For well over two years, the polling on health care has been remarkably consistent. Indeed, there have been two broad, unyielding truths: (1) asked about the Democratic plan/law in general, Americans don't like it; and (2) asked about what's in the Democratic plan/law, Americans like it quite a bit.
And two years after the Affordable Care Act became law, guess what: the pattern holds.
Two-thirds of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn some or all of the health care law, even though large majorities support a few of its major aspects, according to a poll by The New York Times and CBS News.
Here's a chart I put together, highlighting the difference between support for the overall law, the controversial mandate Republicans loved until Obama agreed with them, and some of the more notable provisions of the law itself.
There are a couple of angles to keep in mind here. The first is that Americans have clearly been influenced by the enormous misinformation campaign, and have been told so many times they're supposed to oppose the law that they do, even if they don't know what's in it (and even if they love its components after learning what they are).
The second is that public appreciation for the policy nuances here simply don't exist. Americans don't like the mandate but they love protections for those with preexisting conditions. That the two are linked is something the mainstream simply doesn't understand.
Who's to blame for the polling disconnect -- the left for explaining this poorly or the right for misleading the country -- is an open question. The larger point, though, often goes overlooked: the policies that serve as the foundation for "Obamacare" are widely liked by the public, even if the law itself is not. When conservatives chortle over their p.r. victory over the law, these details are worth remembering.
Leave a Comment:
"Gitch ur hands off ma medicare!"
This is why the public option should have been the number one priority. America loves a missed opportunity! What do you think the rubes will do when there is no more safety net?
blame the Dems, what else?
they won't worry about it because they aren't the ones free loading.
So, with a mandate, there would be less freeloading and a larger pool, that's how insurance works. A large group PAY into the pool.
Without Health Care regulation, we have freeloaders that get care without paying, and those of us that pay, pay their share. That's how business works, the business sure isn't going to take the loss.
That was the concept when Heritage Foundation thought of it in the first place. Insurance companies should love it.
Which is why I don't. The mandate may help push down costs, but single-payer would be an even better way. For-profit health insurance is little more than a racket and gifting it millions of new customers is not the best way to deal with the problems the racket causes.
I am also for single payer and have wondered if the mandate would be better placed in a tax, which is more harmonious with Constitution, IMO. The insurance industry began in criminal mobs.
Sandy ... What the Dems should have done was raise the medicare tax to pay for an expansion of Medicare, coupled with tax credits to employers making health insurance available to employees as a supplemental benefit. That would have provided the most direct route to national health insurance while allowing Obama to keep his promise that people receiving paid health insurance as a job benefit would be able to continue receiving that benefit.
We should rue the day Obama allowed Max Baucus to fashion the health care reform bill.
I guess my appeal for single payer needs to be articulated better. I am for universal heath care. I am for Medicare for all and a tax like Medicare or augment Medicare.
The end result SHOULD please Republicans or any person that says "I don't want to pay for other people". They came up with these ideas of freeloaders and chemdmd mentioned freeloaders. I do not feel the term freeloader is appropriate, but I was answering that freeloader claim. if someone does not have a way to pay for cost of medical care, others pay higher costs to cover it. Just like in any business, the costs are usually simply passed along to consumer.
I really try to tell people that have insurance, they already pay for other people, in higher costs of their health care premiums, copays, rx drugs.
I was very disappointed when they began by taking single payer/public option off the table, but I know in reality we have a give and take, but the Republicans no longer support what they supported. Now Democrats like Baucus wish to mold a taylor made bill for his insurance donors, not just Baucus, that to me is a big problem, the donors get the perks, ALEC probably had a hand in this, too.
I want the prescription drug industry regulated and insurance industry regulated and cut costs, and give people health care and keep our costs down by utilizing a Medicare for all system.
Frankly, the chart only calls into starker relief how abject the failure of messaging on the left really was. This was not a tough sale: we had a hand full of winning cards and played them poorly enough to lose anyway.
Sure, the dealer (media) was biased and the opposing players were cheats. Still, there is little excuse for losing when you're sitting on a bunch of aces. People love what the Democrats were giving them, yet somehow the Democrats couldn't even explain that is what was in the package.
The left learned nothing from "liberal" being redefined by the right into a term of derision. The worst thing you can do is run from the fight. Yet on the ACA, that is exactly what the left largely did. (literally, in some of the town hall meetings).
The right is so blasted dense! "We want what is good for us, only.... not from Obama!"
Talk about dense! I just watched the 2008 Democratic debate between Hillary, Barrack, and John. Wolf Blitzer ran the show ( not hard to find on the net). Something very interesting in that debate. Maddow said that the repubs agreed with President Obama on the personal mandate, watching that debate I found that she is right that they agreed, HOWEVER, she was wrong on what they agreed on.
Barrack ( the not yet president) contrasted Hillary with himself as Hillary being the one in favor of the individual mandate and HE WAS AGAINST IT. Once he was able to remove Hillary from the picture he went back to agreeing with her view point. So those that voted for President Obama over Hillary and still support him are the people that are DENSE!
We don't need an individual mandate to cover pre-existing conditions either. When I lived in Philly, my wife, kids, and myself had Blue Cross Blue Shield of Pennsylvania ( during the 90's) and the plan that we Payed for covered preexisting conditions.
Chem just watched the 2008 debate.
Also he is totally a medical doctor and a chemist and he totally has a family that he covered under the plan. Cause, ya know, we're all 1%'ers like Chem claims to be.
Siiiiiiighs
LOL @ chemdmd. I just love it when people think they know what they know but really know nothing. I'm a health insurance agent so I'm pretty qualified to explain that not all pre-existing conditions are covered. If you were on a group plan, sure, your pre-existing conditions may have been covered. News flash, not everyone can get a group plan if they are self-employed, unemployed, or the employer doesn't offer it. That's where the private insurance comes in. There are underwriting guidelines we follow and each insurance company has their own guidelines. I get quite a few calls from people who are denied/declined for health insurance with BCBS because of high blood pressure and high cholesterol. We rate you for it so you will pay a higher premium for those pre-existing conditions. Diabetes? Most companies will turn you away flat. Our company is a little more lenient but there are still guidelines we must follow to determine if we will rate or decline you for that condition. Heart problems? I hope you have a group insurance plan, cause that is the only way you will be covered (most likely, depends on the size of your company, and other factors that can work negatively agains you). Cancer? So sorry, but it depends on the type of cancer and how long ago it was and as long as you haven't had further treatment, surgery, medications, etc. But, you still may get declined. Best advise, park your butt on a plan and stay with it for as long as you can, unless you don't mind us putting a rider on your bad back, knees, shoulders, hell...anything with joints. Rider means we won't cover it at all. Hey, with or without healthcare reform, you are paying for it folks. We have got to stop these hospitals and clinics and doctors from constantly price gouging us. They do it because they can. We need to stop the bleeding (no pun intended). Here's a quick example. Customer reports that when he set up an appointment to have a colonoscopy, doctor says it will cost $10K if he has insurance, but if he didn't file an insurance claim, it would cost him $1800. Guess what? That is a preventative service and now thanks to the Affordable Care Act, it is covered 100% on major medical plans if it is done by a doctor in the network and follows the USPSTF recommendations. People want to blame the insurance companies, but we have to keep up with the hospitals' price inflation. Again, there is so much you think you know, but you really don't know. You are literally going against your own best interest, it could bite you, your parents, your grandparents, children, etc. in the butt just because you think you are paying for everyone else. If you're so dead against helping people in this country, then get out, cause we're tired of paying for you too.
Thanks for making my point from a place of experience!
I saw this after I posted above.
My wife's sister was diagnosed with breast cancer, she was let go, health care extended one year (thanks, I think Cobra-government thing- but expensive!). She has finished her treatment, looking for a new job at 58, and cancer just behind her, a hard prospect.
My wife thought of putting her on her insurance, but that isn't allowed. She is over 26 and not a dependent, so… she has preexisting condition, cannot get on a group plan. We are just hoping and praying she will be allright, but the fact remains, she might need treatment later on and how will she pay for it? Her house is just about on the chopping block as it is and under water, the bank would keep it, nothing for the medical facility.
Sandy, I'm so very sorry for your sister in law's situation and unfortunately, it's a story replayed over and over, every damn day. Thank goodness, my 64 year father can still work and has group insurance through his employer. If he called me to apply for health insurance, I would not be able to offer him an application...or my mom for that matter due to their pre-existing conditions. Assuming the Affordable Care Act bill stays put, by 2014 adults cannot be declined for pre-existing conditions (just like children now). Republicans talk about how democrats are for a "death panel" and I think it's absolutely ridiculous how they are twisting and misrepresenting (thank you Sarah Palin) the facts (which has now been debunked). The truth is, it's the republicans who are saying why should we insure everyone? Why make people buy insurance? It's unconstitutional. Romney will repeal Obamacare if he is president (yeah, right). Let the sick and old people die off, God knows it's their time anyway. If it's God's will...right? So much for prolife. Oh, only if it's babies, but then again, we know all babies that are born, are taken care of and never abused or abandoned...wait a minute...good lord, that's more free loaders in the healthcare system I'm paying for. (for those who do not recognize, this is sarcasm) Wake up people! Look at Sandy and his family. You think you are safe and untouchable in this world? You are not! What happened to Sandy's sister in law can happen to you, to any of your family members. How helpless a feeling to know that you can't get insurance and if you get sick, you are done, financially destroyed, living on someone's couch, or worse, living on the streets. If you are lucky to not die first.
Sandy, your sis in law is 7 years away from Medicare (assuming we still have it by then) and less than 2 years away from the full enactment of the ACA bill assuming it's not repealed or amended. Her only option at this point is to find a job that includes medical benefits. I know being 58 y/o in the job market makes it much more difficult and challenging to say the least. There may be a state pool option for her if she is HIPPA eligible (guarantee issue plan) depending on the state she lives in...when did her Cobra end? That premium by the way, is very expensive. I've seen them $1K a month plus.
Those are my hopes that either a job, ACA, or Medicare will see her through. Also, so many others are in the same boat. My brother is in the same situation, but no cancer. His wife died and his Health Care went with her.
As it is, her Cobra expired a few months ago, not sure exactly, but I'm sure it's too late. I am not sure how she is living, I think she is at the hospital again today with infection, which has been on and off at the surgery site. I know her Mom slipped her some cash recently, but that is not going to be much cash or consistent. She has an 18 year old daughter who works, so that helps, but her money ran out last Dec.
I share these stories to make it real/humanize the concept, it's not for Obama, it's for people.
Obama agrees with you...it's for the people.
This shows what most people can figure out about Americans: they're politically illiterate, they love having government do things for them, they just don't want to pay for it. Lower our taxes but keep your hands off my Medicare!
People like free stuff but they don't like having to pay for it. Let's make the freeloaders pay, let's make the hospitals pay, let's make the insurance companies, pay let's make future taxpayers pay. As a result we end up with an unsustainable burden of debt. As kind hearted as the government might be a welfare state will lead to economic collapse unless we are willing to pay for it. We can afford a little free stuff for those in need but not a lot. Both the people that want the free stuff are selfish as well as those that don't want to pay.
I always have problems with polls. In the above poll the vast majority of Americans like having protection for preexisting conditions, keeping young adults on their families plan and closing the prescription donut hole. That seems pretty straight foward...I mean who would not be for it. The problem I think is how it is asked. Is is asked like "would you favor closing the prescription donut hole?" or is it asked like "would you favor closing the prescription donut hole by paying x dollars generated by increased insurance premiums or a raise in taxes?"
I think the results would differ. I would like to see if the questions are leading or just simple "are you in favor" vs questions that also incorporate the cost of the programs as they related to the questionee (is questionee a word? :)).
@Skip- If you've ever taken a statistics class or psychology class (and this is NOT meant to be callous or to insult your intellect) you know that the subject of what's asked in polls is of major concern. The point you are raising- about how it's asked- is fundamental in understanding polling (regardless if it's policy polling or otherwise). This is part of why I don't personally take polls all that seriously because there's so much difference between questions that it renders people's responses moot. If you polled people and asked them "which do you prefer: horticulture or gardening?" a majority will respond w/ gardening even though they are the same thing. This is why all polling- whether in favor or not- needs to be taken w/ a grain of salt (this also ignoring the ad populum argument factor). People like the components of the health care law, but hate the name of the healthcare law. Does this help us gain prospective on what the American public wants? No. Does this help us pass better policy? No. All this shows us is the efficacy of campaign messaging. And that's worth exactly.....diddly.
But the broader problem here- w/ regards to healthcare- is about the issue of treatment. You cannot have an attitude that some people will go w/o healthcare and think that, that will save you money in the long run. The more people are uninsured the more money it will cost the society at large and you personally in your own wallet. This is fundamentally the argument for why we need a public form of healthcare. If someone gets sick w/ a disease like...oh let's say Ebola, that disease passes on to you. So even if you don't pay for their healthcare upfront you end up paying for it in the end. You cannot escape death or illness and as a society you cannot escape other people's death or illness. This is part of the fundamental flaw w/ libertarianism and anarchism. Neither will allow for people to be taken care of in ways that are necessary in order to protect the individual. Indeed the best option is to get everyone covered and that- like it or not- means public health care.
Not that you Skip or you Don were arguing otherwise. Am just saying for the point of argument. ;-)
Obama abdicated his leadership on healthcare from the beginning. He handed it over to congress to hash out instead of promoting its features and how it could help the public. He shouldn't have made this his first big issue. If he had started his term with a jobs bill, it would have easily passed and be showing results at this point. Then he should have worked on healthcare.
I think he started with the ACA because he'd already done the stimulus ( small as it was) which did help to save or create jobs. More money in another form of stimulus wasn't going to happen with the Congress that we've got. And a flat-out JOBS bill, why isn't that what the GOP "promised" Americans that they would do before the took-over the House - and exactly what have we seen NOTHING but the attempt to disenfranchise women as the first few bills from the house were related to abortion - a service that's already NOT covered because of the Hyde Amendment.
Right now with the tantrum throwing obstructionists in the House and the Senate needing no less than 60 votes to do anything - there won't be anything more than more blustering from Congress - vote them out in November!
He made the mistake of thinking people would actually use good sense.
the stimulus was a jobs bill... One of the big reasons he came up with this latest bill and named it the "jobs bill" was because A, he did believe we could use a bit more stimulus, but B, (and this is the main one) he just wanted to prove that even if he made a bill and stuffed it full of Republicans own ideas they would still be against it and angered by it. And it worked, this latest Jobs bill thing was the beginning of the public waking up and starting to realize that all these things they were complaining about with Obama were REPUBLICANS fault. They have been lying and obstructing and misinforming and laughing and shaking their heads in disbelief as the public ate it up for 2 years.
And speaking of public options, do these polls ever break down the reasons why people are opposed to ACA? I've been given the impression that many of the opponents are simply in favor of the public option... I think that metric would offer some additional nuance to the for/against Obamacare question, especially if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional and its back to square one. Just my penny's worth...
I think some polls have, but I'm just relying on vague memories. I am certainly not in favor of the mandate because single-payer is so obviously much better. But that was never on the table, and the public option was soon taken off, and just knowing that better alternatives are out there makes the mandate suck. But Republicans will never acknowledge that people oppose the mandate for that sort of reason.
One of the items that gives republicans amunition now is that many services have 0 copay, heck I support the bill but even I think that is Bull Pucky. If you truly wanted to model the bill using private insurance as the backbone, people usually have copays. If people have copays (including myself) it takes away from the repubs argument that it is a government takeover of healthcare and something for nothing.
The Obama plan to get a health care law though congress was to not make the same mistake the Clinton did by presenting a plan without Congressional imput. So have Cogress put a plan in place and work from there. Problem was the adminstration did not count on the right wing going farther right. Present the republican alternative to the Clinton plan and get called a socialist. If Congress tried to pass a medicare for all plan the Republicans would have proposed the plan we have today as an alternative.
Big money can influence not only our Congress, but also people to vote against their own best interests. Selling corporate corruption in the name of "freedom" is a genius marketing ploy. Live free or die. Mary Brown, ironically is proving that point. Funny how she chose to file for bankruptcy and pass on her medical bills to us! But don`t expect that to factor into the Supreme Court`s decision, since the Roberts Court (of jesters) will go down in history as the most corrupt in our history.
The one thing about forcing people to have to get health insurance is, is it affordable? Because if there is a group of people who cannot afford health insurance than you will be doing nothing but putting these people into a debt and more of a burden. And regardless if you have a penalty or not, there will still be people without health insurance and being penalized for something they have no control over so where is their rights and health care. There is many good things about this healthcare reform act, but at the same time everyone should be entitled to the benefits of these healthcare reforms.
Well yes and no. A poor person like me won't actually feel the effects of the healthcare "mandate" because someone like me makes too little money to pay federal income tax (and I also happen to live in a state that doesn't have state income tax, although that's coincidental and not intentional). Someone like me won't feel the burdens of the income tax penalty unless I actually file. The majority of Americans- more than 2/3's- file for income tax, even though not everyone who files actually pays income tax. This is because people want their government rebate and that rebate helps to stimulate the economy (which is why the government supports it as a long-standing program). People like me- who don't file income tax because we don't want the rebate- don't fall onto the government's radar. We don't make enough to matter and we don't care about a check for 300$ from the government, so we effectively aren't covered by this healthcare bill. Now- ftr- I do happen to have insurance because my employer pays for it. But if I worked for an employer that did not provide health insurance this would not effect me still.
I just heard the right argue this morning on the tube "I can still get health care. Doctors take a hippocratic oath." So, they expect ER services when needed and if they can't pay, oh well. Well, who pays? Those like me who have had coverage every moment of my existence. My rates accomodate doctors and hospitals that have to write those debts off. I understand there are those who would have to sacrifice food or electricity in order to pay premiums and we should assist them in getting the coverage they need at the lowest cost possible. But I KNOW there are many who say they can't afford health coverage, but what they really mean is they would rather have a bass boat (or whatever) I'm puzzled why conservatives are not in favor of personal responsibility. Oh yeah, Obama is for it.
Because the Republican Party has stopped being the party of responsibility and has instead became the party of people-who-can't-see-beyond-their-own-nose
If you oppose it, you are uninformed....OK, got it.
Americans are against the bill, but for everything in it, except the mandate, but are for the public option. As confused as Mittens.
No, not confused - they don't want to pay for it. The mindset of something for nothing has slowing creeped into our society. When you keep spending more than you have....anything is possible. We can have all the social programs, strong national defense, great infrastructure...all because we have a humungous credit card. NOW, when we are told that we owe a ton for all the "stuff" AND we also have to start getting cash up front for the new "stuff" in our future, that is now coming "to roost" so to speak. So folks are now starting to think of the costs of things...although in my opinion way too late.
Two perspectives on the chart: The general opposition to 'Obamacare' is a simple reflection of the media which projects this opinion, and opposition to the 'mandate' is due to a media-enhanced misunderstanding of the tax that is necessary to fund universal health care.
Americans don't like the mandate but they love protections for those with preexisting conditions. That the two are linked is something the mainstream simply doesn't understand.
I do think they understand. Naturally Americans love protections for those with preexisting conditions. BUT....they don't like having to pay for it (the mandate part). And I think that is a natural response. You can ask people myriad questions about good sensible programs - welfare, unemployment extension, free computers for all high school students, etc. - and you will get overwhelming support. But when you mention it will come out of their paycheck in some way, well now its a different story.
I want to make some comments regarding the Republicans and the individual mandate:
- The Republicans were FOR the individual mandate, before they were against it.
- The individual mandate was a Republican idea.
- The Republicans put the individual mandate into the health care bill.
- Then, when the health care bill became law, the Republicans attacked the individual
mandate, saying that it is unconstitutional, and that it limits our freedom.
Question: If the Republicans think that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and
that it limits our freedom, why did they propose it, and why did they put it into the health care bill?
By putting the individual mandate into the health care law, and then filing lawsuits against the individual mandate, the Republicans have wasted valuable time, and they
have wasted taxpayer money.
When I hear Republicans attacking the individual mandate after they proposed it, and
after they put it into the health care law, they ALL sound like etch-a-sketchers to me.
Ahhh, I learned about this in some psychology class: Cognitive dissonance. As Wikipedia describes it: discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. I think this is more common in conservatives who seem to get all their knowledge from Faux News.
Don't forget rule number one: The first concern of a congressperson is to get reelected. And they are cowards by nature. So don't rely on them to go out and sell the law they voted for. Their selling resources are aimed at selling themselves, not the ACA.
What's sad is how many people AREN'T informed. THis bill will not effect those with insurance,which is a large part of the population. And those who make below a certain amount,for example,myself with a $15,000 income,will either be exempt or will receive "waivers". As someone who deals with health insurance everyday in her job,what amazes me is how many people are giving the insurance industry the benefit of the propaganda that they've put across via their GOP friends.
Obviously NONE of these people have had insurance say,no...you have a pre-existing condition of diabetes,malignant hypertension(high blood pressure),hyperlipidemia,hypercholesterolemia,migraine headaches,cancer,arthritis,even sinus infections used against them.Then having to wait a 3-6 months before they can start their meds again...or even get sick. Yeah..good luck with that.Or in the middle of radiation/chemotherapy,suddenly being faced with the fact their insurance was going to either drop them...or they have a "ceiling" they didn't even know they had.Being faced with the fact they CAN'T pay....after paying the insurance company for years.The biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. That SHOULD say something to people. Or there's the insurance suddenly deciding NOT to pay for their meds. because the insurance has changed it's contracts with drug manufacturers,and the meds THEY need are no longer covered. Or like me....no insurance at all.Ever. It would cost the American tax payer MORE in the long haul to have me need hospitalization for an emergency than if this bill passes. But they don't get that. It's easier to believe the propaganda....but in a population that has a 25% obesity rate and high incidence of smoking related illnesses,it really SHOULD get it's head out of it's ass and understand what this means in the long run. As for those idiots who start bitching about Medicare,why don't you go ask your parents and grandparents to pay for their insurance,and see JUST how much money is left over for them to survive on. Private insurance for the elderly is more than even most wealthy people would want to pay. And all these fancy-smancy drugs on the market that will extend our lives and quality of life will be just as out of reach for all but 1% of the population. That includes all of you above. So prepare to die younger,and live a much less fulfilling life,kids.
he broccoli argument is a red herring. First not all persons can eat broccoli. Some may have a food allergy of some sort. Besides no matter how much broccoli you eat or how much you exercise you will still have to use the medical system at some point. You will sooner or later still get sick or you may have an accident. The problem is that we do not know when we will get ill or have an accident. That is why even young and apparently, at least for now, healthy people still should have medical insurance.
Do we need a better test of the importance of communication (planned, timely, direct, catchy) and the travesty that is the omnipresent radical right-wing lie-machine? Has the O admin learned this lesson? I can only hope so.
As an outside observer, I must admit I find the debate on Healthcare reform hard to understand, as well as the general fear of the "welfare state". I have followed US politics very closely due to my best friend who is a ex-pat from the States, and our close ties to the US. Comments like "a welfare state will lead to economic collapse" seem to me strange, as here in Australia we have quiet a large welfare state, yet we are far from economic collapse. In fact we came through the whole GFC with very little impact, we maintained near full employment, our banks barely wobbled due to our regulation regime, we had a stimulus program, that included a building program for our schools, stimulus money given directly to the people, especially the poorest, because they would spend it directly injecting cash into the economy, maintaining demand, and Jobs.
We have unemployment around the 5% mark though it has been under that, we have a universal health system, yet our health spending is about 8.5% of GDP. We also have a Private Health system, which is Voluntary, offering additional benefits such as gym memberships, or private rooms in hospital. Our medications are affordable, and after a certain amount spent become even cheaper. Our mean Taxation rates both private and corporate are lower than in the States. While our system is not perfect, and has room for improvement, I know that if I become ill, I will not become bankrupt, at least not because of the costs, and I will receive the best available treatment regardless of how much money I have.
One thing that is interesting people on our Right here, seem to have the Idea that we would be better of adopting many of the US policies, cut back welfare, cut back Public Health and build up the Private system reduce the Public (though the health one they have trouble with support), the stimulus was Bad, will ruin us, and our Left have the same issues with messaging. It seems to me that the Left has an almost universal messaging problem, maybe because the from what I see here and from what I have observed in US politics, the right are the masters fear, and fear is a much easier sell, people seem to find it easier to believe the worst.
I have lived with Treatment Resistant Major Depression for 14 years, which resulted in long periods of unemployment, yet because of our system I have a home even if rented. I have started University this even though I am on a disability pension after I lost my last job due to the depression. With the University fees, they are subsidised, ( all Aussies get that) and if I choose (which I did) I can defer payment until I graduate, and gain an income over a certain threshold to pay it back, so my student debt is not a millstone around my neck. I think that should Americans actually experience a working Universal Healthcare system, and a reasonable Welfare State, they would have a very view of these issues.
Any way I love TRMS, keep up the informative shows. At present (for me at least) US politics has become my favorite spectator sport, especially the Republican Primaries. I fear for you guys should any of them actually get elected. On a side note my friend was a Republican with very strong libertarian leanings, which is how we started debating US politics, today she has started to see the benefits of what we have here, and is slowly moving to the left on many issues, would probably be a "radical leftie" in the States now.
Please note I admire much about the US, and this is not intended as a negative comment on the US, but trying to show a different perspective. The doom and gloom, collapse of freedom and liberty, should the Govt do anything to help people your right seems to portray, to my experience is a figment of their own Ayn Rand inspired nightmares. One other thing I find amusing and a little scary is the influence of religion on politics, while we have a vocal christian right, they carry none of the weight yours does, come election time here, other then a very few politicians who run on religious right platforms, none or our politicians even bring up religion, heck our current Prime Minister is an Atheist.
Again Thanks for the great show (I only get to watch the web clips but they are great)
Hey Scott - Any jobs available for a cancer researcher there? I would love to get away from these intolerable Tea Party Sarah Palin/Rick Santorum-loving redneck screw-heads!
Hey Chi-Town,
While I don't know the specifics, Australia has quiet a good record in research especially Medical Research. I am fairly certain that with a little looking around you would have little difficulty finding opportunities. The Australian Cancer Council or the Australian Foundation for Cancer Research would be two good kick off points. Be aware while we don't yet have too many people such as Palin or Santorum we do have our share of nutjobs. It seems to be a strange phenomenon that even we are starting to see a swing towards hard right politics. Our debate here if you can call it that on same-sex marriage, has the same arguments coming from the right that I see in the US, The Destruction of Society as we know it, Collapse of Families, an on and on it goes.
The other week I was debating same-sex marriage with a class mate and came across an interesting article written in the New Englander and Yale review Rev. Prof. H. M. Goodwin (1884), in the article Goodwin is arguing against Women's Suffrage, replace Women's Suffrage with Same Sex Marriage, and it is almost identical to the arguments we here from the right today against same sex marriage. A small example: "Society as at present constituted is based upon the Family as the social unit. The State is not an aggregation of individuals, but an organism, of which the family is an integral part. This social unit is represented by the constituted head of the family,—the husband, father, or householder, to whom the care and support and interests of the family are naturally intrusted. Whatever tends to disintegrate this organic family unity is a violation of the divine constitution, and can work only mischief, whether it be enforced celibacy, easy divorce, or female suffrage." (Replace female suffrage, with same sex marriage.. I am sure I have heard these arguments to day.)
Any way come on out too Australia, it is a great place!! and our Beer is excellent!! :)
Regards
Scott
Thanks for this, Steve. I do believe the advocates of the Health Care Act didn't take the lead early enough in specifically and thoroughly describing the undeniable benefits beFORE the GOP took it to their districts. It was at that point the GOP began their systematic attack against the HCA by disseminating misinformation, misleading their constituents with falsehoods and omissions of the facts. That being said, let's not make the mistake of taking time to "blame". No more "shoulds" - and let's get on with being very LOUD in touting the merits of the parts of the HCA which are already in effect (pre-existing OK, kids 18 to 26 on parents' policies, loop-holes closed) and those yet to come! Keep it simple (lol "simple" as opposed to "complicated") for those who haven't been watching Rachel and her "truth team" on MSNBC. Get more op-eds on the benefits - printed in as much media as possible - internet, TV & paper; appear on major talk shows... AND encourage Dems in Congress to do the same.
Say I own a house in an urban area and choose to dig a well to dump my garbage and my dead cat. My property, my freedom Yet my actions cause everyone else on the same aquifer to buy expensive water purification systems to keep from getting sick. Does my freedom trump damaging the economy of the rest of the area? I have cholera and choose not to buy antibiotics and am likely to infect others, Is this my right? Twelve dollar Tylenol on a hospital bill is a result of uninsured costs being recouped.