Graphic showing results of NYT push poll in the article.
Posted on 06/21/2009 3:58:58 AM PDT by Zakeet
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.
That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like.
Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Graphic showing results of NYT push poll in the article.
77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care
Is the New York Times making this crap up out of whole cloth now?
Do they go to Obama and ask him each day what the polls are supposed to say?
the health system definately needs a change, but it needs to be changed to allow more competition to bring down cost
not government intervetion to increase cost
“77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care”
...yes..which is why so many want ot have a lower level of care, less options,and really long waits to recveive what would otherwise be routine procedures...
W/ almost no advertising revenues, a plummeting stock price and a rapidly deminishing circulation, one wonders how this fishwrapper stays in print??? Perhaps a back-door government “bailout”?
What do you expect from a paper that shilled for Joseph Stalin and got Pulitzer Prize for it?
Do they go to Obama and ask him each day what the polls are supposed to say?
Yup.
You know what would be a fantastic idea? A government sponsored newspaper to compete with the NY Times. That way Americans tired of the skyrocketing price of the newspaper can opt out and go with the government run edition.
This is identical to how Bill Clinton got elected.
Most people were happy with their personal situation, but many people were concerned about their neighbor and wanted someone to do something about it.
The Times can go to Hell.
Of course, but that only applies to those of us who already do have health insurance. But what about the other 46 million of Americans who don't have anything?
I hate the Obama plan even tho I have not seen it yet, could just imagine what it would be. But, the healthcare industry did have decades to police itself and as the Bible says, "judge the tree by the fruits". 46 million Americans without health insurace is just unacceptable. This number probably includes many grassroot conservatives.
No doubt for some of my neighbors, the pending Obama health plan is better than nothing at all. Can't blame them really.
It's game over for the greedy health system. Obama will screw that up real fast.
I am for Government Run health care just as long as it’s the same plan Congress is on. Obama said that we should have the same options as congress has. The media, other pols, and us should take him up on that and remind him of his own words.
The government-run home loan program Fannie & Freddie worked out well. Government has destroyed the financial system, they might as well destroy health care.
Hey, It’s the New York Times. They are lying their depraved socialist rat asses off.
So where and what are the first 40 questions in this poll? They start with #6, then jump way up in the numbering. If you follow all the way through to this 100+ question ‘poll’, you find that only 86% respondents are registered to vote, and the voters surveyed went almost 2-to-1 for Obama over McCain (48% to 25%).
And yet, on 44% of the respondents approve of Obama’s handling of health care? Only 13% are not concerned that with a government solution their access to needed tests and treatment will be more limited than now? Only 15% aren’t concerned that the quality of their care will become worse?
>>Most people were happy with their personal situation, but many people were concerned about their neighbor and wanted someone to do something about it.
If your neighbor can’t make it on his own in the most properous country in the history of Earth, then your neighbor is an evolutionary dead-end and is weakening the species.
The truth is that Dems/Libs/Progressives/Marxists all claim to care about their neighbor because that’s a convenient way to demand that tax money be stolen from one individual and then spent on another.
But their charitable giving says otherwise.
And, in the end, once the money starts flowing, the guy that claims that he “cares” always has his hand out too and will knock his poor, poor neighbor out of the way to make sure he gets his first.
Reminds me of the old Robert Klein joke about how Dodge was advertising at one point that most consumers, when surveyed, preferred the Dodge 600 to a Mercedes Benz. He asked "Are these surveyors using North Korean Police methods to get these answers?"
"Sir, which do you prefer: the Mercedes or the Dodge?"
"Why, the Mercedes, of course."
"AAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!! The Dodge!! The Dodge!!"
Do you accept as amended?
When you take away the illegals, the very young and the healthy higher-income choosing not to have insurance, you’re talking about something like 5% of Americans. Also, remember the actual poor have medicaid, the elderly have medicare, hospitals generally don’t turn away those in need of care, and low-cost health clinics are peppered throughout lower income areas.
>>But what about the other 46 million of Americans who don’t have anything?
That 46 million figure is a lie. I forget the exact numbers, but almost half of it is college students and young people that opt out of health care plans because they don’t need it. Another 8 million or so are people that the government claims is eligible for Medicaid, but haven’t signed up yet.
In the end, there’s about 10 million that are truly uninsured. It isn’t worth destroying this nation’s health care system and its economy to get 10 million on an insurance plan. There are better ways to get those people some health care.
As long as you are “judging the tree by its fruits” what do you think about a nation where the fruits of one person’s labor are stolen (at gunpoint, if necessary) to redistribute to another who won’t labor? Social programs and wealth redistribution schemes do not strengthen America’s moral fabric, they destroy it.
Can we coin a term like POLLAGANDA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.