- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The landmark health-reform law passed in 2010 has never been very popular and always highly partisan, but a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a group of once loyal Democrats has been steadily turning against Obamacare: Democrats who are ideologically moderate or conservative.
Just after the law was passed in 2010, fully 74 percent of moderate and conservative Democrats supported the federal law making changes to the health-care system. But just 46 percent express support in the new poll, down 11 points in the past year. Liberal Democrats, by contrast, have continued to support the law at very high levels – 78 percent in the latest survey. Among the public at large, 42 percent support and 49 percent oppose the law, retreating from an even split at 47 percent apiece last July.
The shift among the Democratic party’s large swath in the ideological middle– most Democrats in this poll, 57 percent, identify as moderate or conservative – is driving an overall drop in party support for the legislation
Moderate Democrats are quitting on Obamacare
This law is junk, we always knew, Dems are getting to know it, and Obama has already admitted it (with the delayed implementation to 2015).
Moderate Democrats are quitting on Obamacare
This law is junk, we always knew, Dems are getting to know it, and Obama has already admitted it (with the delayed implementation to 2015).
I agree..repeal and replace with universal healthcare.
Even if it was junk, nobody enjoys the moral credibility to resist it. The inequities of health care in the United States have been starving for resolution for decades. Pretty much any effort at that, no matter how pitiful or harmful, is justifiable, and any resistance, no matter how wise or restrained, is not.
As it is, the bad points of the law are exaggerated and the resistance is not wise or restrained.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062096087 said:Another liberal "feel good, but it doesn't work" scheme to separate tax payers and consumers forced to purchase it from more of their pay check. What kind of logic is that? Make tax payers and consumers pay exorbitant fees for health care coverage that's "junk?"
That's the result of the "let's pass it so we can find out what's in it" mentality. It was idiotic then, and it's idiotic now.
I agree..repeal and replace with universal healthcare.
Great news. I thought it was just me and others of Bernie Saunders' ilk that thought a system modeled after MA's healthcare (aka Romneycare) which itself was a scheme first cooked up by the conservative "think" tank, Heritage Group, was pure junk. Maybe we'll begin demanding real reforms.
Fingers crossed.
Even if it was junk, nobody enjoys the moral credibility to resist it. The inequities of health care in the United States have been starving for resolution for decades. Pretty much any effort at that, no matter how pitiful or harmful, is justifiable, and any resistance, no matter how wise or restrained, is not.
As it is, the bad points of the law are exaggerated and the resistance is not wise or restrained.
Did you write your representatives when they voted for it? I did.
Yes; also both of my senators and the White House, urging strongly that Medicare be extended to all age groups, or failing that, that they fight to the death for a Public Option, which Private Insurers feared knowing that once people see that Public trumps Private, the market would flock to the Public Option, purely by choice, since it would of course be optional.
If Public is worse, why fear it? Are you seeing?
You need to calm down before you have a stroke.
You need to calm down before you have a stroke.
I agree..repeal and replace with universal healthcare.
You need to calm down before you have a stroke.
If there was universal healthcare, he'd have a lot less worry.
Tell me, American... what do you think is so great about the system you have now?
It offers the highest quality care to the sick out there, and is responsible for the vast majority of medical innovation, bringing the future hope of curing Downs Syndrome, AIDs, etc.
Mind you, we have lots of problems. We have massive third-party-interference that distorts our ability to effectively reduce costs. The solution to that is not more third party interference.
We live in a nation with universal healthcare - Japan. My wife just had a baby a couple of months ago. We were told that we could have our child at an American hospital or, if we couldn't get there in time, a Japanese hospital. We asked what the difference was. "Well, for starters, with a Japanese hospital, you won't get any pain medication - its too expensive and so they don't give out pain meds during birth".
Every mother is now free to ask themselves whether or not they think that a blanket denial of pain meds during birth is indicative of a system that has allocated resources to where people want them.
We have universal healthcare in Canada, and no woman will be denied pain meds while giving birth. I am quite surprised that is the case in Japan. I'll have to ask my boyfriend who lived there for 5 years.
In any event, if the option is to pay out of pocket, I am sure pain meds would be much cheaper than having to pay to the whole birth. I wonder how much that costs? $10,000-$15,000?
:shrug: feel free to. We were amazed too, so we went and asked some friends of ours who had just delivered locally.
I am wondering if it has anything to do with Japanese culture.
Perhaps, but it's not that much of an outlier. Expensive treatments that aren't "necessary" get trimmed when you start rationing, as all UHC systems have to do (some more than others), and the decisions aren't being made by the patients.
The British system, for example, has those who come in with lung cancer assigned a specialist... who takes long enough to see that a good enough portion of patients go ahead and conveniently either die or move beyond saving, thus producing significant cost savings to the system. Hooray!
That is why your Supreme Court struck down the part of your UHC law that forbade use of private medical facilities. "Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare", I believe, was the verdict.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?