More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll

http://news.yahoo.com/more-americans-not-want-health-law-repeal-poll-142852816.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms, more Americans want to it repealed than want to keep it, a poll released on Wednesday shows.

A Gallup survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that 47 percent favor the repeal of healthcare reform, versus 42 percent who want the law kept in place. Eleven percent had no opinion.

But the survey also showed that 50 percent of Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has health coverage, compared with 46 percent who do not."

such as everybody getting coverage, the no previous conditions reform etc. But the Obamacare concept has been demonized mercilessly. This result is no more surprising than the notion that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Wrong, but a lot of ignrant folks still think it happened becasue of endless media repetition of the lie.

'But the survey also showed that 50 percent of Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has health coverage, compared with 46 percent who do not."'

they want universal coverage, but not the corporate friendly mess Obama got through congress.

A majority of people need to get out there and organize for a Congress that will give them what they really want. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress put through a plan that they believed would pass back in 2009-2010 and, given the hell they went through just trying to get THAT passed, I believe that they ultimately did the best they could do with what they had. Now, we need to get ourselves a better Congress that believes that we could (and should) do more and get them to revise/expand what's already been passed.

support candidates who would make those changes.

I'm not sure what the people who support blue dogs over their primary challengers are thinking. Probably not very much.

Most people probably vote for Blue Dogs over more progressive challengers b/c the DNC/voters either support the incumbent Blue Dogs and/or worry that the progressive, if they win the primary, may lose in the general.

Blue Dogs were a big part of the problem during the last two Congresses but they wouldn't have had quite so much clout had there not been rock-solid GOP opposition to everything the Democrats wanted to do.

It's really hard IMHO to come up with a solution to the Blue Dog conundrum. Voting choices in "red" states usually come down to choosing Blue Dog Democrats or Teabagger Republican. So, at the end of the day, the DNC/voters have to ask themselves: Do they want a minority of principled progressive Democrats in Congress whom have no real power or a coalition majority with both progressives and a few Blue Dogs whom can actually try to cobble something together. Until the "red" states start to turn more "purple" or "blue", we'll continue to have to deal with some less-than-perfect Dems in order to obtain and maintain a working majority. :shrug:

if they refuse to help pass good legislation?

even if it has some Blue Dogs in it- is arguably always going to be better than having a Republican one any day of the week IMHO. The Dems aren't always perfect on the issues but having the Republicans in charge of Congress is a disaster every time for working people. We just need to keep fighting to turn red states purple or blue in the meantime. I think that progressives should challenge Blue Dogs in conservative states whenever and wherever we can put them up but still turn out to support the nominee even if it is the Blue Dog that wins.

It just sucks, though. x(

And Blanche Lincoln lost by a mile. They should have elected her challenger, whose name I forget now.

n/t

and people can give an accurate assessment about whether they want to keep it the way it is or repeal it. I would hope that people would not-if given accurate information- want to actually have it repealed, particularly the provisions concerning pre-existing conditions, etc. but when all they hear day in and day out that the government has taken over health care in the country, that government bureaucrats want to kill granny, and that people should have the freedom to refuse to purchase health care insurance and the freedom to incur huge medical expenses if they get sick and go into bankruptcy over it, then I guess I can understand why people might want to get rid of the law. :eyes:
Personally, I want to see Congress to revisit the issue and revise/expand on what's already been done but, of course, the majority of people will have to actually vote for a Congress that isn't dysfunctional and one that is progressive enough to want to keep working on this issue to the benefit of all of us. Sadly, we don't have that right now.

News networks, like FOX, repeatedly reported this plan as the "government option," not the "public option."

Although this article is two years old--

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

It's all in the words--

There were quite a few wonderful words. Most coined by Frank Luntz

has benefited the oligarchs greatly.

think it should have gone further toward "socialized" medicine, or a "single-payer"? That Obama had capitulated to the loonatic Repugniconvicts far too much in it?

They really do need to take some more specific polls that measure things like that IMHO. The opposition isn't based entirely on what the teabaggers think of the law!

The BEST thing that can happen for the future of the Democratic Party is
for the Supreme Court to Strike Down the Mandate to BUY Health Insurance.
Then the Democratic Party can quickly Walk Away from this pending nightmare,
and say, "Well. At least we tried."


Stirke Down The Mandate or Reap the Whirlwind in 2014




Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree with any part of the mandate. No one who is living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to provide food should be forced into paying for mandated health insurance.

Pre-Election Obama ridicules The Mandate in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, many key provisions won't take effect until 2014.

:shrug:

I'd post excerpts, but you should probably just read the whole thing.

Here:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-22/news/27059676_1_health-insurance-senate-version-offer-medical-coverage

:shrug:

I was a lot better off than now when I picked that name too.

:hi:

I would really expect another reform bill directed at establishing a public option, futher controlling insurance costs, and doing something to address the threat of medical bankruptcy.

They got the best bill out of the Congress they could...

If it was a totally bad bill the Repukes wouldn't be fighting it so hard. :hi: