Pollster.com

Even in a bogus internet poll, health care reform can't get a majority.

Yes too bad we don't live in a direct democracy where every issue is decided by polls. Don't think anyone's making a stink about internet polls either. They tell you some things but its true that it leaves out a portion of the voting population. In time though as baby boombers die off they'll become more respected as the most aged population will be familiar with the internets.

But we do live in a representative republic whereby the people elect the people who vote on these bills. And the people are very angry and informed on this one. Thus, they do so at great peril.

Well considering Obama advertised a Public Option of Universal Healthcare people shouldn't have an axe to grind about something they voted in. Those who didn't like it from the start that's fine but a majority voted him in. Not delivering a campaign promise is more perilious. Accept it.

The new conservative mantra that government is the enemy reminds me of the guy who hates the police because they give him speeding tickets. But when A burglar breaks in your house or your child goes missing, you need the police.

The question that they need to answer is whether a small, and there for ineffective government, can meet the chllenges of the modern world or whether such a creature could have even met the challenges of the last century.

Could a small government have effectively executed the enormous marshaling of resources necessary to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII. Could that government have instituted the rationing and organized the productive capacity to build the tanks and planes not to mention the A bomb.

Could a small government have beaten the Soviets in the Cold War, developed the numerous high tech weapons systems and the most modern and highly trained and motivated army in the world?

Can a small government compete with a burgeoning China, which, while we were yapping about it, became the largest producer of wind turbines in the world. How about Germany which now produces more solar power per capita than any other developed nation. Or France which produces 70% of it's power through nuclear power.

The examples above are strong governments in partnership with peoples and industries to confront the enormous problems facing our species.

Those who continue to naively embrace the quaint and antiquated notion that we need to get rid of government "cause it's the enemy," are doing our nation and future generations a great disservice.

@ Wong
Limited government is not a conservative mantra. It is an American mantra. Please read the constitution if you need further reference.

People who compare the government to police, fire or the military are just silly. They are funded by government, not run by it. The military ultimately reports to te dept of defense but the overall management of the military is done by them. And in fact, over the previous 30 years, the military has become more private in its operations.

And the answer to your question is a resounding yes. A smaller government could have defeated Soviet Russia. It is 100% leadership and economic. Under Reagan, the federal registry plummeted and then the Soviets were defeated. However, the economy expanded significantly under Reagan which convinced the Soviets they had lost.

All this healthcare noise is much to do about nothing. The most angry folks are strong Republican voters who will ultimately not matter in 2012 and will matter marginally in 2010. The HCR bill is nowhere near as unpopular as the bailouts or the Iraq war after 2005.

What is gonna crush Dems this fall is one-party government and the unemployment rate. These are structural forces that cannot be easily reversed without historic events like 9/11 or a major popular war.

@ Field Marshal
Your comment misses the point. Reagan did not use small government on the Soviets. He used the biggest peacetime expansion of the military in out history, $250 billion dollars a year, and the threat of a big government Star Wars-SDI program to bring them to the negotiating table.

Smaller government did not defeat the Soviets and it won't insure the millions of people without health care. That's why the Republican's plan to cover 3 million was roundly panned.

I looked out my window and saw libs dancing for joy at antoher glorious internet poll they can cling too......X must be in heaven right now.

Has anyone figured out how YouGov manipulates the figures to be so consistently wrong on the healthcare question? Their previous poll said 53% support when all other polls showed 45%. Now they show 50% when the others show 40%. What do they do to slant this one result 20% toward Pelosicare and yet leave the rest of the figures alone?

It looks like YouGov might have taken the lead with the most slanted polls with the highest house factors.

Publius,

What is your point? Are you saying a big government will solve all our problems? For every problem they solve, they create three more.

The health care reform bill is not about helping a single person. Its now about trying not to have wasted 18 months on it. If the Dems fail now, they are essentially done for the rest of the year. Hence the reason Obama is out bribing, i mean, giving out deals to his own party members. I think it shows the complete lack of respect his own party has for Obama, not that the average voter has much more. In addition, it shows what a feckless leader he is.

Field Marshal,

Big government is not the answer for everything, but it can solve some of our most pressing issues.

My point was that small government didn't win the Cold War. Small government privatization led to a boom in the 1980s and freed up investment capital so that the country could expand. Small government also led us down the path to the economy's near destruction, so you can't tell me that it's the answer for everything either.

Exactly! So right now we have the largest government in the history of our country except for during WWII. According to you, and i agree, the smaller government led to the largest economic boom in our history. We are in a recession, so how is crowding out more private capital, raising taxes, and adding more government costs through regulation going to lead us to another economic boom?

I also agree with you that government can indeed solve some problems but i would say they create more than they solve. That's my opinion.

I also think that its not a coincident that the most regulated industries in the US, banking and insurance, are the one's that give us the most problems. Both of which could easily be solved with more competition and more oversight instead of regulation. Again, also my opinion.

Field Marshal,

Unregulated banking and insurance got us into this mess. There's not enough private capital floating around these days, so it's necessary for the government to step in. I know you don't generally agree with that philosophy, but at certain times we need that stimulus.

Also, the health insurance problem and the crisis of the uninsured has not been solved by small government.