comes to taxpayer funding of congressional perks-pensions, health insurance premiums and health care costs-the last two involuntarily-funded items being especially relevant, as when was the last time any member of Congress went bankrupt due to medical problems?

No doubt, Rubin will pound out a column blasting the easily-debunked hypocrisy of alleged "deficit hawks" keeping the same taxpayer-funded social safety net for themselves that they deny to the same people who provide their overly-generous congressional perks.

Oh wait, expecting logical/ethical consistency from radicals and extremists like Rubin is like expecting dry water, or the sun to be cold, it just doesn't exist.

But I'm guessing those type of teabagger "freedoms" in my first paragraph are the kind most rational people don't care to enjoy, despite the screeching and harping from Republican lackeys like Rubin.

Posted by: kingcranky | December 28, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Of course thoughtful Americans don't like Obamacare.

This is the factual and specific Republican objections to Obamacare, as made by Rep. Paul Ryan during the “summit”.

“Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score Obama’s bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now, let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day -- very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I say that?

Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.

It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does -- it treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the chief actuary of Medicare, he's saying as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on -- who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting, the gimmicks, the full 10- year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit."

Posted by: SameOldTiredThinking | December 28, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Eddie Haskell/life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness

Eddie/None of which are possible for those who are ill or injured and are without medical care.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

RCAR,

1. How do you know that the paper pays bloggers by the number of comments?
Posted by: Inagua1

My Source is the recently terminated Director of Email Marketing.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how the public reacts when the republicans take away what little relief health care reform provides....

most americans don't even know what is in the health care reform....

the only thing that will bring down health care premiums in my view is a single payer system which provides competition...and...

millions poured into fraud by the health care system...which health care reform has somewhat addressed already....

Posted by: ggrant9170 | December 28, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

as a small business owner for over 25 years paying into the health care system, i have seen our health care premiums go up almost every single year....and having a family paid every month for 25 years, its not cheap, and its getting more expensive,

the wokers are now beginning to be responsible for more and more of their health care cost, they are now clued into the REAL COST.....

companies are demanding workforce pay for the skyrocketting cost...

my problem as a small business owner is that i have noticed there are other small businesses owners that can afford to purchase health care but simply refuse for various reasons,not cost, but simply they can game the system as if they were poor....

if this isn't addressed small business like my family will continue to puchase not only for our family but others as well that can afford premiums....this has to be addressed because how else to bring down cost? single payer system is another way because it provides competition.....

we have to be smart about this because premiums are now as much if not more than mortages or our rent....

Posted by: ggrant9170 | December 28, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

rcaruth i care about your plight. and would love to wave a magic wand and make all the ills of America go away but unfortunately i don't have one and whatever wand you are waving isn't one either.Life is unfair. I have been dealt a bad hand but as angry and sad as it makes me I will try and deal with it without becoming bitter, envious and hateful. This is the greatest empire in the history of the world in many more ways than financially. Don't bring it down because of some fairyland world you think you should live in. I wish the best for you and all my fellow Americans.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | December 28, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

as a small business owner living in the land of the free don't really feel so free when i am forced to pay for other small business health care premiums that i know can afford to pay but game the system, so i continue to see our premiums skyrockett while they get free health care by going to emergency...

i don't mind pitching in for the working poor, but i am talking about people who can afford to purchase health care but choose to let me do it for them instead!!!

that is what republicans are advocating, why?

Posted by: ggrant9170 | December 28, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

It would appear that Sarah Palin was right about the death panels.
If you're 65 or older, be afraid.
The annual "End of Life Planning" would require an examination of: Nature of illness, likelihood of recovery, expense involved, feasibility of continued treatment.
Limited resources would force doctors to abandon the elderly (who've already lived full lives anyway)and focus on younger patients (who, afterall, deserve a full life cycle).

It's a dangerous mindset.
It's a liberal mindset.
"The good of the whole, according to the needs, etc, etc, etc."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Posted by: robtay12003 | December 28, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

My health care bill just got jacked up by $70 per month for 2011...hello, dem libs, this is not inflation, this is Obamacare MAKING us pay for those who choose not to pay. $840 increase for the year....come on Republicans, work on this monstrosity!

Posted by: powerange | December 28, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

fellow americans skyrocketting health care premiums cannot go on as the past 25 years or it will bankrupt all of us eventually! eveyone that can pay in, SHOULD or else its doom and gloom for real! hows that for FREEDOM, i am free to pay my high premiums everysingle month along with deadbeat small business owners all over this country that simply choose not to pay for their health care eventhough they can! this is what is going on in america.

the american workforce that have jobs that in the past provided health care plans are now demanding they pay for at least half of the skyrocketting cost and now they realize <ITS HIGH!!

there is no competition in health care that a single payer system would have provided...

there is massive fruad in medicare/medicade

there is no requirement for small business to pay into the health care system so many choose not to...period...

HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THIS GO ON?

WE ARE SEEING AS A RESULT HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS IN MANY CASES COST MORE THAN MORTAGES...

the land of the free is me paying for my neighbors health care needs because they game the system and i will continue to pay and see my cost skyrockett...thanks...

Posted by: ggrant9170 | December 28, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I suggest that we just pass a law that says everyone has health care. This will be just as ineffective as Obamacare, but will cost less and will avoid those pesky death panels.

Posted by: Larry3435 | December 28, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Rubin saves us the time and annoyance of reading this drivel. She calls national health insurance "Obamacare" a la right wing moronic dogma. In fact, national health care is a level supported and assumed in most of the civilized, industrialized world.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | December 28, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

health care reform did not address cost but lets face it, a single payer system would have provided much needed competition and the majority of the american people wanted it but it kept getting blocked every inch of the way....

we american cut our noses off to spite our faces...

we have tunnel vision..............the health care system is crushing americans and every attempt to fix it was blocked by fear mongering "death panels" just like the fear mongering to war/nation build iraq.....

this type of stupidity and ignorance will bring our country down eventually because of the skyrockettng cost..

its going to be interesting to see the republicans take away what little health care reform obama managed to ink out....!!!

i heard a rumor i certainly hope its not true, that congress is going to take away tax breaks for home ownership....that happens it will be the largest tax increase in modern history for the middle class....

the wealthy own their own homes outright...so it won't effect them!!!!they got their tax cut last month....

Posted by: ggrant9170 | December 28, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Liberal "fairness" will be the ruin of us all.
Take a look at what they've done to major American cities.
For 50+ years their "fair" policies have created cesspools of poverty and despair in every city you look.
Their intentions are noble.
But their policies do not work.

Posted by: robtay12003 | December 28, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Eddie Haskell/This is the greatest empire in the history of the world

Childish comment Eddie,what are you running for? VP of Comments?

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for a single payer, national health care, but object to the requirement to purchase health insurance. If people are obligated to buy health insurance, then insurers must be equally obligated to offer plans at prices affordable to all people of all ages. Paying $200 or more per month for a policy that has a $5,000 deductible is nonsensical arithmetic.

Posted by: Tony83703 | December 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=====================
Over 50 million Americans now do not have health insurance and it is growing. The "general welfare" of the nation is in trouble. What is the Republican plan to fight this serious and ever-growing problem? Are those crickets I hear?
Or are the Republicans simply going to regurgitate their laughable reply that the "free market" will solve all problems when, in fact, it has largely created this problem
============================
First, can you provide some provenance for the number of uninsured you quote?

next, if that is indeed the number (and I highly doubt it) why, exactly is this a threat to the general welfare of our nation? At its founding I would venture to say that 100% of Americans were without healthcare insurance. Was that a threat to the general welfare then? If not, what has changed?

it seems to me that the primary change is that prosperous people have found ways to extend and improve their lives by investing hard earned money in healthcare related innovation.

The class warriors, such as the person quoted above, cannot abide the fact that health care is a privledge to be paid for, not a right to be granted by congressional fiat.

finally, can you offer some proof that the "free market" created what you think is the problem.

This should be quite entertaining.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

What if we just abolished medical insurance altogether... and allowed patients and care givers to work out payment plans without the middleman? I really don't feel comfortable with either the carriers or the government making these decisions. Neither really give a damn for the patient.

Posted by: tedpeters | December 28, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Most White owned Health Insurance Companies do not like Obamaccare.

Please name the Minority Owned Healthcare Insurance companies..Ms Rubin?

So when you claim the the polls don't like this & the polls don't like this please tell us which pollsters you are using.

Where are the minority pollsters that you chose to quote? Or you didn't quote any.. so where is your dissension coming from Faux News?

puh leeZe.. Give the 50 Million Americans the same level of benefits you give Congresspersons..or Judges or the Military service members or members of State Government.

Why does this have to be so hard. we are asking them to PAY for it..

Posted by: digtldesk | December 28, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The class warriors, such as the person quoted above, cannot abide the fact that health care is a privledge to be paid for, not a right to be granted by congressional fiat.

I'm going to rewrite this for the Skipper:
The class warriors, such as the person quoted above, cannot abide the OPINION(Skipper's opinion is that his opinions are facts) that health care is a privledge(self preservation has become a privilege) to be paid for, not an inalienable right to be considered an aspect of LIFE LIBERTY etc,

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

My mother -in -law, who is 90 this year, still believes that the health care law will bring on death committees to deny her health care if she needs it. The lies of the opposition will persist until the law has enough time in effect to prove its value. Lincoln was right. One can fool part of the peole all the time and only all the people part of the time. Soon enough time will be up and it will be as popular as Medicare.

Posted by: GaryEMasters
========================================
And her fears are quite rational.

Democrats have already passed a "Death Panel" for the unborn. It's called Abortion.

Obamacare is already reviewing drugs/treatments and begun to declare some are too expensive for the increased life expectancy and therefore not approved.

The HC contains provisions for "counseling" sessions which presumably one must attend before one can get treatment.

You can plug your ears and delude yourself all you want but over 60% of your fellow citizens understand exactly what is going on; and that is why we oppose it.

Posted by: krankyman | December 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Inagua1 says to RCAR : Remember the time she misspelled respite?

What is this, the Contentions Reunion Convention? Please refresh our memories! All I recall is her once railing against the Admin's handling of some rouge state or another... :)

Posted by: aardunza | December 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Inagua1 says to RCAR : Remember the time she misspelled respite?

What is this, the Contentions Reunion Convention? Please refresh our memories! All I recall is her once railing against the Admin's handling of some rouge state or another... :)

Posted by: aardunza | December 28, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

the Grand Cabal of Able-Bodied Sedentarians

Posted by: aardunza | December 28, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

rcaruth I am Sorry you are so shallow and cant think your way out of a paper bag. if you don't like it here you have the freedom to leave or stay. if you choose to stay please try and not infect the rest of the want to be freeloaders with your inane banter and stupidity

Posted by: eddiehaskall | December 28, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Health care reform is not only here to stay, it's unfolding every day. Millions of Americans are benefiting, and many more will benefit in the years to come. A repeal effort will not succeed, but may just hand conservative Republicans a costly political failure.

Posted by: dudh | December 28, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

rcaruth I am Sorry you are so shallow and cant think your way out of a paper bag. if you don't like it here you have the freedom to leave or stay. if you choose to stay please try and not infect the rest of the want to be freeloaders with your inane banter and stupidity
Posted by: eddiehaskall

Ed,I apologise for my shallowicity,and my severe intellectual limitations. Thank you so much for granting me the freedom to leave or stay. I have an appointment today to recieve an innoculation against the spread of freeloadereah. Inanebanterouchousstupidlichiousness is difficult to treat. They may have to euthanize me.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

The last post today was 945AM,maybe J isn't well(I'm certain I would make her ill if she read my comments),maybe she's been axed?

Posted by: rcaruth | December 28, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

This article has the same deliberate blind spot that every single piece written by a conservative has, which is: A good portion of the people who are against Obamacare say it doesn't go FAR ENOUGH. Support for the bill collapsed after the public option was stripped out. These inconvenient truths are left out whenever a right-winger talks about this issue. It's one way you tell real commentary from flak-work and partisan hackery.

Posted by: mypitts2 | December 28, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

To buttress my earlier point. Rubin writes:

" ...in the CNN poll, it is that although 54 percent oppose ObamaCare, that is down five points from a high in March, while support is up to 43 percent. Yes, those are still rather dismal figures for such an 'historic' piece of legislation."

Now, at the link, this is what CNN wrote:

"Overall, 54 percent oppose the law, down five points from March, with 43 percent in favor of the measure, up four points from earlier this year. But roughly a quarter of those who oppose the new law do so because it is not liberal enough. Only 37 percent of the public opposes the new law because it is too liberal."


Notice what she left out?

I learned in middle school debate you don't run from the other side's arguments, you highlight them and refute them.

But debate is not Rubin's goal, nor is it journalism. Her goal is spin and hack-work.

Posted by: mypitts2 | December 28, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Man these comments from the libs are a riot ... they're getting a bit concerned as the momentum appears to be building and even the WaPo is now trashing it ( on it's front page no less ) ... this is like watching a car crash in slow motion as it takes out what will be left of the Democratic party ... just gotta drag it out another year or two ... enjoy the "success" 'til then ...

Posted by: cunn9305 | December 28, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Some of the comments here cannot pass unanswered

"Southernwriter" complains that conservatives lack compassion. In fact numerous surveys have shown that conservatives are significantly more likely to contribute to charities than liberals. That's compassion with their own money, and their own volunteered time. Requiring other people to fund your projects through their taxes is not really an expression of sympathy as much as a reflection of authoritarian will to order other people about.
BTW, the opposition to Obamacare is at 60% in Rasmussen, and conservatives are obviously NOT 60% of likely voters. Opposition to obamacare is a much more widely held opinion, because millions of americans who have insurance suspect that the care for themselves and their children will deterioriate under federal management.

I lived in the UK for 3 years, and my wife's family still lives there, so I have some experience of a national health care system. Its fine if you're not sick, and its nice to know you can;t lose your coverage, but if you're really sick, if your life depends on expensive care, I'd rather be in the US. Survival rates for many serious conditions (especially prostate cancer) and far far worse in the UK than in the US, even though everyone has coverage. They all have coverage, its just not very good.

If Obamacare were actually good, if the coverage it was going to offer everyone was just as good as what people who have insurance now already have, then no one would need to push support for it on the basis of compassion or synpathy for the poor.

If liberals chose that tactic, its natural to assume that indicates they know they are demanding that people who HAVE coverage now (at least 80% of the population) give up some of what they now have for the sake of "the poor".

Its not surprising this is not a very popular argument. But my own guess is the reality would be worse: the currently insured would indeed give up some of what they have, but like most statist welfare programs, the promised benefits would never happen.

Its not so easy to successfully reorganize 1/7 of the US economy, especially not in a 3000 page bill pushed through in the middle of the night, one which no one voting had ever read.

More likely it would be even less successful than the stimulus program which we were promised would keep unemeployment under 8%

Posted by: mikem23 | December 28, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

I was told by a friend that something called "Wise Health Insurance" is offering health insurance plans starting just $1 a day. That is some thing we all can agree.

Posted by: josephpatel | December 29, 2010 2:29 AM | Report abuse

Ms Rubin says: "Yesterday, I noted with some bemusement liberals' stubborn lack of appreciation for the depth of opposition to ObamaCare. "

Huh? Ms. Rubin, you must have not read the poll. Liberals like me hate Obama/RomneyCare. Here is what CNN Political Ticker says about the poll:

"But roughly a quarter of those who oppose the new law do so because it is not liberal enough. Only 37 percent of the public opposes the new law because it is too liberal."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/27/cnn-poll-controversial-health-care-provision-unpopular/

Posted by: R2D22 | December 29, 2010 3:48 AM | Report abuse

A CNN poll published Monday finds that the majority of those surveyed oppose the health-care overhaul passed by Congress this year -- but that only some of them do so because of an opposition to the government taking a greater role in regulating the market.
Reports CNN:

Overall, 54 percent oppose the law, down five points from March, with 43 percent in favor of the measure, up four points from earlier this year.
But here's the critical fine print:
roughly a quarter of those who oppose the new law do so because it is not liberal enough. Only 37 percent of the public opposes the new law because it is too liberal.
The fact that so many people dislike the health-care reforms -- and for different reasons -- means it may be a long time before the public comes to terms with them. But it also means that opposition to the health-care overhaul from only one perspective may not win broad public support, either.
That said, the one provision in the new law that is widely opposed is the same one Republicans and conservatives are challenging in court and have vowed to overturn:

six in ten oppose the requirement that all Americans get health insurance, with 38 percent saying they favor the provision....
"Among Democrats, 54 percent favor the insurance requirement, but more than six in ten Independents and Republicans oppose it," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Women are more likely than men to support that provision, but even among women, 53 percent oppose it."

People do not like the idea of health-care mandates, for some reason. I'd love to see some more fine-grained research into the question of why.
Is it on account of a philosophical opposition to being told what to do by the government?

Or is it partly a consequence of our private-insurance and employment-based system, so that people fear being penalized for skipping on insurance of they lose or switch jobs and drop out of the system for a few months?

Or perhaps the opposition comes from memories of being young and healthy and impecunious? Those who are young have one of the highest rates of being uninsured, because they generally can skate by without it and also don't have a lot of money.

Just as we can't assume that all opposition to the health-care overhaul stems from conservative principles -- some of it clearly comes from liberal ones -- I'm not sure we can assume we know why people dislike the idea of health insurance mandates so much.

Posted by: sashal | December 29, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Let's remember that what ObamaCare trys to replace was a form of universal health care. The U.S. has had that form of universal healthcare since 1987.

Basically, if any person who showed up at an emergency facility with a serious illness or injury, was treated regardless of whether they had insurance or an ability to pay for the treatment. But those people without money, really didn't get much preventive care. Studies have claimed that the people without health insurance or money, only got about 70% of the medical care that others got.

So, the health insurance bill is really a scheme to provide that extra 30% of health care to about 10% of the population. Except that the scheme relies wholly on rationing healthcare to save money. The plan will actually reduce the amount of health care 90% of the population, and add that care to the quantity of health care that the uninsured people were getting.

The real problem with ObamaCare is that it costs $2 trillion. I feel sorry for those people who don't understand that ObamaCare costs $2 trillion. The guy who wrote the bill, Max Baucus, admitted that it would cost $2 trillion over the first ten years, 2014 to 2024. Many people have been mislead by the Dems double talk and jabberwokky about the costs. Dems claim that taking $526 billion out of Medicare reduces the 'cost' of ObamaCare by that amount. Not true of course. The embezzlement from Medicare only 'pays' part of the $2 trillion 'cost' of ObamaCare. How will we then 'pay' the $526 billion back to Medicare?

Posted by: mgsorens | December 29, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

The "conservatives" frequently say here that the "liberals" don't quote facts. I try to make my comment mostly facts. Here are two I posted in the previous discussion that conservatives like to ignore.

1. The cost of Medicare has risen at a much slower rate in the last 20 years than the cost of private health insurance. In fact if private insurance has risen at the same rate as Medicare, our premiums would be a THIRD lower. (Jacob Hacker, Yale)

2. All other industrialized countries have some form of universal government run health care. They get better care as measured by all 16 of the bottom line public health statistics, and they do it at half the cost per person. If our system were as efficient, we would save about $1.3 TRILLION each year. (OECD and CBO)

Posted by: lensch | December 29, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

mgsorens - I have leukemia. Can I go to the emergency room for treatment?

Not only do ER's not provide preventive care (which reduces the cost of health care), but they do not treat chronic diseases.

Your talk about rationing is contradicted by the experiences of all other industrialized countries.

Posted by: lensch | December 29, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

lensch--
I'm afraid you are mistaken when you claim treatment for chronic diseases was not available before ObamaCare.

In Las Vegas, where I live, the local hospitals were providing $2 million worth of kidney dialysis alone, each month to the uninsured.

You are also mistaken if you meant to claim that preventive care reduces medical costs by more than the costs of the preventive care.

Posted by: mgsorens | December 29, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

mgsorens - And you claim this is uniform across the US? Come on, in most places you have to be very lucky to get such charity. But perhaps you believe that the lazy poor should have to rely on charity. Anyway, the point is that your claim that evryone with a chronic disease must be treated is nonsense.

I admit there is some controversy about preventive care since when people live longer, they cost more, but it is hardly definitive as you (& I) claimed. But perhaps you believe it is better to let people die to save money.

The main point is, however, that other countries with universal, government run health care do have much more preventive care and they have better bottom lines at much lower costs.

Posted by: lensch | December 29, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

lensch- Yes!
I claim it is part of a federal law, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b, passed in 1987.

I suspect that someone has fed you full of misinformation, which causes you to believe that hospitals in Vegas are just being generous when they provide health care to the uninsured.

The U.S. spends as much on Medicare and Medicaid as most countries spend on their entire health care system. So, what makes you think the U.S. can provide universal health care for a similar amount?

Posted by: mgsorens | December 29, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Here are some points you may want to consider:
*******************
September 7, 2010
Health Care Wastefulness Is Detailed in Studies
By KEVIN SACK
In a snapshot of systemic waste, researchers have calculated that more than half
of the 354 million doctor visits made each year for acute medical care, like for
fevers, stomachaches and coughs, are not with a patient’s primary physician, and
that more than a quarter take place in hospital emergency rooms.
The authors of the study, which was published Tuesday in the journal Health
Affairs, said it highlighted a significant question about the new federal health
care law: can access to primary care be maintained, much less improved, when an
already inadequate and inefficient system takes on an expected 32 million newly
insured customers?
The study is the first to quantify the problem, according to Dr. Stephen R.
Pitts, the lead author and an associate professor of emergency medicine at Emory
University. Examining records of acute care visits from 2001 to 2004, the
researchers concluded that 28 percent took place in emergency rooms, including
almost all of the visits made on weekends and after office hours.
More than half of acute care visits made by patients without health insurance
were to emergency rooms, which are required by federal law to screen any patient
who arrives there and treat those deemed in serious jeopardy. Not only does that
pose a heavy workload and financial burden on hospitals, but it means that basic
care is being provided in a needlessly expensive setting, often after long waits
and with little access to follow-up treatment.
.....
**********************************

Posted by: lensch | December 29, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Er, from the US Code "§ 1320a–7b. Criminal penalties for acts involving Federal health care programs"

It's about fraud. Try again.

You also might read

"With Son in Remission, Family Looks for Coverage"

By KEVIN SACK
Published: April 20, 2009 (NY Times)

as an example of why your assertion about chronic diseases is false and how charity works.

Posted by: lensch | December 29, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Reading the section carefully, I suppose you refer to part (d) which deals with excess charges under Medicaid. Nowhere does it say that people have to be treated for chronic disease, and they are not.

The poeple who have fed me misinformation are physicians, administrators, and a trustee of our local hospital. As well as readily avaiable information. For example, Wikipedia says,"Currently EMTALA only requires that hospitals stabilize the emergency" (The law you really want is "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986...")

Posted by: lensch | December 29, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company