Thursday, November 28, 2013


Yeah, I know: I've been writing about the same topics and avoiding current events. Trouble is, the big current event is Obamacare, about which feelings are very mixed. What can one say about a bad system that deserves to succeed because the alternative is worse? It certainly doesn't help to learn that the administration is delaying the small business health care exchange for a year, although you'd think that conservatives would be fine with that, since private brokers can still enroll those small business employees.

For all of the problems, the poll numbers suggest that millions -- a majority -- feel as I do:
54% of voters are confident the problems with the law will be worked out. And while 58% currently disapprove of the law, 14% of those disapprove because it's not liberal enough. So it's not at all the case that a sizable majority want to go back to the bad old system. Those folks are clearly in the minority.
That 14% figure is about the size I expected. Odd, isn't it, how long we've waited for that number on that key question? (Only 41% think O-care is too liberal.)

Count me among the 14%. Yet Obamacare, bad as it is, must succeed -- for the reasons outlined by Robert Reich:
Our health-care system was a wreck. Ours has been the only health-care system in the world designed to avoid sick people. For-profit insurers have spent billions finding and marketing their policies to healthy people while rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, and routinely dropping coverage of policyholders who become seriously sick or disabled.
If only we could cut the insurers out of the system. Frankly, nearly everything that is wrong with O-care -- programming glitches aside -- traces back to the perceived "need" to accommodate vampires in our circulatory system.

Some of my readers will shout: "Scrap it -- we need full-on socialized health care! Anything else is unworthy of support!" Did I mention that all of fourteen percent of your fellow citizens share your stance?
I find republican politicians who are celebrating all of ObamaCare's initial problems are the biggest screw-ups of all.

Obama did very little to slow down the foreclosure mill that was set up just prior to his getting into office, which means the republican politicians did even less.

For Republican politicians to not get that if they are going allow the ransacking of main street's wealth via unlawful and unethical foreclosures, the least they can do is take some responsibility for the increase in foreclosure stress related physical maladies that do manifest because of the foreclosure issue in this country.

So the score reads, Obama 0.5 points out of 2, Republicans, 0 out of 2, Obama wins.
I'm gratified but surprised to see you take that attitude, Alessandro. I know that, from the near-beginning, you have been as ticked off as I when it comes to Mr. O.

But...on the issue of health care, one must give a thought to those with pre-existing conditions...
I'm firmly in the 14%. Single payer is the way. Let the insurance parasites get actual jobs doing something worthwhile (yeah, they would probably all end up as pay day lenders since "The Thirst always wins.")
Bob, the problem is this: If there are only 14% of you -- of us -- then we are really involved in yet another one of those "Let's bell the cat!" discussions.
Some of my readers will shout: "Scrap it -- we need full-on socialized health care! Anything else is unworthy of support!" Did I mention that all of fourteen percent of your fellow citizens share your stance?

You must have been half asleep when you wrote that because your rhetorical question is silly.

14% disapprove because it's not left enough. 42% approve. Most of these people approve because Obama and Democrats support it. These people are "sheep-democrats" who would have supported a far more liberal plan had Obama and Democrats offered it.

(44% disapprove for reasons other than it's not left enough. Some of these people hate insurance companies so much they would have supported a public option at least. Many of them like Medicare, they just don't realize that the government runs medicare.

The number who support "an expansion of Medicare to include everyone" would be a lot higher than 14%. Try 65%:

Associated Press - Yahoo — 65% — Dec 2007
— Question ISS14. "The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers": 65% yes; 34% no; 2% refused
It's not just the insurers that are the probl;em. There are also a fair number of doctors, hospitals, and other providers that are devotees of Ayn Rand.
Anon, You make a good point. I myself have noted that single payer had a majority (poll-wise) at one time, although I think 65% is a bit high. THAT poll was probably an outlier; the ones I've seen were in the low 50s.

But those days are not these days. Since then, we've had incessant propaganda against Obama, against socialism, against the myth of Obama-the-socialist. And we've been told over and over that the "disaster" of O-care proves that gummint can't do anything right.

I don't know what the poll numbers on single payer would be right now, but I'm guessing they'd be below the 40% mark. Maybe just above.

Like it or not, the choice is not between O-care and the plan of your dreams. The choice is between O-care and No-care.

Sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
may be O should increase the polls #s in his favor by telling the Reps and teaparty the truth about the plan that it is actually theirs. He just changed the name. Tell them if u don't believe me just ask Romny
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?