2007 (223)
2008 (139)
2009 (90)
2017 (1)
2018 (3)
先問奧巴馬醫療保險計劃支持者一個問題:
如果你認為你不斷使用某種產品/服務/資源是你的權力的話，請問，有誰會認為自己是應該為你提供這些產品/服務/資源的？當然不會有，所以你把希望寄托在政府身上，讓政府來強製性地為象你這樣的人來提供你的所需。當然，你會把自己扮演成一個社會的受害者或邊緣者，你是所謂弱勢群體之一。你認為你的敵人是大公司和富人階層。因為這些人控製了你想要得到的產品/服務/資源。當政客們許諾你政府會強迫大公司和富人階層向你提供你的所需時，你覺得這些政客是你的救星。
問題在於：
1。任何產品/服務/資源都是有限的，都是有價值的。你使用的越多，你就應該付出的越多，而不是越少。比如說，醫療保險和汽車保險或任何保險，如果你總生病老出車禍，你的保費就得漲，因為你使用的比別人多。就好象你去買菜，你少買少吃少付錢。 多買多吃您就得多付錢。您要是覺得您該多吃的那部分應該免費提供的話，要是你自己是提供者，您決不會答應。連您自己都做不到的事情，憑什麽就要求別人去做？這不是蠻不講理嗎？！
2。政府的權力是會被濫用的，因為政客和官僚們所關心的不是你，而是他們自己。當一個有限的產品/服務/資源被政府所控製的話，提供這個產品/服務/資源的市場就沒有競爭。 沒有競爭的市場不叫市場，叫分配。所謂按需分配這個烏托邦思想是不可能實現的。 因為一，資源是有限的，需求是無限的。政府不可能使每個需要的人都得到他們所需，結果隻能是限量分配憑票供應。中國改革開放以前就是這個局麵。二，當有限的資源的分配被政府官員們所控製的時候，他們貪汙腐化是不可避免的。因為總有一部分人靠行賄等手段會比別人多得到一些有限的資源，真正需要的那部分群體因為沒有能力去行賄而徹底失去他們應該得到的那部分。這是為什麽社會主義大鍋飯製度製造更多窮人的主要原因之一。
3。所謂平等是不會使社會完美和諧的。因為任何一個製度都不可能是所有人都滿意，因此，完美和絕對的和諧是根本不成立的。 人們要接受的是對現有製度的缺陷和不和諧的忍受能力是多大。能忍受得了，社會自然會和諧很多。不能忍受，社會的衝突在所難免。在任何一個社會裏，總有一部分人的利益會為另一部分人的利益讓步。合理還是不合理，民主的製度會自我調節。有限的產品/服務/資源能覆蓋多少需求要靠市場來調節。太多的行政管理隻能帶來價格的上漲，而不是產品量的增加。要讓產品量上來，投資產品開發的人必須有利可圖。產品量的增加的結果隻能是價格的下降，最後得益的是需要產品的人。
政府從來就不是萬能的。事實證明，美國政府是非常低能的。任何能由市場競爭來達到平衡的事凡是經政府一插手，全部破產。美國的社會安全係統，MEDICARE，MEDICAID，退伍軍人保險，房屋貸款，有一個算一個，沒有不破產的。
美國醫療保險要改革，但決不能是政府取而代之。
要改革，就要讓市場規律來發揮作用。沒有競爭，就沒有市場。沒有市場，就沒有選擇。
奧巴馬不顧廣大人民反對一意孤行地要強製推行由政府控製的全民保險，最後的結果是真正需要得到幫助的美國老年病人和重病人的利益會被侵犯，不信您就等著瞧吧。
"真要實行全民保險也可以，但我要求總統和國會議員也參加，並在同一個計劃內，享受同等的待遇。" haha, they already have rejected that idea.
"而看醫生不付錢是一種下賤的行為，跟搶劫有什麽區別？？？"
well said.
I''ve learned that credentials on the wall do not make you a decent human being.
回複北燕西飛.的評論:
"By the way, I am not even college graduated"
There are huge percentage of US nurses are imported from other countries, such as Philippines, China...etc. Believe or not, we are still importing every year!
Regarding your comment on that “only the U.S. has the best doctors and nurses in the world”All I can say is that you reallllllly make me laugh, and I laughed so hard after I have learned that you have TWO doctor's degreeS
I really don’t know who you talkED about! By the way, I am not even college graduated
I'm not insulting every chinese, i only talked about some. You know who i talk about?
Oh "My tiny little brain"? I have 2 doctor's degree, and my salary is more than 98% of population. I don't think my brain function too bad.
回複北燕西飛.的評論:
In order to save my valuable time, I will only respond your comment on number 8, but that doesn’t mean your other comments are conceivable. US are immigrants’ country, and more than 12% populations are immigrants, including you! So we can import doctors and nurses as many as we needed,we do not have to depend on our own resources.
One more thing, you ARE insulting most Chinese here with your stupid comment “but alots of chinese here really don't know too much about the american government or politics “if you don’t believe that is insulting, something is wrong with your perception, and I believe most of Chinese in the States are 藏龍臥虎,精英! Who knows more American government and politics than your tiny brain can imagine!
1. "Illegal immigrants" is another issue to resolve. Whether public option would cover them or not is not clear. But as you said, they have already been partially covered at present anyway.
"illegal immigrant" is not another issue if they are cost tons of $$ from tax payer. unfortually, liberals choose to ignore it.
2. Insurance is a tool to help people including yourself. Your irresponsibility has nothing to be proud of.
Trillion $ is the estimation for years ahead, not for each year. The startup cost will finally get long term saving.
You have no right of calling me irresponsible. I choose not to buy insurance because i'm young and health. If i become sick, i can afford health care with my saving
3. Public option gives a choice to small businesses, not force them giving up their current one if they have. How their costs can increase?
Public and private service can co-exist for different needs.
Yes, ideally it could exist. But if obamacare success, most of employers will stop insure their empolyees to save money, they will just tell them to get on government's health care. Private insurace will collaps.
As matter of fact, the problem with the insurance industrial is there are too much government regulations, if the consumers are allow to purchase insurance across the states, it will create healthy competition.
4. It's one myth that hospitals would suddenly line up with millions of patients under healthcare reform. Uninsured is only 1/6 of population. Your line could add only 1/6 longer, not counting the increase of healthcare resources.
7. High rocketing healthcare cost indicates a kind of monopoly profit hanging above us. Can you beg them a lower premium for you? You have the only choice to give them more money!
go back to my response to your #3
8. It takes time for the completion of the reform. As we know, pre-med is the most popular major right now. Don't under-estimate our new generation.
haha, premed is the popular, everyone can choose it, But you know how many people actually made it to medical school? Thanks to our high quality medical training program.
One more thing, you ARE insulting most Chinese here with your stupid comment “but alots of chinese here really don't know too much about the american government or politics “if you don’t believe that is insulting, something is wrong with your perception, and I believe most of Chinese in the States are 藏龍臥虎,精英! Who knows more American government and politics than your tiny brain can imagine!
1. "Illegal immigrants" is another issue to resolve. Whether public option would cover them or not is not clear. But as you said, they have already been partially covered at present anyway.
2. Insurance is a tool to help people including yourself. Your irresponsibility has nothing to be proud of.
Trillion $ is the estimation for years ahead, not for each year. The startup cost will finally get long term saving.
3. Public option gives a choice to small businesses, not force them giving up their current one if they have. How their costs can increase?
Public and private service can co-exist for different needs.
4. It's one myth that hospitals would suddenly line up with millions of patients under healthcare reform. Uninsured is only 1/6 of population. Your line could add only 1/6 longer, not counting the increase of healthcare resources.
7. High rocketing healthcare cost indicates a kind of monopoly profit hanging above us. Can you beg them a lower premium for you? You have the only choice to give them more money!
8. It takes time for the completion of the reform. As we know, pre-med is the most popular major right now. Don't under-estimate our new generation.
1. 無保險者在現有製度下隻是小病沒保障，大急病仍然由國家負擔，這部分錢本來就花在他們身上。
No true! Government only request hospitals to provide emergency care to people who don't have insurance. They don't provide chronicle care.
A majority of $$ is spending on illegal immigrants who don't pay tax.
2. 無保險者買不起高價保險，但如果有可負擔保險，他們就能支付部分健保費用。如果每個家庭平均僅支付一到二千元一年，每年就有高達100億以上的健保新投入。
Not true! A big portion of small business owner or young people choose not to purchase insurance, I'm one of them. I can afford it, but I don't want to. I like to have the freedom to not to purchase insurance. "100億以上?" that is far less than the trillion dollars even Obama's government project.
3. 眾多小企業深受健保壓迫，有些被迫放棄給員工的健保福利，對企業和員工都不利。如果有可負擔保險，他們也能支付部分健保費用，保障員工健康，提高生產力。小企業創造最多的工作機會，是經濟複蘇的希望。
If health care reform pass, government controlled health care will replaced private insurance company. The small business will stop providing health care to any of their employee. Small insurance companies will collaps, You have no choice, but rely on your government.
Furthermore, most of small business owners are placed at high tax brackets, they burden will increase more to fund the program.
4. 增加健保覆蓋，有助於預防疾病傳播和阻止小病發展為大病惡病。這是一個多贏的前景。
Increasing coverages for more people also mean some of the cares are covered by your insurace company right now won't be available to you in the future. You will have less options when comes to your medical treatment.
Older people and people with chronical disease maynot get the cares because of it.
5. 有了公共選項，私人保險的壟斷被打破，現有投保者也有望獲得更好的保險服務。私人保險作得好，也可以象私立大學那樣立於不倒之地，怎會都被公立服務“消滅”呢？消滅的應該是價高質劣的服務吧。
Please refer to my point #3.
6. 公共健保對於藥商暴利有製約作用，不象私人健保隻會轉嫁高藥價。目前藥商聯盟已經在政府壓力下同意將走薄利多銷的道路，增加覆蓋為此創造了條件。
7. 公共健保增加一些管理開支，但是沒有私人保險那種日益增長的利潤。利潤是拿走沒話說、增長不見頂，管理開支和浪費卻是可以製約和糾正的。選票可以換總統和官員，不能換老板。
You can choose which private insurance company to purchase insurance from, but you can't choose not to be controlled by your government! At least not until next election.
8. 增加覆蓋還要求有更多的醫生護士等健保人員，增加這個行業的工作。增加的工作就會創造新稅收。
HAHAHA funny !
so you realize there will be more doctors and nurses needed? you think if obama want to health care reform today, he can hire more doctor's and nurses tomorrow?
It takes years of school and training to be in health care field. They are the ones in top 5% of their class. Health care providers are in shortage as it is now. If you decrease their income with Obamacare, only bottom 5% of student will go to the profession.
2. 無保險者買不起高價保險，但如果有可負擔保險，他們就能支付部分健保費用。如果每個家庭平均僅支付一到二千元一年，每年就有高達100億以上的健保新投入。
3. 眾多小企業深受健保壓迫，有些被迫放棄給員工的健保福利，對企業和員工都不利。如果有可負擔保險，他們也能支付部分健保費用，保障員工健康，提高生產力。小企業創造最多的工作機會，是經濟複蘇的希望。
4. 增加健保覆蓋，有助於預防疾病傳播和阻止小病發展為大病惡病。這是一個多贏的前景。
5. 有了公共選項，私人保險的壟斷被打破，現有投保者也有望獲得更好的保險服務。私人保險作得好，也可以象私立大學那樣立於不倒之地，怎會都被公立服務“消滅”呢？消滅的應該是價高質劣的服務吧。
6. 公共健保對於藥商暴利有製約作用，不象私人健保隻會轉嫁高藥價。目前藥商聯盟已經在政府壓力下同意將走薄利多銷的道路，增加覆蓋為此創造了條件。
7. 公共健保增加一些管理開支，但是沒有私人保險那種日益增長的利潤。利潤是拿走沒話說、增長不見頂，管理開支和浪費卻是可以製約和糾正的。選票可以換總統和官員，不能換老板。
8. 增加覆蓋還要求有更多的醫生護士等健保人員，增加這個行業的工作。增加的工作就會創造新稅收。
"沒有性生活而活著，比S去還要慘。。。"
那麽有一天你做不動了, 你就去死嗎? 你總有那一天吧? 或者有一天你的小第第得病了, 你就自殺嗎?
"醫療保健是基本人權要保障，那性生活是不是是健康成年人的更日常更基本的權利呢？"
如果你老公得了陽委, 那豈不是違反了你的更日常更基本的權利呢?
如果你老公出差三個月, 那豈不是也違反了你的更日常更基本的權利呢? Either one, call me please!
"什麽？去Townhall 有人給報銷？？我老公也去了，怎麽不見他領錢回來？難不成自己偷偷搞小金庫。。。"
Hahaha...glad to hear that! Either your 老公 too freaking dumb or just like what you said that "難不成自己偷偷搞小金庫" Either way will not be good news for you!
另外，真要實行全民保險也可以，但我要求總統和國會議員也參加，並在同一個計劃內，享受同等的待遇。
而看醫生不付錢是一種下賤的行為，跟搶劫有什麽區別？？？
瞧打的這比方，真低俗，讓我都瞧不起你。
另，就這麽低俗的比方都沒有說明問題，沒有性生活不會死人，看不起病可是會死人的，這能一樣類比嗎？
仙子就是仙子, 講的都不是人話;老吾老，以及人之老；幼吾幼，以及人之幼.你沒有同情心也難怪了,畢盡你是仙不是人; 但是為啥別人關心一下別人你也受不了? 難到是小時候....
要讓井底之蛙跳出來是很困難,真的.但是通過討論我們至少可以知道那蛙是誰...即使它化裝成仙.
welcom. haha
醫療方麵的確需要改革但是不需要政府來建立另外一套體製。// conservative from liberal satate california floating by
Good point. Thanks!!!
Most liberals are mentally disordered. There is no way they will listen anything different than what they believe.
However, this is America, we live here too. They can't shut us up!
Yes indeed!!! Thanks for your comment!
哈哈哈哈，妙語連珠，說的好！
I'm totally with you...
well, it's hard to argue anything with mobs knowing nothing about history and economics, so I'll just tease them.
對不起拉 noso, 別怪我言語粗俗在這兒搗蛋。。。
什麽？去Townhall 有人給報銷？？我老公也去了，怎麽不見他領錢回來？難不成自己偷偷搞小金庫。。。
你們的意思 right to pursue happiness 就是要保障happiness。 醫療保健是基本人權要保障，那性生活是不是是健康成年人的更日常更基本的權利呢？那麽多單身漢，是不是政府都要來管一管保一保呢？你們有公德心同情心，是要把女兒貢出來，還是要把老婆來共一共呢為政府解決難題呢？什麽？沒門？那讓強奸犯性饑渴都去你家門口轉悠去！
哈哈，難道你們是還沒有？等著參加ACORN 站隊後O8給分一倆個？難怪呢，指著push 醫保過了輪到你自個兒撈實在好處啦。等著吧。
No offensive, but alots of chinese here really don't know too much about the american government or politics, they are only here to insult people who disagree with them. How is it possible to have an argument with them?
Good job, Noso and a few other people! you guys keep post good stuff here!
如此冷酷的告訴那個問他對她100歲但是有強烈求生欲望的老祖母如何安排的婦人說：
你還是吃吃止痛藥吧。 奧巴馬不關心老弱病殘AT ALL!
另外，盡管我生活在LIBERAL橫行的加州，我還是孜孜不倦地企圖說服我的LIBERAL朋
友， 我相信人心總是善良的， 道理總是可以說清楚的， 但是有些人真是太“執著”
了，我開始相信“YOU CANT ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL”
現在這些人又被蠱惑起來，尤其是那些幹癟又能幹嚎的white trash最適合他們的demographic profile.
我不知道這裏的某些年輕人士，你們是傻還是迂，跟著那些貪婪私欲的大佬們的指揮棒上竄下跳，甘心為他們做衛道士。那些去townhall meeting 搗亂組織者的經費是有人報銷的。你們在這裏反對醫保改革，保險公司的老總免你的copay 不成？
我家門口的路是PRIVATE ROAD，膽敢在PRIVATE PROPERTY上胡鬧，小心腿被槍打斷。
米國現在還是個法製國家。
（二）你也許會說，別的產業的CEO更高。對了，這就“不正常的競爭”。CEO們互作董事會的董事，互相支持利用，零散的個人持股者又有什麽用啊？（1）公司業績好，他們拿的多；公司業績不好，他們也不少拿（拍屁股走人拿的更多）。（2）隻要會計賬麵上好，他們拿的多，誰管以後的事，反正我已錢到手，不好了你也不能把錢要回來。這也造成了很多CEO目光短淺，不顧公司的長遠利益。當然也有不少好的CEO，他們大多不太在乎或已經很有錢了。我看應該把董事會和執行部門真正完全分開是十分必要的。CEO的實權太大了。為什麽某些家族企業公司辦的好哪？公司，董事會，CEO的利益一致。不是家族企業公司也要有個辦法才成。
（三）我支持PUBLIC OPTION。因為如果我自己買一個和大公司一樣的保險，我要比大公司一年多付7-8千美金.我還是我，很少看病，為什麽不能也給我們組成一個團體哪？
（四）從CNN的一位專家的節目裏得知，每個人付給醫院的錢中有10-20%的是替沒保險的人付的。如果沒保險的人占總人口的10-20%，你現在已經在替他們付保險，為什麽不讓他們也加入，即使付的少一些。
想到那兒寫到那兒，僅供參考。
"founding father 定義的人權有 life, liberty and right to pursue happiness. 醫療保險屬於哪一條基本人權？"
你的 life,和happniess的定義是什麽呢? 你是仙,我是人,我知道生病看不起醫生,不是 happiness;也就談不上life 了. 如果是在非洲也就認命了, 但在世界最強大的美國,這中間就有講不過去的東東了.你的書背的不錯,希望不要是填鴨式教育的結果.
至於屋主指責的"偷換概念"一說, 真的就是操練不出你的那一畝三分田. 醫療保險, 醫療保健都隻是不同的手段的名字; 其實在這場爭論中,不是爭論方法手段的問題, 而是什麽人受益的問題.看來屋主同我們的奧總統一樣的現有政策受益人, 不一樣的是奧總除了維護自己的利益之外, 也關心那些弱勢群體; 喔, 還有,他是總統, 你不是.
全民醫保很可能會像隋煬帝的大運河，最終拖垮美國，導致護衛美元體係的美國軍力下降，使美元提前退出結算位置，國家財政徹底崩盤，金融寡頭破釜沉舟，大舉顛覆競爭國家的政府，陷世界於滅亡。
我在美國，所指的founding father當然是這個國家的founding father,惡心著了是你自找的。
打仗的預算是國防，是每個政府的基本職能之一。我不是說伊戰該打，要我說，不是反戰嗎？奧巴馬現在早就該從阿富汗伊拉克都撤了。但是一旦打了，國會又不批預算，不是送人去死嗎？
提供全民醫保是福利，福利是社會主義/共產主義國家的職能，不屬於資本主義國家的基本職能之一。我從社會主義國家來，也享受過社會主義國家的醫保福利。我覺得現在美國的醫療保險製度有問題，成本過高，需要改革，但是改到社會主義，我不支持。
that's all. hope it's simple enough that you can understand and don't need to bad mouth people to make your point (if there is any to make).
我在美國，所指的founding father當然是這個國家的founding father,惡心著了是你自找的。
打仗的預算是國防，是每個政府的基本職能之一。我不是說伊戰該打，要我說，不是反戰嗎？奧巴馬現在早就該從阿富汗伊拉克都撤了。但是一旦打了，國會又不批預算，不是送人去死嗎？
提供全民醫保是福利，福利是社會主義/共產主義國家的職能，不屬於資本主義國家的基本職能之一。我從社會主義國家來，也享受過社會主義國家的醫保福利。我覺得現在美國的醫療保險製度有問題，成本過高，需要改革，但是改到社會主義，我不支持。
that's all. hope it's simple enough that you can understand and don't need to bad mouth people to make your point (if there is any to make).
兩個月前我被鄰居一隻小寵物狗咬了一小口，去了急診室做了基本處理和預防。等賬單來了一看，1300刀！還是享受了30%的無保險折扣以後。可憐的狗主臉都綠了。
我也知道，醫院的呆賬太多，所以賬單就大。而呆賬多又是因為很多沒保險的窮人急診的錢收不回來。而窮人不買保險是因為醫保太貴。而醫保貴是因為西醫的對抗式治療方式就是向著高費用發展。所以，以愚人之見，隻有廣泛普及中醫養生，建立國家讚助的預防醫療和養生體係，才是根本解決之道。
如果把一些得病而無錢看病的人(肺結合, 禽流感, 豬流感, 肝炎…) , 讓他們去你家(瀟灑人生路, 桃花仙, 還有那個叫高大大的) 門口附近 散步, 你們願意嗎? (前提是你們不知道他們得病了)
美國的社會安全係統，MEDICARE，MEDICAID，退伍軍人保險，房屋貸款, 都還沒有破產啊?! 你是道聽途說 說是社會安全係統將要破產, 還沒哪!
任何事物都有壽命期的, 包括製度和條例, 每個人都會死吧, 你家的電器, 電視, 冰箱 等等都有壽命吧, 不可能永久用吧? 製度和條例也一樣有壽命期的, 一個好的製度和條例也許10年20年有作用, 過了一定時期也就” 破產”了.
一萬年前, 任何人沒有醫療, 五千年前, 幾個人吧, 二千年前, 十幾個人吧, 一千年前, 幾百人吧, 1945年, 幾萬人吧, 1970年, 60% MABYBE, 1980 more than 60% ….2009 全民醫保!!!!
不要叫什麽” founding father” 做為亞裔應該知道他是白人的 “founding father”, 回家多學學曆史.多惡心啊!張口這樣叫.
什麽，什麽？你沒錢？沒錢就該幹活掙錢，對不對？
醫生給你看病是要收錢的，否則醫生回家吃什麽？
什麽，什麽？你不想幹活掙錢？你要別人幹活掙錢來替你買醫保？？？
你是一個窮凶極惡的強盜！
享受醫療應該是人權，前提是每個人要自己幹活掙錢買醫保。人人生而平等，誰也不能壓迫誰，不管你是什麽人！
你憑什麽把參加 Town Hall meeting 的人叫 trash？這是美國政治製度中最好的工具之一。看來還真的有比某些國會議員更無知狂妄愚蠢的東西啊
founding father 定義的人權有 life, liberty and right to pursue happiness. 醫療保險屬於哪一條基本人權？
作為你所定義的“部分人”之一，我享有我的醫療保險，但這不是特權，這是我辛苦工作後由我的公司和我自己腰包裏掏錢買的。不勞而獲讓別的納稅人替你出錢付醫療保險才叫“特權”！
"right to pursue happiness" is not equal to "right to gauranteee happiness". 你有權利追求幸福（包括吃穿教育，醫療保險，結婚生子，etc. etc.)，政府不應該成為你追求這些幸福的阻礙，但不是說政府或者其他人應該替你包辦這些事兒。奧巴馬的全民醫保是要替少數人包辦這些幸福，但是恰恰成為了其他大多數願意自食其力的人民追求他們的幸福的阻礙。
謝謝評論。
問題就在這裏。醫療保險不是醫療保健。美國對窮人，退伍軍人，老人都有醫療保健計劃，但都破產了。醫療保險是商品，不是福利。奧巴馬要讓商品變福利，最後的結局是破產，大家全玩兒完。
魚目混珠，偷換概念，醫療保險不是醫療保健，您懂嗎？
不錯, 醫療是人權, 吃飯穿衣更是人權, 旅遊娛樂也是人權.問題是僅僅因為你是人就該免費享受這些嗎? 有人免費享受,就必然有人免費提供, 你自己願意做免費的提供者嗎?
基本上, 世界上高福利的國家經濟都缺乏競爭力和活力.本來他們的基礎好,應該幹得更好才對.
過去加拿大經濟不振的原因之一就是很多加拿大的人才和投資都流向了美國.加拿大人少地大,可以靠出賣資源撐下去,美國隻能在吃老本中慢慢耗死了.
另外福利條款通過容易,等發現有問題要收回則比登天還難.
你這奧飯除了人身攻擊外要還能說別的算你有些歪門邪道。你還真以為自己不是什麽垃圾嗎？ 很可笑。
完全支持凡人悟空的觀點
首先,支持奧巴馬醫療保險計劃的人不是弱勢群體,他們是關心弱勢群體的人;因為在你的一畝三分田裏你是聽不到弱勢群體的聲音的,請問你上一次接觸到因沒有醫保而飽受痛苦的人是什麽時間? 其次享受醫療應該是人權,而不是部分人的特權. 屋主的論調很象當年反對黑人平權的人講的話. 如果沒有黑人平權運動的成功的話, 我們華人以及混血人在美國會有今天的權利嗎?;再者,請問,有關公眾利益的是那一件不是通過這樣或那樣的政府行為來實現的?
This is why the Democrats are lashing out like wounded water buffalo. Rasmussen’s latest poll shows ObamaCare dropping like a rock in public opinion. As in approaching two to one against. Worst of all for Obama’s plan, the ratio is three to one against among non-affiliated voters.
Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe such a system would lead to a lower quality of care while 13% believe care would improve. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think that the quality of care would remain about the same.
Forty-five percent (45%) also say a single-payer system would lead to higher health care costs while 24% think lower costs would result. Nineteen percent (19%) think prices would remain about the same.
There’s wide political disagreement over the single-payer issue. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats favor a single-payer system, but 87% of Republicans are opposed to one. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 22% favor a single-payer approach while 63% are opposed.
This is why the Democrats are howling madly and trying desperately to shift blame away from themselves. This is why some are hiding from constituents while others are preemptively demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. If the public polls are this bad, how much worse are their internal polls?
I’d bet they are staring at electoral disaster and they know it. If they pass this monstrous plan against these kind of poll numbers, there are going to be a lot - a real lot - of unemployed Democrats in 2010.
No doubt they are planning on passing a former Democratic lawmaker stimulus plan in the near future. Just in case. They’ll need one.
please do your homework. : )
Failed canada health care
The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But There exist many indefensible myths about the Canadian single-payer health care system Among these myths are that Canada has the best health care system in the world that the Health care in Canada – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Health care in Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, with to introduce such a scheme, but while he created the Department of Health he failed Don Spatz Why adopt Canadas failed health-care system City Council last week turned down, but barely, support for one of the so-called single-payer health-care bills floating around in the ether of Harrisburg Its a barely disguised The Failed Promises of Government Funded Health Care More Guns Less Obama Failed to Master Alinskys Rule #12 At what point does a liberal become a Stalinist Midas Muffler, Not Canada is the Model for Health Care Reform US Healthcare a Failed Business Model The health care is what has failed Batfishy, on 07242009, -016 Youve got to read the show last night its funny and hes going all out with Canadian and English health care American Thinker The Failed Promises of Government Funded Health Care The health care debate in Obama Failed to Master Alinskys Rule #12 At what point does a liberal become a Stalinist Midas Muffler, Not Canada is the Model for Health Care Reform Canadas national health care system failed Natasha Richardson The San Francisco Examiner has the intelligent Editorials and Opinion Articles you want to read View articles about World News, Politics, Economic News and more Don Spatz Why adopt Canadas failed health-care system City Council last week turned down, but barely, support for one of the so-called single-payer health-care bills floating around in the ether of Harrisburg Single-payer health care has failed in every other country Single-payer health care has failed in every other country that has tried it Canada controls health costs by forcing patients to wait months for MRI scans and cardiac surgeries US health care lies about Canada – Diane Francis However the US government under Comrade Obama is going in the canadianfailed direction Americans are trashing Canadian health care, not because they want to make our care better
I refuse to respond any stupid personal attack like yours.
You are "the people", right? Did you truly understand the issues involved or just being a copy cat????