informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...


An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

Fall of the Republic: America's Last Stand
Operation Gladio: "One of the most secret programs that ever existed"
The Age of Transitions: The Dystopia Planned For Our Future
(more)
Article posted Nov 16 2009, 8:00 AM Category: Politics/Corruption Source: Associated Press Print

AP Poll: Fine print in health care prompts worries

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — What's it going to cost me?

Americans are worried about the fine print in the health care overhaul, an Associated Press poll says, and those concerns are creating new challenges for President Barack Obama as he tries to overcome doubts in Congress.

Despite a widely shared conviction that major health care changes are needed, Democratic bills that aim to extend coverage to the uninsured and hold down medical costs get no better than a lukewarm reception in the latest results.

The poll found that 43 percent of Americans oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support. An additional 15 percent remain neutral or undecided.

There has been little change in that broad public sentiment about the overhaul plan from a 40-40 split in an AP poll last month, but not everyone's opinion is at the same intensity. Opponents have stronger feelings on the issue than do supporters. Seniors remain more skeptical than younger generations.

The latest survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama's goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted — sometimes dramatically.

In one particularly striking finding, the poll indicated that public support for banning insurance practices that discriminate against those in poor health may not be as solid as it seems.

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has long been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. Some 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.

In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for their health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials but 31 percent said they would oppose it.

Costs for those with coverage could go up because people in poor health who'd been shut out of the insurance pool would now be included, and they would get medical care they could not access before.

"I'm thinking we'd probably pay more because we would probably be paying for those that are not paying. So they got to get the money from somewhere. Basically I see our taxes going up," said Antoinette Gates, 57, of Atlanta.

The health care debate is full of such trade-offs. For example, limiting the premiums that insurance companies can charge 50-year-olds means that 20-year-olds have to pay more for coverage.

"These trade-offs really matter," says Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who follows opinion trends. "The legislation contains a number of features that polls have shown to be popular, but support for the overall legislation is less than might be expected because people are worried there are details about these bills that could raise their families' costs."

If the added costs — spread over tens of millions of people — turn out to be small, it probably won't make much difference, Blendon said. But if they're significant, Obama could be on shaky ground in the final stretch of his drive to deliver access to health insurance to most Americans.

More than 4 in 5 Americans now have health insurance, and their perceptions about costs will be critical as Obama tries to close the deal. Democrats in the House came together to pass a bill, but in the Senate, Democratic liberals and moderates disagree on core questions.

The poll suggests the public is becoming more attuned to the fact that when it comes to health care, details often make all the difference.

For example, asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67 percent agreed and 27 percent said no.

The responses flipped when people were asked about requiring everybody to carry insurance or face a federal penalty: 64 percent said they would be opposed, while 28 percent favored that.

Both the House and Senate bills would require all Americans to get health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own coverage. Subsidies would be provided for low-income people, as well as many middle-class households.

And there would also be a stick — a penalty collected through the income tax system to enforce the coverage mandate.

Among Democrats, only 12 percent oppose the broad goal of requiring insurance. But 50 percent oppose fines to enforce it.

"I think it's crazy. I think it infringes on our rights as a citizen, forcing us to do these things," said Eli Fuchs, 26, of Marietta, Ga.

The poll found a similar opinion shift on employer requirements: 73 percent agreed that all companies should be required to give their employees at least some health insurance.

Yet when asked if fines should be used to enforce such a requirement on medium and large companies, support dropped to 52 percent. Most large and medium businesses already provide coverage. Uninsured workers are concentrated in small companies.

"The cost — who's going to pick up the cost? There's nobody to help that business out. If they can't afford to pay for the insurance, then what do they say, you either pay for the insurance or you go out of business?" said Emerson Wilkins, 62, of Powder Springs, Ga.

The poll was based on land line and cell phone interviews with 1,502 adults from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. Stanford University's participation was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research on the health care system.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


SHARE:



Latest Politics/Corruption
- Budget Crisis? LA unveils $578Million school, costliest in the nation
- It's Just Another Crisis
- Las Vegas Considers Hula-Hoop Ban
- Can Lawyers Design Computer Chips?
- UN tries to resurrect climate con: New taxes needed for climate fund -- $100 billion a year; Carbon taxes, add-ons to int'l air fares; levy on cross-border money movements
- Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation
- Elena Kagan Confirmed To Supreme Court
- Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq









Comments Add Comment Page 1 of 1
mikeyt

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 2:26 PM

Link
208110 Help me out here. So if everyone is required to have health insurance, are we all going to have the same level of coverage and have the same costs? Or, is the redistribution of wealth program going to require me to pay more for insurance because I make $20 an hour than the person who makes $10 an hour for the same coverage?

And what about congress? Can the voters require congress to have the same level of coverage we do? That would go a long way in keeping the costs level.

How about the homeless and unemployed?

And how about all the folks on all the entitlement programs? How are they going to fare?

I believe the rich are still going to have far greater coverage than the average person; and the people on the bottom of the socioeconomic scale will still have the worst level of care.

After seeing how congress (both parties) has mismanaged the social security, medicare, medicaid, bailouts and cash for clunkers programs, I think we are all in deep trouble


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please read our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

Please note: InformationLiberation is neither liberal or conservative. When one takes the time to research the "liberal elite," whom the conservatives oppose, and the "conservative elite," whom the liberals oppose, one finds both "elite" are one and the same. "Liberal" or "Conservative" is not a substantive choice, it is only the carefully crafted illusion of a choice, for both parties come together when they are instructed to.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933

"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, 1936 issue of The New York Times.

If you care to know who runs the world you live in, view these films. If you care not then I leave you with this quote to ponder:

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961 Audio - Transcript


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country - 08/16SHOCK VIDEO: Alaska State Trooper Grabs at Citizen's Cell Phone Camera During Routine Traffic Stop! - 08/16Government Roid Rage Returns - 08/20Life for Half an Ounce of Medical Marijuana? - 08/12Video: NYPD Undercover Cop Threatens Cameraman with Rape - 08/19Video: Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling - 08/12California surfer films great white sharks circling his board - 08/12Murder a Kid, Plant a Gun -- Take a Vacation - 08/11

ACTA: The War on Progress, Freedom, and Human CivilizationValedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling in Graduation SpeechFeds Ignore Due Process, First Amendment, Shut Down 73,000 BlogsObama Administration Announces Massive Piracy CrackdownNew Bill Gives Obama 'Kill Switch' To Shut Down The InternetThe "Tax Mahal": A Shrine to Corporate SocialismBilderberg 2010: Between the sword and the wallObama: Life Imprisonment Without Trial
(more)

 
Top