CNN: Among opposition to health care law, 13 percent say it's not liberal enough (updated)

[ProSense]

Health care legislation remains unpopular, poll says

(CNN) - A majority of Americans favor President Obama's proposal on tax cuts, but his health care bill remains unpopular, a new CNN/Opinion Research Survey suggests.

<...>

On health care, the new law remains unpopular, partly because of the new mandate that all Americans must have health insurance (56 percent oppose the mandate). Other provisions in the new bill are popular, however. Nearly six in ten, for example, favor restrictions on insurance companies that require them to cover people who become seriously ill or who have a pre-existing condition.

Overall, 56 percent oppose the new law, but not all of that opposition is likely to turn into votes against Democrats in November. Among those who oppose the legislation, 41 percent oppose the health care law because it is too liberal. But another 13 percent oppose the law because it was not liberal enough.

"That second group may not vote at all this year, but most of them are likely to be too liberal to vote Republican this fall," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

more

PDF

Got it: 41 percent of the opposition says it goes too far. That means the rest (53 percent, not including 6 percent who have no opinion) accept it or want stronger reforms.


Updated to add this from Greg Sargent:

Ya think this might be a political winner for Dems? A new CNN poll finds that less than a third support extending all the Bush tax cuts, while 58 percent support ending them for the rich, and another 18 percent back ending all the tax cuts.

Apparently, the GOP message isn't having an impact.

[Enrique]

1. that's the same 13% that knows Obama is a Christian

the 13% that is paying attention.

[denimgirly]

2. Stockholm Syndrome, Brainwashed, or just plain Dumb...

Seeing as how only 13% think its not liberal enough it goes to show you how much either the media has control over what the people should think, or how much the vast majority enjoy the abuse they receive on a daily basis in a country with one of the worst medical care in the world. This so called healthcare reform is pretty crappy...it dos have some nice things but without real control over cost or competition then the problem isnt solved and prices will rise. Over 80% of the public wanted a public option but democrats refused to put it in because it would upset the corporate establishment...but now they, the public, are now being told it is good not to have competition, and they are agreeing with that illogic at a tune of 56%...wtf? Bravo...America is a country of the dumb.

[ProSense]

5. There are so many incongruities in this statement

This so called healthcare reform is pretty crappy...it dos have some nice things but without real control over cost or competition then the problem isnt solved and prices will rise. Over 80% of the public wanted a public option but democrats refused to put it in because it would upset the corporate establishment.

It's "crappy" with good things and a public option that would have covered 10 million people in it's most robust form (the current proposal by Woolsey increases to 13 million) was the elixir to "crappy."

Well, no. The bill isn't crappy, a public option would be welcomed and add more competition, but the bill, the comprehensive reforms go much farther to change the health care system than simply introducing a limited public option as an potential cost control measure.

[niceypoo]

8. Before the bill the US was number 37 in healthcare

After the bill, the US was 37th in health care. I suspect that next year we will be 37th, or even worse because the bill did nothing to stop price gouging. When we pass a true heath care bill, that #37 number will drop markedly. Until then it is all political, IMHO.

[Hansel]

15. The bulk of the bill does not go into effect until 2014.

I suspect there won't be much change until then so it's hard to make the case that something that hasn't been implemented isn't working.

The fact that you left this significant fact out for whatever reason makes your claim that the bill did nothing to stop price gouging less credible.

[karynnj]

3. Their assumption that the liberals would not vote is likely wrong

That is likely the dominant position on this board. Yet, it is a small minority who say they won't vote. I suspect that these are among the most active Democrats there are. In addition, I bet that a significant portion of them are in the bluest Congressional districts. THEIR representatives may be among the most progressive and liberal. It is their representative and possibly a Senator (or if NY or CO, two) on the ballot.

The 41% is the more important number and I hope that falls as people learn more.

[Vinca]

4. They actually interrupted their mosque programming on Morning Joe

to talk about how 60% are opposed to the health care bill and they said one of the biggest reasons was that it does not control costs. Which is true. Big insurance is currently trying to convince their overseers that everything from the CEO's salary on down constitutes "medical care." So much for that 85% of premium dollars must be spent on actual health services. Maybe it's all got to go even further to hell before we get bona fide reform in this country.

[ProSense]

6. Really?

"60% are opposed to the health care bill and they said one of the biggest reasons was that it does not control costs. Which is true."

The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls.

[Vinca]

7. I'm just telling you what they said on the show.

[Milo_Bloom]

9. That is completely wrong.

I actually know several people who fall into the category of thinking the mandate is far too liberal and that there isn't nearly enough controls on price, since there are so many loopholes that allow the companies to raise prices as much as they want with no consequences.

You need to understand the real definition of what some people think is too liberal about the bill (government mandating action by private citizens to contract with a private company).

Many of the people who think this is "big government out of control" also acknowledge the need for common sense regulation of necessities.

[ProSense]

10. The poll is completely wrong

because you know some people?

[TheKentuckian]

11. The thing is too liberal/not liberal enough aren't getting you insight on what the problems with the

law are.

I'm also curious who the massive amount of Goldilocks are. I can't think of a soul who actually thinks this reform is just right. That's sandbagging to prop up approval or just have no clue. There is no doubt a fair chunk that accept it but we know little more than that.

Hell, we aren't sure how many have no position but lockstep with each party. I suspect at least 40% of the active electorate would support their party on literally ANY legislation and about as many would reject any policy, regardless of content, written by their opposition.

Its probably much higher. I think around 90% of the electorate is locked and the 10% isn't the middle but a mix of never know and can't be bothered to find out and a variety of biconceptuals who believe all kinds of stuff on an individual basis.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. No, your interpretation of the poll is completely wrong.

[ProSense]

14. Really?

So you think the 59 percent and 58 percent responding to the second and third questions don't accept parts of the bill?

Notice the 41 percent hasn't changed, but the no opinion has.

The 41 percent likely want the bill scrapped as opposed to the 13 percent who want it strengthened. Among the 13 percent, are those who want the mandate scrapped as the response to the first question above mirrors the overall numbers.

Still, with only 41 percent claiming the bill is too liberal, it's a safe bet to say that most people do not want the entire bill scrapped.

In fact, there are likely those who want the mandate scrapped who would be OK with it if a public option was included.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

17. Can you prove that they do?

Can you prove that people who believe the bill is too liberal care about cost controls, especially when they oppose the mandate, ending rescission and the ban on dropping people for having a pre-existing condition?

I offered my opinion. Can you prove that it's "completely wrong" to say they don't care about cost controls?

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Yes, I can prove it and I did.

By offering SPECIFIC EXAMPLES that contradict your incorrect claim, "The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls"

You made a blanket statement, "The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls"

Not only did I offer an example from personal experience, proving the statement incorrect, I also explained these people's reasoning.

So, again, this statement, "The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls" is completely wrong.

[ProSense]

22. "Not only did I offer an example from personal experience, proving the statement incorrect"

So if someone offers a personal example of people getting hired this week, the unemployment numbers are wrong?

[Milo_Bloom]

23. Way to completely miss the point... again.

You made a blanket statement, "The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls" with no qualification.

According to you, all 41% of the people who oppose the bill don't care about cost controls... no qualification, no exceptions.

You are proven wrong by reality and the fact that you have no way to prove your statement, while I have proven mine.

The unemployment numbers include new hires and new fires, thus, showing someone was hired doens't prove that OTHER people weren't fired.

[ProSense]

25. "You are proven wrong by reality" What reality

yours or this?

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Proven wrong by the fact that your statement is factually incorrect.

You made a wild assumption about what people who think a certain thing thing about another thing.

Your claim is that people who opposite the bill, claiming it is too liberal, "don't care about cost controls"

That statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by reality.

[ProSense]

30. "That statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by reality."

Do you have a link or anything illustrating this "reality"?

Facts, data, an article, anything that shows that the 41% cares about cost controls?

In fact, while this is not the same poll, here is a poll showing that 24 percent of respondents believe the cost controls go too far:




Now unless you agree with that claim, it's likely that my point about the 41 percent runs closer to the actual reality.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Yes.

Go two posts up, where I posted my experience with actual people who prove your statement false.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. That dooshbag Joe still has a show? With Mika Mouse?

Fuck me.

Thankfully I never wake up early enough to watch that crappy show. I don't even really watch news on TV anymore anyways.

[depakid]

18. What a stupid and utterly worthless poll.

What is "liberal enough?"

:crazy:

"Hello, Aetna? Can I has more liberal health plan please?"

:rofl:

CNN- Manipulating Americans and insulting their' intelligence every day.

[ProSense]

19. "What is "liberal enough?"

You don't know?

You don't know the difference between Republican and Democratic proposals?

What about all the time when the people say the administrations plans don't go far enough? Do you think they mean far enough for conservatives?

[JoePhilly]

51. I've been describing this for weeks ....

My sense has been that ....

~40% (right wing) OPPOSE HCR and claim it "goes too far".

~40% (middle-left) SUPPORT HCR "as-is" seeing it as movement in the right direction, even if still imperfect.

~13% (left) OPPOSE HCR and claim it "doesn't go far enough".

That leaves ~7% who wait to hear what the media has to say.

The media, adds the 40% and 13% who OPPOSE it, gets 53%, and claims that the "majority" think "it goes to far".

The 7% drifts over to OPPOSE, and if asked, they say it probably goes too far.

[depakid]

65. I'm interested in effective public policy and solving problems

As everyone should be.

Americans have gotten off the track with that- divided themselves with bully bully one team or another.

Time's long since past to change that frame.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. I don't think he really knows what he posts...

He just finds articles that he believes are pro-obama and posts them without reading them.

It becomes very clear when you question him on any of his facts.

[ProSense]

28. "He just finds articles that he believes are pro-obama and posts them without reading them."

I'm a she, and I read. Try it sometimes, it may cure the aversion to positive information about the President and his administration.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. Then why do you make so many factual mistakes and misquote the articles you post?

[Jakes Progress]

31. And never answer questions about what he thinks about them.

[ProSense]

33. And since you're agreeing, care to point out the "factual mistakes" and the "misquote"?

I think some people get pissed off when they see information that runs counter to the negative BS. When they can't find a way to poke holes in the information, they make up stuff to try to attack people's credibility.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. Some factual mistakes.

You statement above that the 41% of people who believe the plan is too liberal don't care about cost cutting is a factual mistake as proven by personal experiences posted, yet for some reason you still try to cling to this ridiculous incorrect statement.

The other day you assigned an incorrect meaning to Michael Moore's use of the term "professional left", but failed to acknowledge it when it was pointed out to you, but instead kept deflecting from the assertion.

The other day when asked to show 1 education job for this upcoming year that was saved by the education bill, you kept linking to the same article that stated EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. You selectively quoted about 715 teachers who were being recalled, but continually failed to acknowledge the rest of the quote that these recalls were due to higher numbers of RETIREMENTS and had NOTHING to do with the education bill.

One just has to google your name and DU to find dozens of times you are corrected, but link to articles that state the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.

The only reasonable assumption is that you don't actually READ the articles to which you are posting or you are deliberately misquoting them, hoping no one bothers to read them.

[ProSense]

36. Again,

my opinion is not a factual mistake and your opinion isn't a fact.

"One just has to google your name and DU to find dozens of times you are corrected"

You mean like you're trying to "correct" me here, by disagreeing with a statement and claiming that your opinion is a fact.

Who Googles people's screen names?

[Milo_Bloom]

38. I love how your factual statement becomes OPINION when proven wrong.

"The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls. "

That is not presented as an opinion. No statement of belief, I believe the 41%... I think the 41%...

Nope, presented as a factual statement.

I, on the other hand, didn't offer ANY OPINION. I offered ACTUAL STATEMENTS OF FACTS.

Actual statements from actual people about their beliefs and why they hold those beliefs.

[ProSense]

39. They don't care, and it was always an opinion.

It's called deductive reasoning. Republicans are generally opposed to cost controls, like a public option or anything they see as too much government interference. Most of 41 percent who think the bill is too liberal are likely conservatives.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Very poorly reasoned.

And I love the change, from "The 41% who oppose the bill as being too liberal don't care about cost controls. to "Most of 41 percent who think the bill is too liberal are likely conservatives. "

We are slowly making some progress here.

Okay, but let's get back to the very poor reasoning. The first problem is that you interchange conservative and republican as if they are one and the same... they aren't. There are conservative democrats and liberal republicans and lots of people who are NEITHER.

Some CONSERVATIVES don't have problems with cost controls, while others do. It depends on the TYPE of cost control. Tort reform is a form of COST CONTROL that most conservatives LOVE. While liberals often don't like Tort reform, saying it is ineffective as a cost control.

The problem with your incorrect blanket statement and reasoning is that you are assuming that the people are completely uneducated and either love or hate the bill for very specific reasons.. however, if you stop and actually TALK to someone about the bill you will find even conservatives like some of the supposed "cost controls" (such as the exchanges) and liberals don't like some of the "cost controls" (such as the mandate or the lack of a public option).

Like with most of your posts, you are trying to manufacture an outcome... you want a poll that states that most people oppose the bill to actually state that most people really support what the bill is about. However, that simply isn't the case because you incorrectly ASSUME the motivations for the positions people take.

[ProSense]

41. Interesting argument:

Some CONSERVATIVES don't have problems with cost controls, while others do. It depends on the TYPE of cost control. Tort reform is a form of COST CONTROL that most conservatives LOVE. While liberals often don't like Tort reform, saying it is ineffective as a cost control.

So you agree that conservatives have a problem with cost controls, especially ones that are perceived as liberal? I never said that conservatives don't have their own version of what they think works.

On edit, let me bold the specific statement as not to confuse you.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Incorrect.

"So you agree that conservatives have a problem with cost controls"

Again you forget to use qualifiers and wind up making another false statement.

Your statement implies that I said ALL conservatives have a problem with ALL cost controls. The reality is that ALL conservatives and ALL liberals have problems with SOME cost controls.

But once again, this is your general tactic when you are caught making false statements or misquoting the articles you are posting... you try and change the subject to some other completely separate point to try and regain some control of the discussion.

It would be so much easier if you would just admit when you are wrong or misquoted an article.

[ProSense]

43. Actually, it's correct

"Your statement implies that I said ALL conservatives have a problem with ALL cost controls. The reality is that ALL conservatives and ALL liberals have problems with SOME cost controls."

It does in the context of this discussion, which is about a bill that is too liberal. You said:

Some CONSERVATIVES don't have problems with cost controls, while others do. It depends on the TYPE of cost control. Tort reform is a form of COST CONTROL that most conservatives LOVE. While liberals often don't like Tort reform, saying it is ineffective as a cost control.

I said: So you agree that conservatives have a problem with cost controls, especially ones that are perceived as liberal? I never said that conservatives don't have their own version of what they think works.

Look at tax cuts for example: Democrats oppose the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy as ineffective. They support middle class tax cuts as stimulative. Republicans don't agree, and reality proves the Republicans wrong.

The same with the cost controls. Conservatives opposing the health care bill because it's too liberal likely don't care about the cost control measures in the bill, and there is evidence of that.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Sorry, but no.

First, you still can't have it both ways... Qualified statements do not become absolutes based on the context YOU want to assign to them.

Second, you still ignore the fact that you have 0 proof of who is opposing the cost controls and why. A link to a completely different poll which states that 24% of people think the cost controls go too far doesn't prove your fact turned opinion that you are trying to turn back to fact that the 41% of people who say this bill is "too liberal" are opposed to the cost controls.

Third, I do love the way you keep adding new qualifiers in.. last time it was well, MOST of the 41% probably... now it's, "likely don't care about the cost control measures in the bill". If you keep backing down maybe I will forget your original completely unqualified statement of fact, which later changed to opinion and you are trying to change back to a fact.

Finally, what you also keep ignoring that is YOUR definition of LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE is based SOLELY on POLITICAL AFFILIATION and not actual MEANING assigned to the words.

In essence.. could a LIBERAL think the bill is TOO LIBERAL? What if that LIBERAL thinks the government mandating them to contract with a private company is government going TOO FAR?

Could a LIBERAL be against the cost cutting measures in the bill? What if that LIBERAL thinks that the cost cutting measures are completely ineffective and the health insurance companies will get around them too easily?

You even make the crazy statements that LIBERALS would be okay with the mandate IF there was a public option. Maybe for SOME LIBERALS, but not for ALL LIBERALS.

This is why you keep getting called out and proven wrong in so many posts.. You try to speak in absolutes and when people prove that it isn't so, you either take UNRELATED links (such as a different poll that doesn't prove your point) or just take parts of a quote from an article (such as 705 teachers being recalled due to retirement and not an education bill) and try to relate them in an attempt to bolster your absolute statement which was simply incorrect in the first place.

[ProSense]

45. "Qualified statements do not become absolutes based on the context YOU want to assign to them."

The statement was about the poll, and that defines the context.

What you are attempting to do is introduce hypotheticals and variables about the statement to make an absolute point.

The point is about the poll in the OP, which is about the health care bill.

"A link to a completely different poll which states that 24% of people think the cost controls go too far doesn't prove your fact turned opinion that you are trying to turn back to fact that the 41% of people who say this bill is "too liberal" are opposed to the cost controls."

Yeah, a link to a completely different poll is irrelevant because it proves you wrong. Do you suppose that the 24 percent that say the cost controls go too far care about cost controls? Do you believe the cost controls go to far? Actually, do you believe the bill includes cost controls?

"This is why you keep getting called out and proven wrong in so many posts."

For someone who can't prove a point, you sure are hung up on making this point.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

48. Really?

"Since you have no idea about the variables in the poll, you shouldn't have tried to make an absolute statement"

You don't like the statements I made so I shouldn't make them, and consider your opinions to be the facts because you know people?

The reason you need to keep restating your strawman claim is because you believe it bolsters your point, which has yet to prove my statement inaccurate.

[Milo_Bloom]

50. No strawman... reality.

You made an absolute statement, changed it to an opinion, then tried to prove it as fact by trying to claim a different poll that said something completely different actually added to your argument.

Just face the fact that your statement was wrong.

[ProSense]

32. Where are the factual mistakes and misquotes? n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Factual Mistakes and Misquotes

You statement above that the 41% of people who believe the plan is too liberal don't care about cost cutting is a factual mistake as proven by personal experiences posted, yet for some reason you still try to cling to this ridiculous incorrect statement.

Your recent claim that link to a poll that says 24% of people believe the cost cutting measures are too much somehow supports the absurd notion that the 41% who believe the plan is too liberal automatically are AGAINST the cost cutting measures. There is no actual relationship between these two points.

The other day you assigned an incorrect meaning to Michael Moore's use of the term "professional left", but failed to acknowledge it when it was pointed out to you, but instead kept deflecting from the assertion.

The other day when asked to show 1 education job for this upcoming year that was saved by the education bill, you kept linking to the same article that stated EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. You selectively quoted about 715 teachers who were being recalled, but continually failed to acknowledge the rest of the quote that these recalls were due to higher numbers of RETIREMENTS and had NOTHING to do with the education bill.

Shown a link to a New York times article showcasing Gibbs part in a group that ran an attack ad against Howard Dean using images of Osama Bin Laden, you bafflingly still claimed that didn't prove Gibbs' association with the group.

When shown over and over again that the 11.5 million jobs number was pure nonsense and you even could only PROVE 600,000 jobs, you STILL clung to the 11.5 million jobs number based on phony, disproven projections.

[ProSense]

58. "You statement above

...that the 41% of people who believe the plan is too liberal don't care about cost cutting is a factual mistake as proven by personal experiences posted, yet for some reason you still try to cling to this ridiculous incorrect statement."


Repeat

As for this: "The other day you assigned an incorrect meaning to Michael Moore's use of the term "professional left", but failed to acknowledge it when it was pointed out to you, but instead kept deflecting from the assertion."

It as simply another desperate fail by someone who couldn't face the facts.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. Citing your own debunked links doesn't suddenly make them valid.

Yes, citing personal experience is 100% proof that your statement is incorrect. That's just reality. When you make an absolute statement of fact/opinion/fact and ones personal experience contradict your fact/opinion/fact, your fact/opinion/fact is thus incorrect.

Your inability to distinguish between the different meanings of "professional left" in how it was used by Gibbs and Moore in two different settings remains ANOTHER in a long line of factual mistakes that you refuse to acknowledge.

What I really love is how you ignore the other factual mistakes. Still can't admit those teachers were rehired due to RETIREMENT, can you?

[ProSense]

60. Can you stop pretending

you are making valid points?

Willow Grove Hopes to Hire Back Two Teachers with Stimulus Money

More facts.

Even the NEA is getting in on the action.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. Thank you for proving my point so well!

This is absolute proof you don't read your links. Here is the quote from your link that you claim shows someone being hired.

"Welch just learned she has been recalled due to retirements and attrition but is anxiously hoping other laid-off colleagues, as well as Ms. Van Ness, will benefit from the funding. "

ANXIOUSLY HOPING is not someone being hired. It is OPPOSITE. In fact, the only hired person in your link is from RETIREMENT. FAIL #1


You didn't even read your second link TITLE. Willow Grove HOPES... NO ONE has been hired. They HOPE. FAIL #2

The third again.. is about POSSIBILITIES and HOPES.. NO ACTUAL HIRES. FAIL #3

And your final link shows EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you want it to say. "Thwarting the law’s intent, politicians from Vermont to California said they believe next year’s budget will be even harder for them to manage and they’re considering holding onto the money — intended to help students heading back to schools this fall — for a year or more"

FAIL #4.


As I said and you have again proven... you are known for misquoting facts and not reading your own links.

[ProSense]

62. "ANXIOUSLY HOPING is not someone being hired." You know what it definitely isn't:

claiming that no teachers will be hired or that they can't be.

Willow Grove Hopes to Hire Back Two Teachers with Stimulus Money

[Milo_Bloom]

63. HOPES AND DREAMS are not REALITY.

Oh if only they were.

[ProSense]

26. Insecurity? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. My experience has been that most people in favor of the bill

don't know what's in it. They THINK it's Canadian-style or British-style health care, simply because that's the way the right-wing has been playing it.

Thinking it's single-payer, they either oppose it (the Tea Party) or are for it (liberal but uninformed).

The ones who actually know the details are unhappy, either because they mistakenly think that mandates to buy private insurance are "liberal" or because they would prefer single payer.

I suggest asking people what they think about the health care bill (for or against) and THEN ask them to describe it. Most will not be able to give an accurate description, and that includes the average Democrat.

[Mimosa]

47. You're right, Lydia

Before the mess was passed and even afterwards I've been surprised that quite a few conservatives were disappointed by the bill because it didn't go far enough yet has a mandate to force us to buy health insurance from the same old vultures.

BTW, CNN polls are hardly scientific.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Just for example, I was at a birthday party last year, sitting at a table

with some people I knew, and they started talking about how horrible the opposition to HCR was, because we needed to have "health care like they have in Europe."

It was news to them that we were getting no such thing.

[ProSense]

52. Interesting summary of the arguments in this thread

Summary of both arguments: People who approve the bill don't know what's in it and are surprised to learn that we are not getting a European-like health system, but the people who disapprove of the bill because it's too liberal are concerned that the price controls aren't strong enough.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

53. The public would like a single payer

[Milo_Bloom]

54. At this point, I think the public would just like honesty.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. whenever has a politician been honest?

I think they would like a healthcare system that doesn't fleece them ie. uses their ill health for profit!

[Milo_Bloom]

57. I wish that were true!

Most people in this country are fooled into believing that FOR PROFIT = BETTER because people work harder when there is profit in it for them. All the studies I saw showed that people wanted a hybrid system, where a for profit health care system COMPETES with a government run system. People in America always want to know they have to option to go to the best "X" money can buy and they will cower in fear if you threaten to take that away from them.

The honesty I am referring to in this case is honesty about what REALLY is in the bill and the REAL impact of it. Right now all we are getting is hot air out of both sides. The media used to play this roll, once upon a time, but the media has now been reduced to organized punditry, where they simply state talking points.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. yes there should be leeway for the Doubting Thomas's

Some people would fear a government run health system because they are in doctrinated by the right and the media. In the UK people can buy health insurance eg. BUPA, on top of the NHS. What this government needs to do is say 'look we can have a national/state health system but you can opt out if you want but still come back to us if your insurance company is mean.' Not the other way round where you HAVE to have health insurance but no government run healthcare unless you are old or in need of Medicaid. What bugs me is why is everything so slow with healthcare but for war it is decided on the spot?