GOD  

FAMILY

SELF

COUNTRY

 

In that order!                                                                                      

America Speaks On Health Care, Why Aren't Obama And The Democrats Listening?


As health care reform legislation moves forward in Washington, the political environment is somewhat different than the last time a major overhaul of the health care system was attempted sixteen years ago. In early 1993 the sense of a health care crisis was far more widespread than it is today – a 55% majority in 1993 said they felt the health care system needed to be “completely rebuilt” compared with 41% today. Health care costs were also a broader problem in 1993 – 63% of Americans said paying for the cost of a major illness was a “major problem” for them, compared with 48% currently.

The issue of limiting overall health care spending is also more prominent in 2009 than it was in 1993. Somewhat fewer today say the country spends “too little” on health care, and a larger share believe that limiting the overall growth in health care costs is a higher priority than expanding coverage. But overall, public support for guaranteed access to medical care for all Americans remains widespread. Health Care Spending
Relatively few Americans believe the country as a whole is spending the right amount on health care at this point, but there is no consensus on what the problem is. Just as many Americans say we are spending too much on health care (38%) as too little (40%).

This represents a sharp turnaround in the balance of opinion from three years ago. In early 2006, a 57% majority said that the country as a whole was spending too little on health care, while about half as many (26%) said we were spending too much. And this shift in opinion crosses party lines – more Democrats, Republicans and independents today say the country spends too much on health care than said this in 2006.

In April 1993 – as Bill Clinton was initiating his health care reform effort – 49% of Americans felt the country was spending too little on health care, while 36% said the country was spending too much. Just a year later – in June of 1994 – the public was divided, much as it is today, with 38% saying too much and 40% saying too little.

Most Democrats (51%) believe we are spending too little on health care in this country, while about a third (34%) say too much. By comparison, a plurality of Republicans (43%) say we are currently spending too much on health care, with 30% saying too little. Overall, the share of Americans saying we spend too much on health care rose from 26% to 38% since 2006, and this rise occurred among Republicans (up eight points), Democrats (up 14 points) and independents (up 11 points) alike.

While a minority viewpoint, Republicans are roughly twice as likely as Democrats (19% vs. 10%) to say the country is spending the right amount on health care. This viewpoint is particularly prevalent among conservative Republicans, 23% of whom express satisfaction about current levels of health care spending.

By a 50% to 30% margin college graduates are more likely to say the country spends too much, not too little, on health care. By contrast, adults with no more than a high school diploma tend to think we spend too little (46%) not too much (32%) on health care in this country. There is a similar, though less prominent, pattern when it comes to income levels. Most Back Overhaul; Fewer Than in 1993 See Crisis
Most Americans believe that the nation’s health care system is in need of substantial changes. Four-in-ten (41%) say the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt, while 30% think it needs fundamental changes. About one-in-four (24%) believe that the health care system works pretty well and needs only minor changes.

But there is less support for completely rebuilding the health care system than there was during the early stage of the Clinton administration’s unsuccessful effort to revamp health care. In April 1993, a majority of Americans (55%) said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt. As discussion of Clinton’s proposals progressed, support for completely rebuilding the health care system declined. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt.

Support for a complete rebuilding of the health care system is lower than in early 1993 among all partisan groups. Today, 53% of Democrats, 38% of independents and 28% of Republicans support completely rebuilding the health care system. In April of 1993, 70% of Democrats, 55% of independents, and 41% of Republicans supported completely rebuilding the system.

People with no more than a high school education (47%) or some college (42%) are far more likely than are college graduates (31%) to favor a complete rebuilding of the health care system. The education gap was even wider in 1993, when 63% of those with no-college and 56% of those with some college education said the system needed to be completely rebuilt, compared with 36% of college graduates. Income is also a factor, with those living in low income households backing the most dramatic overhaul of the health care system. Health Reform Priorities
Most Americans favor ensuring health coverage to all Americans, and most also say it is very important to limit the overall annual increase in health care costs. Neither of these objectives, however, receives as overwhelming support as they did in early 1993. When Americans are asked to prioritize between these two goals, most continue to say that expanding health insurance to all is the more important goal. But the share who rate costs as the more important concern is nearly double what it was in 1993.

The public’s overall support for expanding health insurance to cover all Americans remains widespread, though more sharply partisan than in 1993. In the spring of that year, 83% of Americans favored changing the health care system so that all Americans would have health insurance that covers all medically necessary care. Today, 75% support such a reform.

The difference is that support for universal health insurance was more bipartisan in early 1993 than it is today. While there has always been a partisan gap, two-thirds (67%) of Republicans said they favored health coverage for all Americans in 1993, compared with barely half (52%) today. By contrast, the share of Democrats backing this kind of change remained a solid 92% in both years.

There has also been a 15-point drop in the share of independents backing universal health insurance – from 89% in 1993 to 74% today.

The share of Americans who say it is very important to change the health care system in this country in order to limit the overall annual increase in the nation’s health care costs is also slightly lower today (61%) than in 1993 (69%). Today fewer than half of Republicans (47%) rate this as very important, compared with 72% of Democrats and 60% of independents.

When asked whether reining in health care costs or expanding health care coverage is the more important goal for the nation, 56% prioritize guaranteeing access to all while 36% side with limiting growing health care costs. Opinion was more one-sided in early 1993, when 74% prioritized expanded health care coverage and just 20% saw reining in costs as the bigger concern.

The balance of opinion among Republicans is the reverse of what it was in 1993. Then, 55% prioritized expanded care while 37% emphasized reining in costs. Today, 37% prioritize expanded care while 54% emphasize reining in costs. While most Democrats and independents continue to see expanding access to health care coverage as the higher priority, it is by slimmer margins than was the case sixteen years ago. Fewer See Cost of Care as Major Problem
In the current survey, far fewer say health care expenses are a major problem for themselves and their families than was the case in 1993. Just under half of Americans (48%) say that paying for the cost of a major illness is a major problem, substantially lower than the 63% who said this in early 1993. Similarly, about a third of Americans (34%) say paying for the cost of routine medical care is a major problem for them. In 1993, 40% said this was the case.

But for the most part, it is those who are relatively well off who are feeling more at ease. Just 27% of high income Americans say the cost of a major illness is a major problem for them today, down from 48% in 1993. By comparison, 67% of low income Americans say this is a major problem, little changed from 73% sixteen years ago.

Similarly, the share of high income Americans who say paying for routine medical care is a major problem fell from 25% in 1993 to 13% today. Meanwhile, just over half of low income Americans – at both points in time – say this is a major problem for them.

There is far less concern about the quality and availability of medical care in people’s communities. Just 24% say the quality of medical care in their community is a major problem for them and their families, and 21% say the availability of medical care is a major problem. These figures are virtually unchanged from 1993. Income is an overwhelming factor in these assessments, as lower income people are far more likely than higher income people to say health care quality and availability are major problems for them.

Nationwide, 43% of Americans say paying for the cost of health insurance poses a major problem for them and their family. Fully 59% of Americans with family incomes under $30,000 say health insurance is a major problem for them. Not surprisingly among the low income who currently have no health insurance 73% rate insurance costs as a major problem.

The share of Americans who say paying for the cost of prescription drugs is a major problem dropped from 44% in 2006 to 34% today. This decline has occurred across both age and income categories at about equal rates.

The Democrats are always to use the statement," America has spoken!", when it comes to the election or anything else THEY want to do!

Why is it they believe that Americans have NOT spoken now?

 


Share Send to a friend Watch Report
 
 

32 Posted Answers
Order by

 
1007 helpful answers

Lets play ball JoeAnimated MonkeysThrow the ball back Biden

 

 


HEALTHCARE: King OBAMA'S WATERLOO
 
To quote the esteemed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the chickens that were hatched in the stimulus package are coming home to roost in the healthcare proposal. The budget deficit King Obama racked up paying for the massive federal spending passed in January is now having a real economic and political impact, which is forcing the president and his congressional allies into hard choices as they face his healthcare legislation.

Of course, the prudent thing to do is postpone healthcare changes until the economy generates some revenues and trims the deficit. But the socialist in the White House can't do that. He's got to strike while his congressional majority is hot. So he is forcing his administration and his party to choose among unpalatable choices to finance his program. His demand may be a bridge too far, endangering his popularity with the American people.

  First of all, the very fact of a focus on healthcare reform inevitably stirs discussion of the deficit. Americans are allergic to deficit spending and worry the more the deficit grows. As interest rates rise and the government finds it more and more difficult to borrow enough to cover King Obama's massive spending, the economy is likely to show the negative effects. It is a matter of a few months, certainly no more, before voters start to realize that it is the deficit, not the pre-existing conditions King Obama inherited, which is causing the prolongation of the recession. Already the jump in mortgage rates has slowed the refinancing, which was the only aspect of the King Obama economic program that was working well.

But the foreign and domestic focus on the deficit has a harsher political impact: It forces the Democrats to come up with money to fund healthcare reform. In other words, it makes them raise taxes. The Democratic Party is good at fooling itself that tax increases don't matter and are politically palatable, but they do and they are not.

The massive spending healthcare will require dwarfs the capacity for the rich alone to pay the bill, no matter how confiscatory King Obama chooses to become. Only broader taxes will do the job. King Obama faces two practical choices: a value added tax or taxing health insurance benefits.

The political harm either way will be enormous. Not only will King Obama be breaking his pledge not to tax the middle class, but he will be doing so in a particularly pernicious way. If Obama opts for the value added tax (VAT), Democrats will hope to cloak the increase in the price of the product. They reason that the consumer won't know how much the tax is since it will be added on throughout the sale and resale of the product rather than at the cash register at the end, as the sales tax is. But it will work the other way. As inflation sets in, triggered by King Obama's deficit spending, consumers will blame the whole thing on King Obama. His VAT will be much magnified in the voters' minds to include all of the inflation going on. Just as voters blamed Clinton's gas tax increase of five cents in 1993 for the entire run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, so they will place all the blame for inflation on Obama's VAT.

Or King Obama could tax healthcare benefits, a direct reversal of his campaign pledge. He would be adopting a policy for which he overtly and loudly criticized McCain. And his popularity will wilt as taxpayers suddenly have to add onto their tax liability the money their employer has always paid for their health insurance. Obama will probably have his own separate line on the 1040 and even on the short form for his new tax. That's not the way to stay popular.

King Obama's only good option is not to move so quickly on healthcare reform, to give himself some wiggle room. But as the song says, "we're knee deep in the big muddy but the damn fool says to push on!"

Helpful?(2)
Rated as Best Answer
 
133 helpful answers

Hurt me once
 
Shame on you!
 
Hurt me twice
 
Shame on me!
 

"GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS"

 



 

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income
 
  Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below.................

  Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.  In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.

  Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put aWindfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

  This woman is frightening.
  She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this?), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'  (I am not rich, are you?)

 When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
 'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'  

(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in.)  'Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it'. 

 Send it on to your friends. I just did!! This lady is out of her mind and she is the speaker of the house!

TANYA 

 
196 helpful answers

GOD  

FAMILY

SELF

COUNTRY

 

In that order!                                                                                      

Two heartbeats away from the Presidency! Better hope a meteor doesn't come crashing down on DC! Pelosi would be safe she is RARELY there!

MRD

 
24 helpful answers

Caring for others like thyself.

 Truth, Justice~the American way.

God is great, a Smilebeer is good, People are crazy!

 

Please tell me that between Marinerecondad and American Patriot - they are aliens!

Tables, charts, statsitics, blogs, opiions, - all great tools.....vent, babble, negative attitudes, unAmerican Patriots, , lack of Respect for one's
Country.............. God help us all.

Get out of yourself!  Look at the big picture.  The difference betweeen the rut and the grave is the depth!

Where are you?

meetze94

Posted 2009-06-25T14:55:18Z
94meetze was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

Helpful?(0)
Rated #17 out of 32
 
133 helpful answers

Hurt me once
 
Shame on you!
 
Hurt me twice
 
Shame on me!
 

"GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS"

 

First of all you are talking of (2)two, of the biggest "PATRIOTS ON YEDDA" THAT I KNOW, There are many others, but just becauce do not agree with our party values,IT Does Not, get it not,said that twice, so you understand make someone as you put it un patriotic, You are wrong, and i could say the same of you, but i do not know all your views and i wont!

But you are Way off base on the two you picked out!!! Do your homework!

Tanya

Posted 2009-06-25T18:52:25Z
Helpful?(0)
Rated #18 out of 32
 
133 helpful answers

Hurt me once
 
Shame on you!
 
Hurt me twice
 
Shame on me!
 

"GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS"

 

Mrd, need to tell you something one of your posters has a evil twin!

Back to subject, she and her fab.,PEARLS WILL BE IN BUNKER 20 MILES DOWN, WHO IS 4TH IN LINE, NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I can't believe i just answered a question from he must have been a kool-aid drinker, and said that you and american were unpatrotic, of all people, and of all to ask, there is so much from long ago that i want to ask you. Most of my time is on the other site, i put my 2cents in with the troops!

Semper fi sir

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Tanya

Helpful?(0)
Rated #19 out of 32
 
196 helpful answers

GOD  

FAMILY

SELF

COUNTRY

 

In that order!                                                                                      

If I am unpatriotic because I do not goose step with Obama when he is systematically dismantling our country so be it! I am NOT a socialist, I am not a communist. If that makes me different than you I am PROUD to be so!

Disrespectful for ones country? I am afraid you have me confused with one who apologizes for everything that this GREAT country has done in the last 250 years!

ALL graves began with a rut! You'll realize that as they are throwing the last shovel of dirt on you!

I realize that charts and tables that expose the Obama Plan, scare the Kool aid drinkers but again, so be it.

Stick to the liberal posters on YEDDA so you can pat each other on the back!

The MOST inexperienced President at our MOST critical time in history with the LEAST traceable backround!

Is there something inaccurate about that statement

MRD

Posted 2009-06-26T00:38:28Z
Helpful?(1)
Rated #11 out of 32
 
196 helpful answers

GOD  

FAMILY

SELF

COUNTRY

 

In that order!                                                                                      

Thank you Tanya. Please feel free to ask me anytime.

Semper Fi

MRD

Helpful?(1)
Rated #10 out of 32

Sign in to participate

Got an answer for MarineReconDad? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

Feed - Subscribe to changes to this Q&A Blog
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Answers
  • Web
Copyright © 2006-2009, Yedda Inc. and respective copyright owners · CC License