Likely Voters Overwhelmingly Disapprove of ObamaCare

A Zogby International/O’Leary Report poll of 4,200 likely voters has some startling results concerning attitudes toward health-care reform:

Asked if they agree or disagree that the federal government should require all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a fine — a provision favored by Democrats — 70.2 percent said they disagree, and only 18.5 percent agree. The rest are not sure.

A resounding 75 percent of respondents said that taxes should not be raised to fund a government-run health insurance program for Americans who do not have health insurance.

The pollsters stated: “President Obama is promoting a new government agency called the ‘Independent Medicare Advisory Council,’ and some people believe this agency should use its powers to deny payment for procedures it deems unnecessary or futile.”

Critics say such power would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, the pollsters noted, and many consider it a form of healthcare rationing. Nearly 59 percent said they oppose the creation of the council, and just 30.6 percent support it.

Some Republicans have called for provisions allowing Americans to purchase health insurance from providers outside their state as an alternative to Obama’s proposed government-supported “public option” insurance plan. Respondents said they favor such provisions by an overwhelming margin, 82.8 percent to 6.9 percent.

Other findings: 78.5 percent believe tort reform is needed, and 77.3 percent oppose taxing employer-provided health-care benefits.

The numbers are dramatically worse for ObamaCare in this poll than in other polls. Part of the explanation lies in the sample—likely voters seem to hate ObamaCare a lot more than do Americans generally (who may not even be registered to vote). Moreover, getting voters to think about specific aspects of the plan rather than the broad question of whether they like the “House Democrats’ plan” or “the president’s plan” (neither of which yet exist in fixed form) reveals just how averse to a government takeover of health care are those who will head to the polls in 2010. Any lawmaker whose seat is unsafe might want to mull that over.

An email from my brother, who works in cardiac intensive care (family get togethers can get out of hand sometimes)...

I am for waste reduction and system transparency... I would rather not do the public option, but we already recognized along time ago that private business (both insurance co's and hospitals) aren't interested in taking care of old sick people past the point of profitability. It doesn't take long to rack up a several $100,000 dollar charge in the hospital. Private insurance doesn't want to pay it and hospitals don't want to eat it....i.e., Medicare was born. The same businesses don't want to pay for the poor either... i.e., Medicaid was born.

Many people can afford health insurance, but would rather buy a carton of smokes every week and then come to the ER when they have a heart attack. Of course, other than bonus stamps off their empty packs of smokes, there's no way they can pay for it (they've already maxed out their home equity loan on the two new cars in the driveway). So we pay for it with higher insurance premiums to cover the additional deadbeat costs hospitals add to every payers bill. These are probably some of the same dumb f#cks standing in the street screaming "No public option" "Give me liberty or give me death". I say lock the doors to the ER and give them death.

P.S. I don't disagree with anything I read in the Barack Obama exchange. Healthcare is rationed everyday. Private insurance companies decide who gets what therapy everyday. People die everyday because their insurance company decides the treatment they are seeking is "experimental" or "unproven". How do the insurance companies decide which therapies they will pay for or medications they will let you have? PANELS!!! Panels of experts. Panels who review a particular intervention or medicine and advise the insurance company whether or not there's enough "evidence" to support them paying for it. They don't want to pay for anything they can get out of... so they spend A LOT of time and resources trying to find ways NOT to pay for (i.e. ration) something... Death panels... panels of experts who advise insurance company A, B, or C NOT to pay for something. Something that may save the patient's life. There are tens of thousands of lawsuits every year brought against private insurance companies over their refusal to pay for a particular treatment or medicine.

"Rationing", "Death Panels", "Public option" these are all bullsh#t buzzwords. They're bullsh#t because they already exist!... and have since the beginning of organized healthcare (well, Medicare came a little later). While I am somewhat frightened by the fact these "words" already exist in practice... and are practiced in healthcare in the US every minute of every day... I am ten times more frightened of the dumb f#cks that don't know they ALREADY EXIST!

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.