ABC News Poll: More Americans Prefer Public Option to Bipartisan Bill

Please defeat this health care reform bill. If it passes, many insurance company CEO's will have to sell their homes on the French Riviera. They also may have to reduce the number of servants to only 5 or 6 per vacation home. Please, please support the insurance company CEO's so they can maintain a high standard of living. I absolutely DO NOT want to stop paying exorbitant insurance premiums and receiving minimal service. It is up to us to maintain high premiums and minimal service from the insurance companies. Please also support Joe Lieberman as he turns his back on millions upon millions of working class citizens. Joe has sold his soul to satan to ensure working class citizens will not receive affordable health insurance.

Thats funny how do they figure this when all you have to see what the public is saying in Virgina where he lost a state that he won handily and is using everything he has in New Jersy to try to win that election which is a state that is and usually always votes democrats. It appears that the American people are in fact rejecting his policies and out of control spending.

73% of physicians support public option. Check out New England journal of medicine. Why ? They know that the insurance companies need real competition. They are exempted from federal antitrust law since 1945. They can fix price and get away with it. So what if u can buy across state line. They'll just collude and fix the price. Free market only works when there is true competition.

“State run media, ABC, CBS, WAPO, MSNBC, ABC, CNN all campaign got Obama and have backed his agenda since. So their polls can not be trusted.”

Uh, ok then. Here’s a re-sort.

“State run media” polls:
Favor/Oppose Public Option
48%/42% NBC/WSJ Oct. 22-25
61%/38% CNN/Opinion Research* Oct. 16-18
57%/40% ABC News/WaPo Oct. 15-18
62%/31% CBS News Oct. 5-8

Non-“State run media” polls:
Favor/Oppose Public Option
50%/46% USA Today/Gallup Oct. 16-19
53%/42% Ipsos/McClatchy* Oct. 1-5
57%/39% Kaiser Family Foundation Oct. 8-15
61%/34% Quinnipiac Sept. 29-Oct. 5
55%/38% Pew Sept. 30-Oct. 4
46%/37% Rasmussen** Oct. 2-3

*Tied for most accurate pollster in the 2008 national Presidential election results.
**Choice pollster of conservatives.

The Dems don't seemed to be too concerned about cost. Every govt run enterprise is losing money. This is just another ponzi scheme just as SS and Medicare. The postal service is losing money. We're on the road to spending 70% in taxes to afford the Dems programs and the costs will still not be controlled.

State run media, ABC, CBS, WAPO, MSNBC, ABC, CNN all campaign got Obama and have backed his agenda since. So their polls can not be trusted. A public option will lead to a single payer system because the Dems will lower the premiums for public option to buy votes. Every single payer system has low doctor pay and hospitals losing money. Our innovation in medicine will be destroyed. We will have 46 million more insureds not able to be handled by the current system becuase of inadequate doctors, hospital beds and nurses. So this is not the answer and state run media cannot be trusted.

It seems to me that noone but the Insurance Lobby, and the Paid off Party of No, could be against an option -- Both France and Ireland both have Public and Private plans-- Just like we have Public and Private Hospitals,Schools,Postal Service and Fed Ex. It would be good if they also could include Interstate Insurance, and tort reform, but perhaps in the Future!!! Oh the Poor Big Insurance Conglomerates don't like the Public option -- Lets shed a few tears for them!!! Then Pass the darn thing!!!

“The polling question you use is leading and "guilts" the respondent into a false belief that those without insurance only have the government to save them.”

How do you feel about the questions used in the other major polls this month?

• “Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?” 48% Favor/42% Oppose - NBC/WSJ
• "If Congress passes a health care bill, do you think it should or should not include a public, government-run insurance plan to compete with plans offered by private insurance" 50% Should/46% Should Not - USA Today/Gallup
• "Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?" 61% Favor/38% Oppose - CNN/Opinion Research Oct. 16-18
• “Now I'm going to read you some different ways to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance. As I read each one, please tell me whether you would favor it or oppose it… Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans" 57% Favor/39% Oppose - Kaiser Family Foundation
• "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?" 62% Favor 31% Oppose - CBS News
• "One of the points being debated is whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance plans. Which of the following is closest to your opinion? It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care. Access to quality health care for all Americans can be achieved without having to create a public health insurance plan." 53% Necessary/42% Not Necessary - Ipsos/McClatchy
• "Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?" 61% Support/34% Oppose - Quinnipiac
• "Now I'd like to ask you about some of the specific proposals being considered to address health care. Would you favor or oppose… A government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans" 55% Favor/38% Oppose - Pew
• “Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?” 46% Favor/37% Oppose - Rasmussen

It's all in how the question is asked. Polls have become about as worthless as the MSM when it comes to getting information that is accurate or meaningfull. I consider both as usefull for their entertainment value only anymore.

The polling question you use is leading and "guilts" the respondent into a false belief that those without insurance only have the government to save them. Anyone faced with the question of providing or denying poor people with insurance with obviously want to insure them. The real question should be "Do you support a government takeover of health care or a private industry alternative combined with subsidies to the poor to guarantee insurance for all Americans?" You would get a very different polling result. This question addresses the true alternatives. I would also point out that this poll is 6 points lower than the one announced last week (57% support) and shows that most people are very unsure and results vary based on the wording of the question.

Some choices. It is a poor government that cannot figure out how to help folks that can't afford 'health insurance', besides taking control of everything. Big government is also submitting a bill to 'takeover' student loans completely. It already has controlling interest in many banks. It would be cheaper to give 5K to each uninsured person every year so they could have 'health insurance'. Cut the crap Obama.

Getting health insurance is one incentive to get a job. As a former social worker I watched many families caught in a generational cycle of living off state and federal programs, who choose not to make more money lest they loose their handouts.
Every similar gov. program I know of requires low income and low savings and investments to qualify. That is hardly a safety net for the middle class who has to loose everything before being helped by the government.

Tri-Care coverage for my family and I cost less than $1,200 a year, my medication is free on a military treatment facility (MTF) or an $8 co-pay in town, an office visit co-pay $12 definitely not breaking the bank... My wife just had a major surgery then hospitalized for two weeks it cost less than $200 dollars, did I mention this was her 5th surgery and I owe no one thanks to the government who provides my healthcare...

davidfrat21… “honestly believe government can provide equal quality care”… YES!! The government already provides affordable good healthcare; elected officials in Congress and military members have access to government run/controlled healthcare. I have no problems with my healthcare coverage or cost and neither does my family… I don’t see why people insist on saying “our government can’t run healthcare” we can bomb a nation into the stone age, spend billions on weapon systems, classify ourselves as a super power “on paper” but can’t provide affordable healthcare?

tierra, tell me of one instance when the left gave bush II credit for anything he did? they didn't even give him credit for providing aids treatment to africans. and by the way, now many in africa consider bush II a hero for that...although you won't hear that reported in our media. i think bush was a doofus, but not everything he did was wrong. nor is everything obama does.

everyone who talks about insurance companies rationing care MUST be talking about an HMO. i've never had a PPO plan deny me anything i ask for. i pay through the nose for it, but i've never been denied any treatment, and have rarely even had a hassle with a PPO...outside the stupidity in billing that plagues health care, which is also the central problem. we could fix the whole mess by simply regulating the billing practices and setting up interstate health purchasing. overhauling the entire system is both unnecessary and stupid.

again, does anyone who supports the public option honestly believe government can provide equal quality care, with equal accessibility for less cost? that's the bottom line. does anyone actually believe this is possible?

Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers
by Capitol Confidential

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

It is a myth that there arent enough votes to pass the health care reform act..there are more than enough... it is just a diversion by all parties involved not to haveto vote up or down on it... so far there hasnt been real change just a back and foerth smoke and mirrors type thing... I realize that if there were to be real reform we would go back to the 1930s mentality but sometimes radical change is warrented regular people have been going through a depression and nickel and dimed to death for several months now if longer

"John, If you think government run health care is so great why is government runb Medicare and Medicaid about to go bankrupt?"

I don't believe I said 'government run health care is so great'.

I did list a couple of things that the House bill does.

Many of these prohibit painfully bad practices on the part of the health insurance companies.

What it comes to is this: NO AMERICAN SHOULD EVER BE DENIED MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL OR INSURANCE STATUS.

I really don't know how anyone can disagree with this assertion. After all, do you think an ambulance should throw someone to the curb half way to the hospital when the medics determine their patient cannot pay for treatment?

But once you agree to this just leads to another question. When the patient can't pay for treatment for an trauma or cancer or corinary bypass, who should pay?

How about the next bloke to be admitted with insurance? Somehow that doesn't seem workable, though we do something like that today, by means of cost shifting to the insured patients.

Without getting into too much detail, the results are less than satisfactory, and frankly create an incentive to shuffle off very sick, but financially lacking, patients to someplace else, sometimes even when they are in very, very sick.

It should be clear that this moral obligation is not one that belongs to the next patient in line, nor to the hospital the unfortunate soul happened to be admitted, but an obligation of our entire society.

And that leads to two possibilities: We can make sure that everyone in this society is insured, or we could just pay for all these services with federal tax dollars.

Of the two possibilities, the second one is known to be both simpler and more efficient. So naturally, we are selecting the other possibility.

Know this, the Pelosi bill would only be, maybe 250 pages long if we could all agree to fund all health care in America with federal tax dollars.

I guess we just love complexity.

(I have also said that every family should have the option to select a public insurance option. I'll defend that some other time.)