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?