Posts
Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurers.
- A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a government health insurance company as President Obama and congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health care reform plan. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
- In mid-June, 41% of American adults thought setting up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies was a good idea, but the identical number (41%) disagreed.
- Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats favor the creation of a government insurance alternative. But Republicans (73%) and voters not affiliated with either party (62%) are opposed.
- Seventy-one percent (71%) of liberals like the plan for a government insurance company, while 76% of conservatives are against it.
- Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters now at least somewhat oppose the Democrats’ health care reform plan, while 46% at least somewhat favor it.
- Seventy-eight percent (78%) of voters say it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of the health care reform plan.
- Democrats in the House want to tax wealthier Americans to help fund their health care reform plans, but voters are closely divided over whether that's such a good idea .
- Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe health care reform will increase the cost of health insurance coverage while just 19% believe it will reduce costs.
- Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say they are following the congressional debate on health care reform at least somewhat closely, with 36% who are following very closely. Just four percent (4%) say they are not following at all.
UT Health Science Center at Houston/Zogby poll reveals Americans wary about U.S. healthcare reform HOUSTON - (July 16, 2009) -Americans are unsure that a healthcare reform bill introduced this week is the solution to problems with the U.S. healthcare system, according to a poll created and commissioned by a public policy expert at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
"By a 50-42 margin, Americans oppose the House of Representatives' bill introduced July 14," said S. Ward Casscells, M.D., vice president of external affairs and public policy and the John Edward Tyson Distinguished Professor in Cardiology at the UT Health Science Center at Houston. "This bill would call for most employers to sponsor health plans and would also create a Medicare-like plan for those under 65 who have no other health plan. The increased costs would be covered by increasing income taxes on individuals making more than $280,000 and families making more than $350,000." According to the survey, which was conducted by Zogby International, most Americans are unwilling to pay higher taxes and instead favor more innovative approaches that would use the savings from improving care and curtailing waste and fraud to fund health care for the uninsured. The results of the survey - the largest poll this year to examine American attitudes toward healthcare reform and legislation - were released during a National Press Club Newsmaker conference July 15 in Washington, D.C.
- Key survey findings included that 84 percent of those who are currently insured are satisfied with their health care.
- For those without insurance, only 46 percent had some level of satisfaction with their health care.
- Almost 80 percent agreed that rising healthcare costs are hurting American businesses.
- An expanded role for government in health care is opposed by 48 percent of Americans, while 44 percent support it.
- Forty-six percent of respondents agreed that a public plan is needed to "keep insurance companies honest."
Most believe that people with pre-existing conditions should be eligible for health insurance. They also endorse the idea of higher premiums for those who smoke and/or refuse vaccines and cancer screening. "These survey results establish the clearest and most up-to-date understanding of how Americans as a whole feel about their health, health care and, most importantly, the future of health care in America and the legislative options in front of them," Casscells said. John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, said, "In this wide-ranging poll we discovered that Americans want costs reduced and want to see everyone insured, but they are divided down the middle on how best to proceed. The likelihood of achieving consensus is low." Larry R. Kaiser, M.D., president of the UT Health Science Center at Houston said, "As this survey demonstrates, quality health care is a top priority for Americans." The online survey of 3,862 adults nationwide was conducted June 18-22, 2009, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.6 percentage points.
Where Does ACORN-COI And obama Find These Dumb-Asses?
Commerce Secretary: America needs to pay for China’s emissions
It’s bad enough that the ACORN-COI-obama administration wants to penalize all Americans for their energy use through the cap-and-tax scheme that will hobble our economy and hike electricity and gas costs, but until now they only proposed to penalize us for our own energy use. With China refusing to join the West in economic suicide, who will pay for their emissions? Fluffy's Commerce Secretary says that the American consumer is to blame for China’s energy-production emissions. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazing—U.S. consumers should pay for part of Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions. “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai. The idea that rich-country consumers should pay for some of China’s industrial emissions has been gaining traction lately—but not from within the obama administration. The argument is that many of China’s factories churn out cheap crap for the West, not for domestic consumption, so those consumers are actually responsible for the emissions. China, of course, loves the idea. Commerce sent this non-responsive statement to the Wall Street Journal when they reported this late Friday night: “Secretary Locke has been very clear on emphasizing the importance of fair trade as a part of the United States’ relationship with China. He believes U.S. companies should not be disadvantaged by Chinese crap not bound by responsible policies to reduce carbon emissions. China and the US must work together to ensure a level playing field and reduce our carbon footprints. The Secretary’s trip to China demonstrated his commitment to fair trade and his belief that both the United States and China can benefit from shared investments and cooperation in clean energy that will lead to commercial and environmental benefits for both countries.” This could happen in one of two ways. The obama administration could make cap-and-tax more expensive in order to make up for the emissions from China, which would absolutely delight Beijing. In fact, that would allow them an easily-adjustable pressure point on the American economy by simply increasing their emissions. If the US increased the penalties for domestic emissions in order to compensate, the Chinese could sell their crap much more cheaply in the US than domestic producers. The other option would be energy-production tariffs on imported crap, which would touch off a trade war with China. That would make Chinese crap more expensive in the US at the same time energy bills begin to skyrocket, launching an inflationary spiral and begging China for retaliation. Since China holds a large amount of US debt, that retaliation could get extremely expensive for both countries. The US does not need to pay for China’s carbon emissions, even if the “greenhouse effect” presents a danger to the planet, a theory which increasingly looks suspect. This is yet another version of the blame-America impulse in the obama administration, one that will hit us all in the wallet — and in our outlets and furnaces!
Chinese "Get It;" Fluffy: Clueless!!
[The more I read, the more I'm convinced: it ain't about the economy, the recovery, the healthcare debacle, the financial debacle.... It's all about more and more government control over more and more facets of Americans' personal lives!! obama wants a robust recovery almost as much as you and I want the hole in a doughnut!! It just don't get no easier to sell socialist, marxist, statist policies when there's ever-rising unemployment; purporting that the government can and will solve everyone's problems!! The resounding statement President Ronald Reagan made in his first inaugural address is even more relevant today: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Nuff said!! Now is the time to consider what solutions might be viable in the 2010 and 2012 elections; I say throw all the incumbent bastards [and bitches] out!!!]
Fluffy obama is serving donuts. The big guys will get the cake and working Americans will get the hole [without benefit of the requisite "K-Y" jelly!!] The stock market is rallying. The economy will recover by year-end, and strong profits among big players like Goldman Sachs (GS), IBM (IBM) and Google (GOOG) will spread to other big corporations. However, many small businesses and working Americans won’t be cheering. Since December 2007, the private sector has shed 6.6 million jobs—half in manufacturing and construction. Lousy banking practices and a surge in imported crap, mostly from China, are the main culprits but are not getting fixed. ACORN/Fluffy's bank reforms will fix many abusive lending practices. However his reforms hardly touch Wall Street’s increasing aversion to the ordinary business of making sound loans, and its obsession with abusive derivatives trading and the big bonuses that creates. The Federal Reserve and FDIC have poured $2 trillion in cheap credit into the banks and financial houses, mostly benefiting the biggest players. Hence, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan (JPM) post record profits and Citigroup (C) and Bank of America (BAC) survive when they should simply be dismembered in bankruptcy court. Meanwhile, regional banks that rely on Wall Street for credit simply can’t get enough money to make loans or they end up like CIT Financial (CIT) and others—broke and bankrupt.
Small and medium sized manufacturers, builders and retailers rely on those disenfranchised regional banks and can’t borrow enough money to sustain operations as the economy recovers. New opportunities in Der Fluffmeister's new green economy will go to big players like GM and to businesses in China, where the government understands global commerce is played by the rules of prison football. China has more than 100 million rural underemployed workers, who if moved into factories could replace every manufacturing job in the United States, Western Europe and Japan. China lacks the technology to capture all those jobs but Beijing recognizes its huge, growing market provides leverage to impose teach-to-sell conditions on the likes of GM and GE (GE).Beijing maintains high barriers to imports, requires Western companies to transfer technology to sell in China and subsidizes exports to the tune of at least $500 billion a year. Beijing requires 70 percent of all green energy hardware sold in China to be manufactured there. Buick is a top-selling brand, but GM can’t export from Michigan but must produce and source parts in China. Any suggestion to get tough with Chinese mercantilism is naively labeled protectionism by President [Clueless] obama and ACORN-COI. Hence, the $789 billion stimulus will create some jobs but those will be mostly low-paying government jobs. The economy will stage a moderate recovery but few jobs will be created that adequately replace lost high paying manufacturing and construction jobs. Nevertheless, large companies like GE, GM and IBM are well poised to profit, having downsized domestic operations to service a smaller U.S. market and aggressively expanded in China.
Til Nex'Time....
No comments:
Post a Comment