[stevewig]

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions | Reuters

(Reuters) - Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.

Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama's reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.

A glaring exception to the popular provisions is the "individual mandate," which forces all U.S. residents to own health insurance........

[boriscleto]

Americans know exactly what they want...something for nothing. They want a free lunch. They want socialized medicine, but don't call it that, and they don't want to pay for it.

[kswier]

I think it is true that Americans want something for nothing.

I also think that there are many Americans who don't understand the consequences of enacting some of the popular previsions without some of the unpopular previsions. The affordable care act was designed to keep the private medical industry intact and healthy while providing close to universal coverage. In my mind it is not an ideal solution, but I am afraid we will have to wait decades for another solution if it is struck down.

[jeffkrol]

Americans know exactly what they want...something for nothing. They want a free lunch. They want socialized medicine, but don't call it that, and they don't want to pay for it.

don't have to "pay for that"... your stuck in flat earth economics.. I really don't need to go into do I?
THINK of it this way.. we already sponsored 2 "free wars"..........and the US is still standing.. What they don't want is for people to realize it......and your helping to keep that urban legend alive..

I think it is true that Americans want something for nothing.to it do I?

I also think that there are many Americans who don't understand the consequences of enacting some of the popular previsions without some of the unpopular previsions. The affordable care act was designed to keep the private medical industry intact and healthy while providing close to universal coverage. In my mind it is not an ideal solution, but I am afraid we will have to wait decades for another solution if it is struck down.

well to be honest, yes what was passed was barely the correct thing.. barely.. what will be left if parts are stripped out will be a mess.. BUT after the 2nd revolution things will be fine (joking of course,............ hopefully)

Personally "Medicare for all" would be fine, play all the "pay for it" games you want....

bottom line, many Americans know what they want, many special interests are talking them out of it..........This issue has been around since at least Truman.. same old story, same old song and dance..

[mikemike]

I like most things about smoking, but there are a couple of things that I don't like about it and those made me quit. You can't just say that americans like 3 out of 4 things about Obamacare and not understand that the fourth thing is something they so dislike that they are willing to throw away the other 3 things.

[jolepp]

... "Medicare for all" ...

This would indeed seem like the most pragmatic way of implementing a single payer system; basing it on an existing system which apparenty works pretty well as such for 'basic care' (?) would seem like the most rational thing to do (?) in its own right. Also, merely widening the eligibility criteria of Medicare (to everyone) should also defuse the (tenuous) counter-arguments of a single payer system being socialism, rationing (death panels) and such (?); something you have been doing for decades on a wide scale can hardly be un-American or otherwise unacceptable (?).

[kswier]

I like most things about smoking, but there are a couple of things that I don't like about it and those made me quit. You can't just say that americans like 3 out of 4 things about Obamacare and not understand that the fourth thing is something they so dislike that they are willing to throw away the other 3 things.

And if that is the opinion of an individual, I greatly respect it (i.e. the opinion that the mandate does not justify the benefit).

The problem I have is when people say they do not want the personal mandate, but want the benefits that come with it. You ask them how this would work out for the medical industry, and receive blank stares. There is so much misinformation out there that a lot of people do not understand the dependence of the benefits on the mandate (the mandate was not placed in the bill because democrats thought it would be fun). If people understand that throwing out the mandate means throwing out some of the most popular benefits, and are still against the affordable care act, then we better go back to the drawing board.

I also think this supreme court decision will have implications for those who want to privatize social security (i.e. government cannot mandate people to spend money on a private industry). Unless I am wrong about this, I am a bit unsure why republicans are trying so hard to shoot down the mandate.

[jeffkrol]

I am a bit unsure why republicans are trying so hard to shoot down the mandate.

Especially since it was their idea.. pride or prejudiced??
historic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/newt-gingrich-supported-...y-2009/252233/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/gingrich-once-wanted-health-...mandate/45520/

The concept that people should be required to buy health coverage was fleshed out more than two decades ago by a number of conservative economists, embraced by scholars at conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate.

The individual mandate, as it is known, was seen then as a conservative alternative to some of the health care approaches favored by liberals — like creating a national health service or requiring employers to provide health coverage.

“In 1993, in fighting ‘Hillarycare,’ virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do,” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said at a debate in December, casting his past support of a mandate as an antidote to the health care overhaul proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton during her husband’s administration.

Since then the politics of health care have grown more twisted and tangled than the two snakes entwined around the staff in a caduceus, which is sometimes used as a symbol of medicine. It is now Republicans and conservatives who oppose the individual mandate, arguing that it is unconstitutional, while Democrats, who were long resistant to it, are its biggest defenders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-firs...ervatives.html
to me Dems are pragmatic and flexible.. Repubs just bat sit crazy...

[GeneV]

I like most things about smoking, but there are a couple of things that I don't like about it and those made me quit. You can't just say that americans like 3 out of 4 things about Obamacare and not understand that the fourth thing is something they so dislike that they are willing to throw away the other 3 things.

You would need some well-phrased polling on that to know what this really means. Every time this issue ends up on an actual ballot, it is only the unpopular part which is voted on, while all the other provisions are unaffected. If, indeed, Americans are willing to give up major rights to care regardless of pre-existing conditions, exchanges, and on and on, because of a (weak) mandate, that is something which would need to see expressed specifically and neutrally in the polling.

[mikemike]

I also think this supreme court decision will have implications for those who want to privatize social security (i.e. government cannot mandate people to spend money on a private industry). Unless I am wrong about this, I am a bit unsure why republicans are trying so hard to shoot down the mandate.

Maybe that is why most privatization plans for social security usually still involve some form of a public option more similar to what we have now but more progressive to push those in higher income brackets into utilizing privately run financial products. This is a whole different can of worms, but the privatization plans usually work as a way to make social security a defined contribution plan with a defined benefit portion element as an insurance plan in case your investment choices ended up returning less than the defined benefits.

An option might be to introduce a public insurance plan like Louisiana or Florida have for homeowner's insurance. The way it works is that the premiums set by the public option must be actuarially sound unless there is no one writing in the market (i.e. right after Katrina in certain parishes) they must be 10% more expensive than the privately available insurance options. If you set the tax penalty for being uninsured to the equivalent of paying this premium and as a result of you paying this tax you are then covered by this insurance, that might be acceptable. The only down side of this is that if it is enforced through the tax code it is post hoc it may be necessary to setup a system where you need to pick and pay for your insurance plan 90 days in advance of your coverage expiring so that there is time for your old insurer to notify the government that you are becoming uninsured and for the government to then request proof of new coverage or payment of your public option premium.

[Rondec]

I like most things about smoking, but there are a couple of things that I don't like about it and those made me quit. You can't just say that americans like 3 out of 4 things about Obamacare and not understand that the fourth thing is something they so dislike that they are willing to throw away the other 3 things.

I think the issue is that uninsured patients are a huge cost for the country. The idea of sticking with the status quo does not deal with this fact. It also does not deal with the fact that many people would like to be insured but can't afford it.

In my opinion, government run health care is the best option, but the current law is probably the best option that could pass in today's political environment.

[GeneV]

I think the issue is that uninsured patients are a huge cost for the country. The idea of sticking with the status quo does not deal with this fact. It also does not deal with the fact that many people would like to be insured but can't afford it.

In my opinion, government run health care is the best option, but the current law is probably the best option that could pass in today's political environment.

Exactly. Unless we choose the "let them die" option, we will all pay for the healthcare of the uninsured, even if it is the result of a choice.

[jeffkrol]

Supreme Court sets Thursday for healthcare ruling | Reuters
Obviously chickens in the SCOTUS... rule and run..

[GeneV]

From another view, one could also say all the purely "liberal" provisions seem to be popular, and the Heritage Foundation's method of paying for it, which has also appeared in several GOP-sponsored bills, is not so popular. History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform / "Obamacare" - ProCon.org

[deadwolfbones]

Politics - James Fallows - SCOTUS Update: La Loi, C'est Moi - The Atlantic

Update Underscoring the point, a Bloomberg poll of 21 constitutional scholars found that 19 of them believe the individual mandate is constitutional, but only eight said they expected the Supreme Court to rule that way. The headline nicely conveys the reality of the current Court: "Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection."