President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture's not that clear cut.
A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.
"I was disappointed that it didn't provide universal coverage," said Bronwyn Bleakley, 35, a biology professor from Easton, Mass.
More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured. Bleakley, who was uninsured early in her career, views the overhaul as a work in progress.
The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.
[snip]
Those numbers are no endorsement for Obama's plan, but the survey also found a deep-seated desire for change that could pose a problem for Republicans. Only 25 percent in the poll said minimal tinkering would suffice for the health care system.
[snip]
Broad majorities of both the "get-outs" and "do-mores" said medical care, health insurance and prescription drugs cost too much. And most said the system should aim to increase the number of people with insurance and enable Americans to get the care they need, while improving quality.
The differences emerge when it comes to the means:
_Only 25 percent of the "get-outs" favor requiring health insurance companies to sell coverage to people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, while 54 percent of the "do-mores" support it. The law requires insurers to cover children regardless of health problems starting this year, and that protection is extended to people of all ages in 2014.
_Among those who want a law that does more, 68 percent favor requiring medium to large companies to provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine; that stands at 28 percent among those who want the government out. The law does not require employers to offer coverage, but it hits companies that have 50 or more workers with a penalty if any full-time employee gets a government subsidy for health insurance.
_The "get-outs" overwhelmingly reject the health care law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance starting in 2014. But the "do-mores" are split, with 34 percent favoring the mandate, 33 percent opposing it, and 32 percent neutral.
I wouldn't mind a mandate if there was a public option-- an AFFORDABLE public option. But all this current law does is force people to buy something they cannot pay for.
I wouldn't mind a mandate if there was a public option-- an AFFORDABLE public option. But all this current law does is force people to buy something they cannot pay for.
EXACTLY!
The issues on affordability front are many.
- Cost is yet to be taken out of the HC processes. There is tremendous amount of waste in the system. This may be forced to be addressed by the current regulation.
- Insurance companies are not competing across state border. We are nowhere close to addressing this. This was part of Hillary's proposal and badly needs to be implemented... perhaps as next round.
- Pharmaceuticals are absolutely minting money. This absolutely needs to be curbed.
------Related topic: We are paying tremendous monies as consumers for all those advertisements that are unnecessary. Dont think that the drug ads associated with the drugs that you dont use are not hurting you. Wrong there. The cost of ads hits all product costs.. because the pharma are not lowering their margin anytime soon... without some real constraints being imposed.
-------Current regs are expecting the insurance companies to put pressure on the pharma to lower cost of drugs. Will this work? I have some doubts. Are there any alternatives to this? No, importing from other countries is not going to work... Perhaps one rule can be that if a drug is being exported, it cannot be marketed in the country for "significantly" more... I dont know how this can be regulated.. but the government can regulate the cost at which the government acquires medicine...
------ Could the government be the acquirer of meds buy from non-US sources? Does it at present? I dont think so. Does government have more advantageou rates from the US Pharma for these purchases? I dont know.
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010
My parents spend so much $$$ on prescription drugs, it's scary. They worked hard all their lives and now all their retirement money is going to the drug companies. And their doctors keep putting them on more meds. They're old and sick, but they're not that old and sick!
__________________
Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
Page 1 of 1 sorted by
Hillarysworld -> Health Care Issues -> "Repeal? Most Americans think health reform did not go far enough, poll finds" (AP, The Raw Story, 9/25/10)