Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the
bill currently working its way through Congress would be better
than not passing any health care reform legislation this year.
However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey
finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed
by Congress this year would be the better option.
This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care
reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the
specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved
in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no
Republican support for the legislative effort although the
Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a
bi-partisan solution.
We need real health care reform, not a federal takeover of health
care.
I read an AP article the other day that indicated Osama was
backing away from the public option due to "republican
opposition." Thanks, mainstream media. How about instead you
point out that these idiots could pass anything they want, as
they have the votes to do so. The fact is that the American
people oppose the bill, not just the republican politicians. I
guess I would use this defeat to jab my opposition too if the
media would do anything I said without question. These people
have no souls.
tj| 8.17.09 @ 1:51PM
A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute
cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option”
should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that
these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already
classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance
companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already
have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a
number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate
under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?
Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of
letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen.
Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the
co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the
president and Congress. He insists that there be a single
national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it
operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written
in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If
a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by
the federal government with funding provided by the federal
government, that is government-run health insurance by another
name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels
already installed and in place"" End run around OUR
Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE
PEOPLE are "TUPID"
george| 11.15.09 @ 7:10PM
fire these basterds all of them they keep trying to pass bills
quickly so we dont read them and they are taking us down a road
of socialist,just like nazi germany.if you dont mind police
states,nazi healthcare that makes you a criminal if you dont
carry it,gun bills,hate crime bills CAP N TRADE bills we are
fixing to be just like the jews TAKE YOUR ID CHIP INPLANT AND GET
ON THE FEMA TRAINS HEAD TO YOUR FEMA CAMP TO BE
EXTERMINATED!!!!!!!!!
Pete| 8.17.09 @ 11:10AM
I read an AP article the other day that indicated Osama was backing away from the public option due to "republican opposition." Thanks, mainstream media. How about instead you point out that these idiots could pass anything they want, as they have the votes to do so. The fact is that the American people oppose the bill, not just the republican politicians. I guess I would use this defeat to jab my opposition too if the media would do anything I said without question. These people have no souls.
tj| 8.17.09 @ 1:51PM
A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option” should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother? Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels already installed and in place"" End run around OUR Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE PEOPLE are "TUPID"
george| 11.15.09 @ 7:10PM
fire these basterds all of them they keep trying to pass bills quickly so we dont read them and they are taking us down a road of socialist,just like nazi germany.if you dont mind police states,nazi healthcare that makes you a criminal if you dont carry it,gun bills,hate crime bills CAP N TRADE bills we are fixing to be just like the jews TAKE YOUR ID CHIP INPLANT AND GET ON THE FEMA TRAINS HEAD TO YOUR FEMA CAMP TO BE EXTERMINATED!!!!!!!!!