Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

THE PUBLIC OPTION: AMERICANS WANT IT. THE CBO SAYS HEALTH CARE PLAN WITH P/O WILL REDUCE DEFICIT IN FIRST 10 YEARS



Click on charts for larger image.

A Washington Post/ABC News Poll that’s just come out on the public option--a government-run health insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies--shows 57% of the American people support the idea of a public option, 40% opposed.

The poll question:

"Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?"

57% said they supported such a plan compared with 40% who said they opposed it, a net margin of +17, compared to just +6 in August and +13 in September.

From the daily kos:


Washington Post/ABC poll shows that the public does not care very much about what Republicans think about health care reform.
Indeed, Americans by 51-37 percent in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they'd rather see a plan pass Congress without Republican support, if it includes a public option based on affordability, than with Republican backing but no such element.



And CNN reports this:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.



CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first ten years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the original $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.
At a meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday night, Pelosi did not release CBO's preliminary numbers, but told members that CBO told leaders the House bill would cost well below $900 billion. Aides say final CBO numbers could be released on Wednesday.

Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.

Pelosi instructed House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, to begin canvassing all House Democrats on Wednesday to determine whether this bill had enough votes to pass in the House. According to several sources in the meeting, Pelosi acknowledged she did not currently have the 218 votes needed to pass this version on the House floor, but believed she was close to having around 200 votes.

Moderate, "blue dog" Democrats in the House largely oppose the robust public option and instead argue for a government run insurance option that could negotiate reimbursement rates directly with doctors and hospitals. CBO's analysis of that approach was not available according to Democratic sources, but aides say the preliminary analysis shows it does not save as much as the approach pushed by Pelosi.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

I disagree, less and less democrats are in favor of Obama's health care bill. The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan. And that idiot, Harry Reid could care less about seniors, just his own behind.
You know, I never get good answers from socialist on this question: Don't you believe that you as an individual can do for yourself, why do you think you need the government to do things for you? To which usually I get the answer, "Well I can, but others cannot" but I still don't understand why if YOU can why you don't think others can?

My take? Most people CAN, those who cannot, there are charities you can volunteer for and support.
If anyone can explain where my logic fails, I would really appreciate it, because I truly cannot see how anyone could.
I too like many others am so flabbergasted by the relatively high approval ratings for Obama, in light of all the crap he's done in his first 9 months, and tonight it hit me why.

We hear the buzz-phrase lately "too big to fail" as in "Chrysler is too big to fail".

Well, since Obama has been dubbed "The Chosen One" and "The Messiah" it would stand to reason that people (mostly his supporters, but it could be others as well) who feel that Obama is "too big to fail". And so they go along with his bullshit, they give him thumbs up, and therefore a decent approval rating.

Problem is the bigger they are, the harder they fall. So when we can't ignore the failures of Obama any longer, it will be so much harder to repair the damage he has done.
On my blog at the top of my sidebar links to Glenn Beck's 9-12 project, and I really haven't talked about it too much here, but it is his way for people who agree with the 9 principles and 12 values to see that they are not alone.
So although some people think that I am on some throne acting like I am a know-it-all, I know that I am not alone in the way I think.

libhom said...

This is no big surprise. Public policy analysts have known that single payer is the cheapest plan. The obscene profits, enormous exeutive salaries, and byzantine bureacracies in the private sector are too costly.

Shaw Kenawe said...

My take? Most people CAN, those who cannot, there are charities you can volunteer for and support.--Anon

I don't know what the numbers are, but I imagine they would be quite high vis-a-vis charity cases in a nation of 300+ million with a significant number in the population who are overweight and suffering from diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other catastrophic illnesses.

There aren't enough charities in this country to support the sort of medical intervention necessary to care for the millions and millions of people with catastrophic illnesses.

You haven't been paying attention if you really believe people are too lazy to carry health care or choose to not have health care. When people are out of work, where do they get the money to support their family AND pay for health care?

We hear the buzz-phrase lately "too big to fail" as in "Chrysler is too big to fail".

Well, since Obama has been dubbed "The Chosen One" and "The Messiah"
--Anon

The hysterics on the Right dubbed Mr. Obama "The One." No one on the Left ever called him that. That's a meme put out there by envious people who can't stand the idea that Mr. Obama is not only admired here at home but around the world as well. You'll just have to learn to live with those facts. And maybe make up more titles like "The One" to help you deal with it.


it would stand to reason that people (mostly his supporters, but it could be others as well) who feel that Obama is "too big to fail". And so they go along with his bullshit, they give him thumbs up, and therefore a decent approval rating.--Anon

Your logic here is nuts.

And I understand you're suffering from cognizant dissonance.

You and others like you detest Mr. Obama, so you can't reconcile the fact that your small group of people cannot persuade others to dislike him too. And when you read his approval numbers, it's a terrible and confusing thing for you to understand.

Hint: The extreme Obama haters are a distinct minority. Only 20% of the American people admit to being Republicans.

You're ideas and fears are not shared by 80% of the American people.

dmarks said...

So, is the great thing about single-payer is that it provides one funding source (government) for medical care, which covers everyone adequately, and the funds are then used by individuals to choose (pay for) from a wide variety of public and private healthcare service providers?

Dave Miller said...

Hey Anon, here is why government needs to and should get involved.

Pre-existing conditions. A baby is denied coverage because it is too heavy. Another is denied coverage because it is not heavy enough.

I am denied coverage because 38 years ago my thyroid was removed because it was overactive.

My wife is denied coverage because 25 years ago she had a medically recommended hysterectomy.

It would not matter if we made 100K a year. With the current system, we are unable to buy a policy because the odds are all tilted in the direction of the insurance companies.

I run a ministry, essentially a small business that I started almost 20 years ago. Have taken maybe a total of three weeks unemployement in my entire life. I give my life to helping others.

Yet in the system that many conservatives claim needs no change, as I live out the American dream, I cannot get access.

That is where your logic fails.

TOM said...

We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that led to the enactment of Social Security legislation.
Before 1933, we relied on fraternal, religious, and other civic groups to provide for the elderly and weakest in our society. Those organizations were totally overwhelmed by the number of people in need.
We decided (by majority) to tax ourselves to eliminate that needless human suffering.
Waste and fraud (a natural by product of EVERY government program) is no reason to deny or stop a program that has served millions of Americans well, and done exactly what we wanted it to.
Blame the elected representatives lack of oversight, not the basic correctness of the idea that Americans want to eliminate suffering.
Health insurance for all is the correct moral decision, even if I have to pay higher taxes to help others.
Only a hand full of lazy people will rely on the meager subsistence of life a government subsidy provides. Most Americans work hard to achieve better. I don't worry that we are creating a society of living off the government.

Arthurstone said...

We could end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and free up a substantial sum we could make better use of here at home.

We've ridded Iraq of their tyrant. The longer we stay as occupiers the more they grow to hate us. The historic, national pastime of Afghanistan is guerilla warfare and we will never install 'democracy' there.

Dave Miller said...

Great points Tom, and I love the car!

Sweet ride.

I Toldjah said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

libhom just cracks me up to no end. Spits the Koolaid better than Ruth.

Anyways, here is another welfare program brought to you by the government. A free cell phone, complete with service and free minutes. (Source)

By golly, I'm gonna join my friends on the left. Heck yeah, subsidized housing, subsidized food, subsidized transportation, subsidized health care and a subsidized phone! The hell with working for a living. The taxpayer is gonna take care of my dingy butt. At least the few that are still kicking. ;-)

Jim said...

By a margin of 64 percent to 27 percent, women agreed they “would rather have private health insurance than a government-run health insurance plan,” according to the poll. Source

What is real interesting about this poll is the demographics. And yes, it is by a Republican group. It balances well with the polls referenced by this blog of the left polls.

Jim said...

Uh O, another poll! Heee Heee.

Conservatism Alive, Liberalism in Decline

So all the blabber about most Americans wanting Big Gov to take their monies to distribute ain't exactly correct.

Only 20% of respondents to this poll claim to be liberal. That is less than those that claim to be moderate, 36%. 40% claim to be conservative. O my.

BTW - this is a Gallup poll. ;-)

dmarks said...

Jim: Gallup polls also show more people against abortion than those who favor it.

Anyway, if this poll is true, then it indicates a big gap between % Republican (low) and percent Conservative (high). Candidates trying to take advantage of this gap could make for some big drama in 2010 and 2012.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

buy bactrim without prescription buy bactrim es online without prescription buy bactrim f buy bactrim online buy bactrim buy bactrim without a prescription overnight
[url=http://bactrim.eventbrite.com/]buy bactrim [/url]
when to take glucophage glucophage fort glucophage xl what is glucophage glucophage insulin resistance not absorbing glucophag glucophage during pregnancy
[url=http://takeglucophage.eventbrite.com/]taking medroxyprogesterone then glucophage [/url]
proscar finasteride proscar false readings canine proscar side effects of finasteride proscar libido proscar generic proscar libido proscar peronies
[url=http://proscar.eventbrite.com/]psa proscar [/url]
uprima impotence aid bayer levitra sampl provigra generic levitra treat impotence levitra medicine
[url=http://virb.com/yalevi]apcalis [/url]
http://proscar.eventbrite.com/