Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Health Care (Kaiser 1/7-12)

Topics: poll

Kaiser Family Foudnation
1/7-12/10; 2,002 adults, 3% margin of error
Note: Most questions based on half sample, 4% margin of error
(Kaiser: summary, toplines)

National

Kaiser:

The January Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, conducted before the Massachusetts Senate vote, finds opinion is divided when it comes to the hotly debated legislation, with 42 percent supporting the proposals in the Congress, 41 percent opposing them and 16 percent withholding judgment. However, a different and more positive picture emerged when we examined the public's awareness of, and reactions to, major provisions included in the bills. Majorities reported feeling more favorable toward the proposed legislation after learning about many of the key elements, with the notable exceptions of the individual mandate and the overall price tag.

For example, after hearing that tax credits would be available to small businesses that want to offer coverage to their employees, 73 percent said it made them more supportive of the legislation. Sixty-seven percent said they were more supportive when they heard that the legislation included health insurance exchanges, and 63 percent felt that way after being told that people could no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Sixty percent were more supportive after hearing that the legislation would help close the Medicare "doughnut hole" so that seniors would no longer face a period of having to pay the full cost of their medicines. Of the 27 elements of the legislation tested in the poll, 17 moved a majority to feel more positively about the bills and two moved a majority to be more negative.

Which comes closer to describing your own views? Given the serious economic problems facing the country we cannot afford to take on health care reform right now OR it is more important
than ever to take on health care reform now?

54% Take on now
39% Cannot afford

As of right now, do you generally support or generally oppose the health care proposals being discussed in Congress?
42% Support, 41% Oppose (chart)

Do you think _____ would be better off or worse off if the president and Congress passed health care reform, or don't you think it would make much difference?
You and your family: 32% Better off, 33% Worse off, 29% No difference
The country as a whole: 42% Better off, 37% Worse off, 12% No difference

As far as you know, is the health reform bill currently being discussed in Congress expected to increase the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, decrease the deficit over the next
ten years, or is it not expected to have much impact on the deficit?

60% Increase, 15% Decrease, 17% No impact

 

Comments
farleftandproud:

This is still what the voters want. The reason health care support has collapsed is that most people don't understand our political system and think that it doesn't take 60 votes to stop a fillibuster. I can't possibly understand why the Democrats want to commit a mass political suicide by delaying health care. I just heard Chris Dodd wants to delay it for a month. I didn't believe what I heard. I think the Dems need to put on their boxing gloves, because if they don't "stand for something" they will "fall for anything". That was from an old John Mellencamp song. "the american people pay a high price for justice and noone ever seems to know why". That sums it up.

____________________

Stillow:

Uhhh, you guys had your boxing gloves on and were fighting hard....and you just got knocked out in the 12th round by those voters who you claim want what your selling.....

____________________

al of arabia:

@fl&P

Keep at it. That's right - the problem is that you're just not pushing HCR hard emough (because the great unwashed are soooo stewpid). Yea, that's the ticket. ;-)

____________________

farleftandproud:

Until I see a miraculous decrease in costs, a decrease in the number of uninsured, I have no reason to give up fighting for healthcare. It has been an issue I have strongly believed in even before I decided which I political party I wanted to be part of.I am not saying it has to be single payer, but I need to see a concrete plan signed into writing that will not deny people of pre-existing conditions and cut costs. I really don't think that is too much to ask.

America can afford a lot of other things that I don't see as a necessity to survive. I don't believe fighting wars overseas is going to end up being worth the costs we have put into it.

Democrats will spend tons of money to try to out do the Republicans in campaign ads. Again that money isn't going to improve people's lives and provide preventive care to 60 million Americans.

I wish the BBC and European stations come over to the US to interview the uninsured and just focus on the third world nation, in many respects we have become. As De'Toqueville the great French Philosopher said, "America is great because America is being good" "When America stops being good, it stops being great". That is how I feel about the misuse of our money, and funds, and don't really put top priorities first.

____________________

Stillow:

I hear what you are saying....but myself and most americans realzie that the HCR bill the Dems had would increase costs, not decrease them. It would increase premiums, not decrease them. It would raise taxes big time on people who are already in really hard times.

MA election was a wake up call to Dems to do it better and to do it right. Put together a bill that actually makes sense and not 2700 pages of jibberish.

Dmes have some hard ball options like reconciliation, but if they do that, then when the GOp takes contro lfo congress they will simply use reconciliation to repeal the damage.

Take a breath, start this ove rand do it right......get all aspects of rHCR in there...from tort reform to pre existing conditions. A bad bill is NOT better than no bill.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Raising taxes on the very rich was something Obama promised, but I still havent seen evidence that the health bill in it's form would raise taxes on Families making under 250,000 a year. Obama never included businesses in that campaign promise. From a conservative point of view most taxes are evil and wrong, and that is why us progressives have a tough time convincing people, but in the long run Americans will lose far more in risking high medical costs someday and going bankrupt than they would by providing affordabl health insurance, or even a insurance co-op. The public option is dead, so government health care isn't going to happen. I don't see what is wrong with insurance co-ops. It would be a good start. The more people who sign up for a policy the less expensive it is. The only one who will hurt by these more practical reforms will be big pharma and the big insurance. The politicians and their momentum and lack of human concern is gone, but the problems still exist and will only get worse until something is done about the crisis.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Stillow: Thanks for the comment, at least you are concerned and hopefully some moderates in the GOP will work with the president on this issue, so the path to covering more Americans will be reached, regardless how it is done. I am just tired of politicans like Jim Demint that call denying people affordable health care Obama's Waterloo; Scott Brown signing his name Brown 41. That is a real insult to the 20 percent of Americans who are uninsured.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The costs are increasing regardless and the bill was going to lower the deficit somewhat. The way it's going, health care costs will overwhelm the budget in 20 years or less, at the same time the costs for a family of 4 will double. That's why comprehensive reform is needed. Just getting rid of pre-existing conditions alone, while most people agree with that (although lots of Republicans don't) and it eliminates some unfairness in the system, will exacerbate the problem long term.

They are not going to "start over." It's over and done with. Republicans have other priorities that take precedence over health care. I know you have health care, Stillow, but lots of people don't. I have it too, but it's not nearly as good as yours. If I have a serious sickness, the debt I will incur combined with my student debt will destroy me. Then I'll be on medicaid and you can pay for my health care.

You know as well as I do this will not be touched by Obama ever again, nor the next president in 2012 or 2016 because even addressing the issue is toxic. The tea parties and angry townhalls were going on before the details of the bill were even worked out.

Perhaps the president after that.

____________________

Stillow:

farleft - First the figure is not 20 percent that are uninsured...its more like 5 percent. There's about 12-15 million people who are genuinely unable to get insurnace. I do not count those who can afford to buy it but choose not to, thats not my problem. And I also do not support isnuring illegal immigrants.

aaron - for the millionth time yes comprehensive reform is needed, but that is not what the Dmes tried to give us. Poll doctors on what one of the major items is driving up ther ecosts they will tell you frivilous lawsuits. Dems didn't evne address tort. Nor did they address several other common sense sense ways to reduce costs....and we all know why they did not address tort, because they need the trial lawyers money during there campaigns....so it was all politics in this bill.

Thats wha tMA told you....they didnt tell you they want to kill HCR, Brown ran on stopping the Dems current HCR plan....but he said and made it quite clear he supports reform, but reform that makes sense and addresses the entire problem.......Putting words on paper and calling it HCR does not make it so.

____________________

Field Marshal:

For the $1.5 trillion that this bill cost, you could insure millions of people for the decade rather then institute this garbage bill.

We do need to get everyone who wants health insurance some sort of coverage.

I would be willing to concede the public option as long as its domiciled by the state so it cannot run up billions in deficits each year and put out of business private insurance.

Tort reform definitely has to be on the table as well as pre-existing conditions and the standardization of the insurance market to allow people to purchase across state lines.

But the 800 lb gorilla in the room is Medicare. Medicare is one of the primary reasons for the rise in health insurance premiums. They need to raise the age of attainment from 65 to 75 for people under 45 and to 80 for people under 30.

HSAs are the real way to combat rising costs. If people have to pay for using health care services, then they will ration it themselves. The Safeway and Whole Foods model is the way to go. Whole Foods insurance costs have risen at half the national average. Its no coincidence.

____________________

Xenobion:

17 million is the most conservative estimate of the uninsured. I find that number to be pretty unreflective of the unemployement climate and the fact that most people have expired their COBRA coverage if they even got it. Estimates are at 47 million which is like 18% and combines unemployment figures and those that just don't get HC.

Essentially 1 in 5 Americans have no feasible way of paying for their medical costs. Republicans essentially have nothing on the table to allieviate this number of essentially third world coverage. People say if they control costs that then businesses can offer more coverage which only helps those that are employed and only some of those that are employed at that. The model is a failure from its original conception of the 1930's. We offer some of the best most expensive care to those who have it and that's why most Americans are so satisfied with their care.

I wish Republicans would just come out and say that they really don't care about those who are uninsured rather than balk at costs as an out. Just say it cowards.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"I wish Republicans would just come out and say that they really don't care about those who are uninsured rather than balk at costs as an out. Just say it cowards."

YEAH!! And i wish they would just come out and say they dont like black people or atheists or gays and whatever other populist pathetic rant the typical lib idiot has.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Just Texas Alone is 29 percent, so even my most conservative estimate of uninsured is no less than 15 percent. You can google it if you want and you'll find it from several sources. It is listed by state.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Field Marshall they have already said they don't like gays. Conservative Saxby Chambliss said on TV, that repealing don't ask don't tell would be a travesty to our culture, even though 70 percent of Americans think we should. Trent Lott was proud of voting for Strom Thurmond for president. 3 of Obama's nominees who Jim Demint has opposed were black? Obama did get some far left nominees through congress, so I don't think it is just a coincidence.

____________________

Xenobion:

Well they've already said they don't like black people, aethists, or gays. I mean I can get you the quotes of any particular Republican senator to reflect thier personal views to the Republican Party as a whole. I mean I already know they don't really care for poor people. I just figure there must be some somewhat middle class people that don't have HCR so they can say they don't care about them either.

____________________

farleftandproud:

No black people other than Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Condie Rice and That guy Keyes.

____________________

farleftandproud:

I am waiting for the new Senator elect Brown from mass use the phrase "the democrat party". That would be hillarious.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Well they've already said they don't like black people, aethists, or gays. I mean I can get you the quotes of any particular Republican senator to reflect thier personal views to the Republican Party as a whole."

And i could do the same for the Democratic party. Remember Reid just the other day? But i guess its only racist, bigoted, and biased if a Republican says it, right? Pleasee.... you guys are really hurting, huh?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Poll doctors on what one of the major items is driving up ther ecosts they will tell you frivilous lawsuits."

Texas has tort reform as well as 19 other states and the costs are still high. Laywers find ways around that stuff. But if it were me I'd put it in the bill.

"HSAs are the real way to combat rising costs."

Really? I have an HSA, it has around $2K in it, which is 1/5 of my deductible. At the rate I can contribute, it'll take 7-10 more years to build it up to cover it. In the meantime, I'd better hope to God I don't get sick or it's all for naught.

Medical care does not follow the rules of the rational market. If you have a disease, you want to cure it, NOW and with THE BEST doctors and facilities possible. It's different thatn other commodities, unless you believe that your wealth should determine your quality of care. That seems morally reprehensible to me. Essentially you're saying that a richer person has a greater right to life than a poorer one. We're not talking cars or TVs or clothes even houses, where lower quality still provides the needed function, just with less luxury.

You don't try to shop around to find a bargain, there may not be time for that. People under duress often make very irrational decisions if you look at it with a long-term perspective.

If your child was in an accident, would you call around and find out which emergency room's fees are the least? No, you'd rush him or her with all your might to the nearest place of treatment, damn the costs.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,
The is the same mundane argument liberals always use. "If i'm in an accident, will i shop around". Seriously, you guys are like robots repeating the same idiotic comments over and over. Less than 1% of care is done on an "emergency basis" so obviously people who are in an accident arent going to shop around.

As far as the HSAs go. They do work. But when only 1% of the nation have them and shop around and the other 99% have "free" health care that they use for every scrape and cough, it wont work.

Tort reform in most states simply caps the pay out limit. It doesn't prevent people from suing for no reason which, even if the doctor wins (WSJ had the statistic that 99% of all malpractice lawsuits are won by the doctor), they still have to pay lawyers fees increasing the cost of business.

____________________

Stillow:

Ok, I give up! Liberals are totally right......on behalf of all conservatives I admit the following........liberals are 100 percent correct.

Conservatives:

Hate old people and want them to die
Hate young people and want them to die
Hate sick people and want them to die
Hate blacks, browns, asians and ayone who is not of white skin and of christain faith
We hate the enviroment
We want all trees to die, all oceans to try up and all land to be covered in fitlhand waste rpoducts
We hate the handicapped
We hate science and all all forms of education
We hat gays and want them to die
We hate all animals and only wish to abuse them pysically and mentally
We despise women, we don't want them to die, but we want them in there place, barefoot and pregnant cooing us dinner
We want total corporate control over the earth
We want to bring back slavery
We want to kill the poor and needy

I admit it, its all true. I must thank you liberals for convincing me that speaking the truth is the way to go. Thank you form the bottom of my dark black ice water pumping heart.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"As far as the HSAs go. They do work."

They work for people that have money. They don't work for people that are barely making it as it is.

"The is the same mundane argument liberals always use."

Well, what can I say? You're taking the morality out of it. If you look at it from an economic standpoint you are probably right. It's fair to say that we should have to pay for commodities, but medical care can be the difference between life and death, so it's not the same. It isn't like the difference between Perrier and tap water. When my dad needed an oncologist, we didn't ask what office had the cheapest cat scans, we asked what doctor was the best available. With health care, the bargain option may be a very poor choice.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Well, that's fine. If you want to make it a morality issue, than you can't complain about the cost issue. Because its immoral for someone else to decide what level of care (or whether they get any care at all) just as it is if someone cannot afford it.

Single payer makes every health care choice the bargain option. Bargain in terms of price and quality. And if there was single payer, then the best doctors/hospitals will become completely private and then only the truly wealthy will get good care and the overwhelming majority will get marginal to poor care.

At least in our current system, we have 80% of people with good care. We should be focusing on the 20%, not the whole thing.

____________________

Stillow:

Morality is not a constant. Its different to everyone. Some people find killing 35 million unborn babies to be immoral, others find it totally acceptable................

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

Couldn't have said it better myself. That was the essence of my first paragraph to Aaron.

____________________

Xenobion:

Abortion is a moral quandary for serveral reasons. Deciding whether or not to insure 20% of Americans to is not.

As it stands the Republican Health Care bill does not address these issues. Its just a case of the haves and have-nots. Who cares about the have-nots. Let them die.

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

Abortion is not a moral quandary in the least. There is not moral dilemma in murdering unborn child.

Its hysterical that you said that the murder of roughly 800,000 children a year is a "moral quandary" while having 15 million uninsured, WHO CAN STILL GET HEALTHCARE, is not.

____________________

Xenobion:

Uhhh if the mother's life is in danger there is a moral quandry. Its a classic ulitilitarian moralistic conflict.

And how do 20% of American's that have no insurance suddenly able to get healthcare?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yes, the mothers life being in danger is a moral quandary, so i pregnancy because of rape, but these are a handful out of nearly 1 million per year.

I can say the 20% of uninsured presents a moral quandary because the emergency room cannot reject them if sick. Thus, they get health care if they need it.

Actually, that makes more sense than your argument since there is no doubt that abortion is completely immoral except in less than 1% of instances and even then it simply moves into a dilemma category.

____________________

Xenobion:

You can't go to a hospital and get an operation. This is the type of right wing propaganda that's spouted by conservatives to have a clear conscious as they go to church.

The hospital only accepts emergency, life threatening cases after the fact. If you're dying of cancer you don't go in and get a cancer operation if you're uninsured. You get rushed to the hospital after you're hemoraging and frothing at the mouth. Yeah the system works!

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Is it moral to deny insurance because pregnancy can be considered a pre-existing condition?

It can cost $2000-5000 for an abortion I think? It can cost upwards of $20,000 for a birth.

In that case, if you don't have insurance, the abortion would be a better choice if you're thinking about long-term economic stability.

If you're going to be pro-life, you should be "whole life" as Rick Warren puts it, which means being prepared to provide for that child's health care, education, etc...

____________________

Stillow:

I already admitted to you guys, we conservatives want sick people to DIE!!!! If they do not die quickly we shoudl just KILL them. We need to round up all people of color, people over 65, under 18 and all gays and dispose of them. That is what you liberals claim we want, I will support it. Lets do it.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Oh Stillow, you're hyperbole is not getting anyone anywhere.

____________________

Stillow:

Aaron - that is TOTAL BS. When my kids were born it cost me about $1,500 for each of them. You know why? Cus the woman out there with 9 kids from 7 different fathers paid ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so sick of you libs taking some moral highground on issues like this. Is it moral to take my money which I earn and work for and give it to some idiot who dropped out of school, chooses to live off the system and whose only desire in life is making it to the first day of the month for his g'ment check? No its not.

Will I help people who "genuinely" need it and want it? YES! Will I help lazy bumbs who make certain life choices which reuslt in a lower quality of life? NO!

Why is it my job to pay for some idiot to have 10 kids and works at Taco Bell....why should I have to pay for that???????? There come s a point where you need to take responsibility for yourself. If you make $6 an hour then don't go have 10 kids or any kids for that matter until you can afford them. Its not my damn job to raise your kids, its YOURS! For people who fall on hard times, yes we need to give them a hand up....but qute frankly I don't give a damn about the guy down the road who lives is whole life on someone elses work and then gets sick and wants me to pay for it. Too bad.

I work to hard for what I have....I play by the rules and do what I can to provide for my family.

This liberal culture of gimme gimme gimme has to stop. Pay your own damn bills, get your grubby little hands out of my pockets. If you need help I will gladly help you, but don't ask me to take care of you forever and don't ask me to pay for your own stupid choices in life.

____________________

Xenobion:

Just let the children die, that's the natural way then even though its that idea of natural selection that evil Darwin guy came up with. Only then will responsibility be assurred. Its a harsh world out there and if you ever make bad decisions because you're some uneducated ghetto rat well bust out the shovel cause you're going to bury your kids till you learn. The liberal hand out culture has to stop. We don't need a DHS, foster system, ect. The market will do something with the kids I'm sure. The invisible hand will rock them to sleep.

I absolutely love this. This whole leave me alone, don't take my taxes, don't fund this service attitude. I'd seriously love to see Republican's reap such a harsh reality of a lower class that would essentially rock their world.

____________________

Stillow:

What do you want me to do X? You guys just keep taking and taking and taking and taking. When doe sit stop? Why am I punished for your stupidity? Why is the quality of my life lowered because some other idiot made his own bad choices? Where do you draw the line? At some point it has to end. All this take take take, gimme gimme gimme stuff will lead us to disaster. You keep taking from responsible people, they will have nothing left and everyone will be i nthe same boat.

Its not my job to pay your bills and run your life, its yours. I will help people who WANT to be helped, but I have zero sympathy for the guy who abuses the system.

You libs cannot jus tkeep taking and taking to pay for EVERYONES irresponsibility, that does not work.

All day I listen to people on my staff tell me they cant work, they cant do this or that...hell I have one girl on my staff who a few weeks ago brought me anote from her doctor saying she will be out for 3 months medical leave for STRESS. What the hell is that? Stress? So she gets company paid short term disability payment snow for STRESS.

I am so sick of paying all your bills. If it snot your car, the nits your house, if its not your house its your food, if it snot your food its your doctor....it never stops, it never ends. All you do is come back to me and take more and more..........the day will c9ome when no one is left to take from because you will have taken it all.......................

____________________

Xenobion:

You can nit-pick every single abuse of the system to make it look like it doesn't work but you'll never recognize what social programs exist that actually help people that need help. Many conservatives are so hell-bent on elminating waste in the system they are ready to scrap entire saftey nets for people.

Since Regan the poorest 20% of the Country have gone from owning about 12% of the Country's money to about 5%. Poverty is increasing for these people and its effectually harder to be poor in this Country than it was in the past. This money is being funneled into higher income quintiles essentially failing the "trickle down" effect that so many conservatives love to tout.

You wanna know why you're being punished? Because you live in a society that grants basic human rights and services for the overall benefit of the whole. Sounds socialist I know but every freaking modern country participates in it unless you live in Antartica on your own.

Honestly if its your porogative to let these people die or risk being robbed from them because they have absoltely nothing to lose then that's your choice. We are one of the most untaxed industrial nations in the world. You act as if you can't even get by. That's a joke compared to people out there.

Listening to these poor Bank CEO's that got their salary cut from 20 million to 10 million a year just makes me laugh. Does anyone do enough work to deserve such a salary? People get all up in arms about taxing the rich but you think they can manage? I think so, maybe one less golden yacht on the water for another person to live. That's redistribution baby, cause if we let things go in an unfettered Capitalistic system, you'd have England's Industrial revolution, black-lung, child labor, class-warfare going on.

Healthcare is not an irrepsonsibility. The current system doesn't allow even everyone to work and get Health Care, let alone ENOUGH care for them to get by. The private system has failed 20% of our population for our own benefit.

____________________

Stillow:

Its none of your business how much I earn. You didn' tanswer my question, what happens when the day comes that there's nothing to take cus you have taken it all? What will you do then?Untaxed????? I can't even keep track of all the different taxes I pay....then whe nI'm done paying thsoe I get to pay for your house or your doctor. Promoting the general welfare is not taking me down to my knees so so idiot can buy a new ipod with his g'ment check that month.

I "EARN".....what I have....in other words I WORK......and despite what your leftist mind tells you, I do not want to get rid of saftety nets, I will gladly help people who WANT to be helped....but I am sick and tired of paying for bumbs and idiots. That's not my porblem. Turn on any episode of Judge Judy and you can see some poor white woman with 6 kids from 4 menwho is collecting welfare, getting a 12,000 tax refund thru hte EIC and then is suing for 5,0000 emotional distress becaus eht tatoo she was getting on her arm was messed up.

That's the crap I am tired of paying for. You libs want to take from me and take from me, but you have NO desire to clean up the system, to weed out the idiots first....you just keep throwing my money at every problem.

You know why poveryt is increasing?????? Because you libs keep creating welfare programs for them to abuse....there is zero incentive to get off the system. You've created a permanant underclass in this country of people who have no will, no desire, no skills....and you love it that way, oh you say you don't, but you do. Afterall its a good chunk of votes for you isn't it?????? People who become dependent on your welfare programs have no desire to get off the system....they suck it dry. Then you libs push more people into poveryt by raising taxes on them or on there employers forcing them to get laid off.....then you come back to those who survive your insanity for more and more money.

You have created such a dependent class i nthis country thats its lead to an entire generation of gimme gimme gimme people. Everyone expects something for nothing. Everyone wants this or that and wants someone else to pay for it.

Then you call me evil cus you pull out one case of a starving child and tell me I have no heart, I'm just a gready old man. You don't help someone by giving them fish to eat, you help someone by teaching them to catch there own fish. Just as you do not lift people out of poverty by giving them food stamps and free money every month, you get them out of poverty by teaching them to stand on there own two feet and work for what they need.

You cannot expect people like me to pay for everything for everyone....that is not sustainable. You think I like paying medical bills? No, I hate it. But its part of life. I will help those who actually need help, but I will not support helping idiots....and until you libs agree to weed out the idiots and abusers of the system, I will not go along with your theft of my money.

____________________

saywhat90:

Well the let's start withe the corporation then. They constantly abuse the system. They are the biggest abuser of the system. In fact they are the biggest reasons why we are in financially dire straits. And they never pay for it. They are constantly being bailed out by government. Banks are the worst culprits. The s&l scandaland this current bailout and economic stress is there fault. And the excuse that regulatory laws were lax and allowed them to do it is not a valid one. Just becuase I can stick my hand in a fire doesn't mean I should. I know the risk involved in sticking my hand in fire. If I stick my hand in it and then I get burned I can't say who let me burn myself. And that what they did they abused the system then blamed the government and the poor for their blowing up the ecomomy. Welfar abuse and medicare fraudd are nothing compared to what businesses do every day. Funny how businesses are making billions off of abusing the system but you aren't complaining about that.Yet you want to complain about the government trying to help some who don't have insurance. Finally I am sick and tired of this my money nonsense. The taxes you pay isn't your anymore. It belongs to the government. And whoever is the majority in congress determines where that money goes. Voting is the way you determine how that money is spent. I didn't like some of the ways the money was used in the Bush administraion but that who was voted in along with a republican congress. So unfortunately they were given the right to do what they felt was their mandate wiht whatevet revenues. But it isn't your money anymore when you get taxed. It becomes America's to be used as deemed by the elctorate of this country.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Aaron - that is TOTAL BS. When my kids were born it cost me about $1,500 for each of them."

Sounds pretty cheap, and obviously a C-section wasn't needed. Were you insured? Were the births at a hospital?

This site indicates it is considerably more, but can vary depending on location, situation, etc...

I required a C-section and 4 weeks of intensive postnatal care because I was very early. That would be very expensive in today's dollars.

"An uncomplicated vaginal birth can cost $3,000 to $6,000, and a C-section typically costs $10,000 to $40,000."

http://www.ehow.com/about_5304362_much-cost-give-birth.html

____________________

CharlieS:

They charged you for bringing in a child into this world? How dare they? Don't they know health care should be free!

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"They charged you for bringing in a child into this world? How dare they? Don't they know health care should be free!"

No, it certainly should not be free. Someone has to pay for it. I'm simply making an argument about how the pro-life position is inconsistent with the anti-health care position.

An abortion costs from $300-800 in the first trimester, $1000-5000 in the second trimester. It's unbelievable to me it's this cheap. It seems wrong in so many ways.

It costs anywhere from $3000-6000 for an uncomplicated birth, while a C-section can cost $10,000-$40,000.

Given these prices, it makes economic sense to have an abortion rather than give birth; even the most complicated abortion will probably be less than a smooth birth.

So perhaps if health care was not as expensive, fewer people would have abortions and more would choose to have their babies.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yes, these are very good points. Young women in the US facing pregancy are not given very many options, and with a lack of health coverage for some and short maternity leaves, they frequently don't consider other options. Ireland is a good example of a social democracy that allows abortion under cases of a woman's life. They do provide better services and that and more closely knit families in Ireland and other Catholic countries make abortions rare or in the case of Ireland almost non existant

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Death is always cheaper than life. Cost should never come into the equation when it comes to killing an unborn child.

____________________

WilliamGray:

I agree, health care should be cheaper. But it also shouldnt be run by the government. I grew up in Canada and for those of you who think single payer is the way to go, i have some news for you- its not. The system in Canada is terrible and it supports less and less health care each year. And forget about getting sick in the last quarter of the year as most hospitals have exhausted their budgets by then and simply push patients into the next year. Also, most of our best doctors simply get trained here and then move to the states. Most of my friends and family traveled to Michigan or NY to have complicated surgeries done as they are completely inept in most hospitals. Luckily, we had the means but most Canadians cannot afford to get good care south of the border. And Canadian health care is not completely free like most Americans think. People still have to pay for roughly $0.28 per dollar on their own.

While i also think the US needs to cover everybody and attempt to reign in costs, i do not think single payer should be a viable option on the table.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"i do not think single payer should be a viable option"

The health bill was a long way from single payer, and I think most people would agree that single payer is not the way to go, esp if you look at the Canadian and British examples. Those are not the ones to emulate. I think France & Germany's systems work better.

Now, we already have a single payer system for those over 65, however.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Cost should never come into the equation when it comes to killing an unborn child."

Then why does it come into the equation when keeping someone alive? Is an adult's life worth less than that of an unborn child?

From an economic standpoint, restoring an adult's health is worth much more than saving an unborn child. Children and the elderly are generally economic drains; it makes sense to control their numbers.

This is why it's inconsistent to look at health care economically, but abortion morally.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Then why does it come into the equation when keeping someone alive? Is an adult's life worth less than that of an unborn child?"

There is a difference between murder (the killing of an unborn for no other reason than you don't want the responsibility) than making an economic decision about whether a procedure is worth it to a sick patient.

P.S. Every health system looks at health care economically. Not just the US. Its all about the efficient allocation of resources. But killing a baby isn't economics when you have the option of adoption.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Now, we already have a single payer system for those over 65, however."

Yup, and its a disaster. Its $50 trillion in the whole for the next 75 years not to mention it is the reason for private insurance premiums rising so much. We need government out of health care, completely.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"P.S. Every health system looks at health care economically. Not just the US. Its all about the efficient allocation of resources. But killing a baby isn't economics when you have the option of adoption."

Of course they do. Goods and services aren't free. But there's also people's lives involved in those economic calculations, and frankly the way our system works doesn't put the patient first. And don't be daft, adoption is very costly both for the state and prospective parents. Abortion is a much better way to handle that if you want to save money.

"We need government out of health care, completely."

Yes, because unregulated markets are so much more efficient. It's pretty efficient to not care about the uninsured too, and instead blame them for their poverty. I wish they'd all quit being lazy and just get jobs that have insurance.

"it is the reason for private insurance premiums rising so much."

Sure it is. That's why the spike in health costs started around 1980, not 1965.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR