Half U.S. adults oppose federal healthcare

[deadparrot]

Fifty percent of U.S. adults oppose a universal healthcare plan that would put doctors and hospitals under federal government control, a survey finds.

The poll by the American Consumer Institute found 43 percent favored such as plan.

Many unions support nationalized medical and health insurance, but households with union members were only modestly more in favor of a nationalized health plan -- 47 percent -- compared to households without union members -- 42 percent, the organization said.

Fifty-four percent of Democrats favored the plan, compared to 27 percent of Republicans, with 43 percent of Independents in favor. Fifty-five percent of African-Americans and Hispanics were more likely to favor a nationalized health plan, while 41 percent of whites and 27 percent of Asian-Americans did.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=240558&cat=World

[EST]

1. Bullshoot.

Show me the actual survey, not some canned ham's explication of some hidden, dubious analysis of an unknown result. (No insult intended to the OP, just to the naive, ridiculous excuse for a reporter who wrote this un-cited speculation)

[Journeyman]

11. This is a UPI wire being reported online in an India news source. . .

hmmm.

[Zhade]

74. UPI = "reverend" Moon.

NT!

[Journeyman]

80. Thank you for the clarification. . .

Sometimes I forget not everyone will know the connections when I make posts like this. Thanks for helping more people understand what I was trying to get at. It does seem odd, doesn't it, that such a poll should only be seen in an Indian paper. I looked for it this weekend on quite a few US news sites, didn't see anything. . .

[Zhade]

81. Very odd.

This poll, which is misleading in its implication (universal health care does not equate to what this poll equates it to), contradicts a number of polls that show a majority of Americans support USP health care.

Good catch!

[Journeyman]

82. Makes you wonder what some interests groups may be up to. . .

especially in light of it being so different and introduced in such a relatively "clandestine" way. I wonder if publishing it in India serves as a cover for someone later making the claim "this info has been in the public domain for quite some time."

[Starlight]

64. Yep. You can't interpret it without seeing the complete data.

It annoys me to no end when people unquestioningly accept the results from any & all "research."

[rodeodance]

71. see # 68 for the methololgy

[Lasher]

2. Why?

Why are so many Americans opposed to universal health care? Have they bought into the repukes' propaganda, and think doctors and nurses will eat their children if health care is nationalized? Did respondents understand that everyone could just be put on Medicare, and that's the way it could work, or were they given to believe there would be some other sort of setup?

What's wrong with these people?

[ladjf]

35. They want to chose their doctor who they won't be able to pay.

[Lasher]

38. Heh, heh. I'm sure that's part of it

But if we simply expand Medicare to cover everybody, people will still be able to choose their doctor. The Republican Noise Machine has been effective at getting the masses to believe what it wants them to.

[rodeodance]

70. choosing one's own doctor is a sticking point for many .

[Zhade]

75. What makes anyone think that the people too dumb...

...to go in for universal health care (and thus pay way less for better service, like in virtually every other industrialized nation) would be any better at choosing a qualified doctor?

Boggles the mind.

[ladjf]

85. I truly believe that the average IQ in the U.S. is plummeting

downward. But, I don't know why.

[Zhade]

89. Can't really blame it on the education system, right?

I mean, IQ is all about capacity for learning IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe it's just the lower-IQ people outbreeding the more intelligent?

[ladjf]

91. I thought about that as I was doing the previous post. It could be

serious decline in education, as crafted by the right wing. They have been working diligently for 40 years to wreck the "government" school system and have almost completely succeeded. It could be a combination of reduced IQ and reduced eduction, or , more likely, some more combination of detrimental circumstances. In any event, the net result is that a dangerously large percentage of Americans seem hell bent on their own destruction. We had better figure it out before it's too late.

(Maybe there's some in fast food fries that making people stupid.) I'm kidding, I think.

[DBoon]

43. unrelenting propaganda against "socialized medicine" for 60 years

has an affect

When was the last time you heard anything favorable about single-payer in the MSM?

I'm surprised the percent supporting universal healthcare is almost half given this.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. The way the question is framed in the poll is bogus. So what would

one expect as to the outcome? What's surprising about that?

Single payer fee for service universal health care doesn't "nationalize" doctors or health care providers.

[TheBaldyMan]

51. even in UK the Doctors are on contract to the Health system

so technically they are self-employed. There may be doctors who are employees of commercial firms or in the armed forces but as far as the British NHS goes the doctors work for themselves and can have a thriving private practise running in tandem with their state work.

In fact when it was introduced in 1947 the biggest opponents of state healthcare were doctors, they'd have to treat POOR people, but within two years the effect of treating illnesses in the early stages when the chances of successful treament were much higher (before people would only see a doctor in the final stages of disease when prognosis was almost universally poor) they had a complete change of mind and are now the staunchest defenders of 'socialised medicine'.

[John Q. Citizen]

52. The model I prefer is the Canadian Model. The biggest

opponents of a single payer fee for service system in the US are the Insurance Companies followed by the drug companies.

[Lisa]

54. and in Canada, the provinces administer the service ...

Despite what some of the US right-wingers have claimed, we actually don't have a "national" card, so it's not really the lock-step "commie" model that they accuse us of having. The feds pay for some of it (they're supposed to pay 50% but have downloaded more and more onto the provinces in recent decades). But the card in my pocket reads "British Columbia", not "Canada". With ten provinces snapping at Ottawa and demanding money and concessions, it's not the monolithic entity that either the extreme right or left might be imagining.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. And it is a much more humane and cost effective way of delivering

healthcare.

[hopeisaplace]

72. OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Program)-Had to go to Emergency tonight

Here's an example of my having to use the system tonight.
It's just past 1:00am EST right now - just having a tea.
Ok. Putting my youngest to bed around 8:00pm he started crying
about his ear (again) - gets these really bad infections twice
a year. So for about 1 hour I tried to nurse it on my own. Was hoping
to take him to his own doctor tomorrow. Didn't really want to go to
Emergency. But, we had to go - he was screaming in pain and begging me
to take him (oh my gawd that was tough)...so by about 9:30 we are at
the hospital...wasn't too busy. We had to wait maybe half an hour or so...
they took us fairly quickly..he was really in pain...anyway turned out
he had a middle ear infection. Doctor checked him over. Doctor and nurses
were great. They gave me two prescriptions to get filled. So we left and
headed to Shoppers Drug Mart to get them filled. Made it home by 11:30pm.
Little guy's pain has been relieved. He's doing fine right now, sleeping
of course.

COST $0.

The medication money I'll get back from our drug plan.

I would not want ANY other system. I'm glad I live in Canada.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. Shut up! Why don't you guys invade us and force us to enjoy the

benefits of an actual heath care payment and drug and supples procurement system as opposed to the greedy, cruel, inhumane corporate chaos we endure here?

I'll even buy you some roses and give you rice cakes and tea.

Yeah, it's really a shame. Back in 1993 to 94 we had the opportunity to for a few months to do something really cost effective and humane about our non-health system. Instead of acting quickly, The Clinton administration studied health care to death, and by the time Hillery Clinton's complex plan was presented it was dead in the water.

We should have just copied Canada quick and then fine tuned it to the states.

Unfortunatly, there are very strong interests blocking efficiency and compassion in our system. So it costs us more, so more people can suffer. Go figure...

[hopeisaplace]

77. For roses, rice cakes and tea, lol, :)))

I get so angry for you guys that you don't have a proper health care system!
I remember when Clinton was trying to revise the system.
It always seems that one party doesn't want to let the other party get the
upper hand by "being" the one who "solved" the health care problem in the US..
maybe it's not that simple, but it appears that way from the perspective of
an observer looking in. It's ridiculous that there isn't a system in place for
everyone.

Also, my using our system tonight would be applicable for anyone in Canada, rich
or poor who needed to use the system. It's fair, just the way it should be. I wouldn't
want another mother's child to be sick here in Canada and she not be able to get
health care while I could! That would disgust me, and worse that would make me
feel ashamed of my country and myself. Growing up in Canada all my life, I have just
come to learn that this is our way of treating our fellow citizens. IMO we're not
perfect but we're decent.

:)

[Lisa]

87. I'm glad your son is feeling better

Earaches are the worst! I was pretty sick as a youngster -- luckily I just had one really bad earache, but my folks still remember it vividly, 30 years later.

I was covered under OHIP too (though I have been in BC for the past few years). My parents once tried to estimate the overall medical bills up to age 16, if not for that (starting with a couple of weeks in the neonatal unit when I was born). They stopped after the first $20k.

[hopeisaplace]

90. thanks for the good wishes...his fever is still hovering a bit

..he's taking this medicine 1 time per day, and he's due to take it shortly,
so I'm hoping that helps break up the infection a little more..and you're sure
right, earaches are brutally painful. I can't imagine what the total would be
if all health issues were out of pocket (4 kids *yikes*).
We're lucky to have the health care system that we do.

Only 1 side affect, I'm really really tired. :)

[Langis]

58. Yes it's all the propaganda. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. And what healthplan is it that "would put doctors and hospitals under

federal government control"?

I always figured that national health would put the administration side under federal control - take the profit movtive out of hospitals, and severing the connection between illness and insurance companies. It would mean that physicians would be regulated instead of 'peer reviewed' so the 5% of doctors who are responsible for 95% of the malpractice can actually be kicked out of the field, keeping costs down for everybody. But the government would have far less to say about treatments than your typical HMO does today.

Is there a plan out there that says otherwise?

[Charlie Brown]

4. We will have to have nat'l healthcare eventually

regardless of what these nimrods have to say.

[drm604]

5. Notice how they qualified it.

I think your subject line is slightly misleading. Look at what they were asked.

"Fifty percent of U.S. adults oppose a universal healthcare plan that would put doctors and hospitals under federal government control."

I wonder what the numbers would be if they asked something like "do you support universal health insurance?"

[lovuian]

6. Its coming whether they want it or not...

Its out of control!!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. What were the exact questions? What was the methodology?

It is very easy to arrange a poll to get whatever answer you want to get.

[niyad]

9. and just WHO commissioned that survey?

[Mithras61]

93. Link here...

http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/healthdata.doc

Question: Would you favor or oppose a nationalized health plan where doctors and hospitals would be under federal control?

Bogus framing. The questiuon is for purely socialized medicine and the result is interpreted to mean something else entirely. What MOST people in this country want is single payer health insurance with EVERYONE covered. That isn't anything close to what this question is asking.

[niyad]

8. looking at their website, the first thing I notice is the statement that

NINE percent of americans don't have health insurance. Now, last time I checked, there were about 280 million people in the country, and the most often-quoted figure is that 42 million are without health insurance. unless my math fails me, that is about 15 percent.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. That was 9% of CONSUMERS had no health insurance. If a person

has no health insurance and does not get sick, that person is not a consumer.

I didn't have health insurance from the time I left the service until I got my first state job, thirteen years later. But I seldom needed it, so I was not a consumer.

Looked at the bios for their website, and many seemed like strong dems. Still seems kind of weasely to me.

[drm604]

15. It says 9% of households.

Not 9% of Americans. I think that explains the discrepancy. They report the statistics in biased way that makes things look best for the case against universal healthcare that they are obviously trying to make.

[depakid]

24. It's 46 million unisured

and 20+ milion more are so underinsured that they'll face a bankruptcy should anything serious happen to them or to their families.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Chickenshit bullshit.

Web India is outsourced polling - about as good as outsourced tech support.:rofl:

And besides, it's UPI - the Moonie press outfit.

[silverweb]

13. American Consumer Institute?

I'd say their "experts and scholars" deserve a little scrutiny, wouldn't you?

http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/Experts.htm

[drm604]

19. Hmmm...

If you look at the whois for that domain you'll see that it's owned by TeleNomic Research.

Here's a bio of their president Stephen B. Pociask.

It states that he is an affiliated expert for the New Millennium Research Council. Source Watch has a page about them which I think says it all.

It also states that he's an adjunct scholar for the Competitive Enterprise Institute which currently states on it's front page "The president's dangerous rhetoric that we are addicted to oil is an indication that the administration is addicted to confused thinking about energy policies". They also have a prominent link to GlobalWarming.org which is a site which is critical of the scientific claims about global warming. There's a Source Watch page about the Cooler Heads Coalition which sponsors globalwarming.org.

I could probably go on for hours finding links and shared ownership with various conservative think tanks and bogus research and "consumer" organizations. Suffice it to say that the American Consumer Institute is obviously another part of the whole right wing noise machine. I think it's extremely likely that this survey is biased and worthless.

[xchrom]

25. thanks for the info

very telling indeed.

interesting that the very biased source of teh survey isn't revealed.

interesting -- but predictable.

[Overseas]

44. My First Thought Also-- CHECK THE SOURCE

Thanks for tracking it down.

My immediate reaction to the story was that it was another precious piece of right wing infomedia--
counter-intuitive survey results will get more media play.

Competitive Enterprise Institute gets nervous-- Uh oh, public getting desperate-- not even a bankruptcy exemption for health care expenses-- the public might demand single payer national health insurance. We'd better put out a survey telling them most people don't want it. Let's say it is from Apple Pie Mothers for Freedom-- no wait-- American Consumer Institute sounds more official...

[drm604]

47. Something that just hit me.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is criticizing Bush's statement about our oil addiction. Uh oh, dissension within the ranks! This, along with the Harriet Myers incident makes me wonder what is going on. Is there puppet starting to assert himself? I may start a thread on this.

[stevietheman]

14. National healthcare will be good for business, good for capitalism

If employers no longer have to maintain healthcare plans, no longer have to tweak benefits in order to keep or attract employes, and especially small employers no longer have to be concerned about getting good people when they can't offer health insurance, I say that national insurance would be a great boon for business.

And Republicans should love that which is good for business, right?

Oh, that's right... they'll oppose anything that means higher taxes, whether or not the idea is good for the country.

[loyalsister]

48. Depends on what you mean when you say "good for business"

If you say "concentrated business" otherwise known as large corporations universal health care is not helpful to them. They would lose an effective trap they have for employees and a strong monopoly.
If you mean actual competitive business markets, then it is good. Because if we were to have a universal health care system, people would have the opportunity to take the risk to start small businesses. And people would be able to maintain established small businesses and keep people employed in them.
Competition could thrive because independent developers would have more local places for marketing as well.

[stevietheman]

57. I mean "actual competitve business markets"...

you know, a system that would make Adam Smith drool. :)

Anyway, I wish the Democratic Party would become bold about the healthcare issue and like us, realize that universal healthcare is indeed healthy for capitalism.

And in a backhanded way, I think Democrats would score greatly as they would be essentially arguing for a decentralized economy that takes away much power from big corporations. And if we could hear Democrats speak of the value of small business, of not being "owned" by a corporation, to follow one's individual American dream, I think that would do more than just about anything to re-enliven the party. The equation "universal healthcare equals a new American dream for each and every one of us" could be the killer idea for 2006.

I have a hunch that a vast majority of the American people would go for this.

[SoCalDem]

16. It just needs to be a National INSURANCE plan..(called Medicare)

If every employed person paid $100 a month into Medicare there would probably be more than enough to cover everyone..employed or otherwise..The poor are being taken care of now, so there should be no difference..

With the young (who rarely use much medical) were in the same "pool" as the middle agers and elderly , who tendo to need more health care, it would balance out...

The doctors are on a leash NOW..and pimply-faced $10 hr bean counters decide who gets care and how much doctors can get reimbursed..

A natiional health care plan would benefit everyone..except maybe the HMOs and Greedy hospitals & insurance companies...but hey, they can get re-trained to do something else..*² is always saying how wonderful the community colleges are..they can go there to learn a new trade.

[MO_Dem]

59. I agree with you, SoCalDem!

Admittedly, I probably don't know as much as I should know about this subject (and also have not read all the comments on this forum), but I've often wondered if it would work for Democrats to propose "Medicare for every citizen". All the ordinary, uninformed people that I know think Medicare for seniors is fine and dandy. Repigs come along and scare the hell out of them with talk of "SOCIALIZED" medicine and how horrible a SOCIALIST program would be for all us poor ignorant people. But why not suggest Medicare for all of us? (At least, I think the proposal of "Medicare for all" might have worked before the repigs forced this fraudulent Medicare drug plan on us!)

[jwirr]

63. To a repug anything the government does FOR the

people is socialism.

[bluestateguy]

17. I don't care

Majoritarianism is a poor technique of argument. The fact that a majority supports a particular position says nothing for the correctness of that position.

[wookie294]

18. America already has a universal health plan

It's called "Medicaid" and it's more expensive than the universal health plan proposed by unions and liberals.

[jwirr]

65. Medicaid is hardly universal! It is means tested.

It is expensive because it helps with many forms of long term care, including senior citizens in nursing homes and disabled children and adults. These cases are the severe medical cases and no universal program can overlook their existence if it wants to cover everyone.

The main thing to remember is that a large conglomeration of government programs are already serving many people: Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Administration, Chamus for the Military and their dependents, Indian Health Services, various state programs, the new drug programs and last but not least the government workers health care programs. All paid for by the taxpayers. If they were consolidated under one program at least the administration cost would be less. Also when programs are means tested they require more workers than when everyone is included. Social Security is not means tested and their administration cost are much lower than say income assistance program for welfare. When you need to check everyone every month then you are looking at huge administration costs.

[flordehinojos]

20. every person i know supports universal health care. whoever is doing the

polling is not doing it right. just like they did not do it right when they counted the votes in 2000 nor when they counted the votes in 2004.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. This survey is meaningless

unless you know exactly how the question was framed. What about a universal healthcare plan that doesn't put doctors and hospitals under federal government control?

[jackbourassa]

22. This is such a loaded question...

50% oppose A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN that puts DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS UNDER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL...

Well how about a Universal Health Care plan, that doesn't???

For example, in Canada, Doctors and Hospitals are not "under federal government control" - they fall under the provinces, which is how it is in the US as well.

This is a stupid crap poll.

[bigworld]

32. Even with their squirrley phrasing,

like 42% of their respondants answered YES to the question.... that's pretty encouraging to me!

[jackbourassa]

36. bigworld, me too

You're right. Even with a BS question like this only 50% oppose.

America wants health care. It's time politicians realize this.

[depakid]

23. Those aren't even close to the numbers I've seen

or the my anecdotal experience in public health.

But, we have an epidemic of lying going on in America- so I don't put much faith in what comes out of the media (to put it lightly) and that's ESPECIALLY true about half assed "polls" like this one.

[0007]

26. What a stinky smelly sticky piece of propaganda.

[fujiyama]

27. Very unreliable results

Only 9% in this group had no access to healthcare. What kind of breakdown is this? Talk about poor sampling!

This is nonsense and as others said there is also the question about how it was worded. No one likes to hear "federal control" or "nationalized" anything. What if they asked something like "Should medicaid be extended to all those uninsured" or "Should all Americans have access to a health care regardless of economic status" or for those unemployed, simply "Would you like healthcare coverage"....I can't imagine say, "No I don't want any access. If I'm sick let me die."

Was this made as a stupid poll to pacify Indian doctors in the US worried about losing money due to national health care (note, I'm Indian-American and while most do vote Dem there ar some cheap ass Indians that only care abuot the bottom line).

[LevelB]

28. This will definitely go into the RW talking points Monday,

when they come out swinging for the President's plan to increase profits for HMO's and Health insurers.

B.

[drm604]

33. So how do we counter it?

Do we flood the media's phone lines and fax machines with demands that they not accept this crap survey at face value? Do we inform them of ACI's obvious connections to biased right wing propaganda sites? Do we point them to properly conducted and worded surveys which show much different results? Will any of that do any good, or will arguing against their frame simply reinforce it?

Thinking about it, I think the best response is for us to ignore this study (so as not to focus attention on it) while at the same time speaking up with our viewpoints and with the results of other, properly conducted and worded, studies. We should do this with letters to the editor, calls and faxes to the media, and any other (legal and ethical) means we can think of. Maybe this is a job for the DU Activist Corps - advance the public's knowledge of the need for and desirability of a universal single payer healthcare system. Is that something we could be at all effective at?

[reprobate]

46. Counter it by reframing the subject as "Single Insurer Health Coverage"

[sandnsea]

73. Pro-rated access to federal insurance plans

Same insurance your Senators and Congressmen have.

[Vinca]

29. I don't believe it. There is no way this is accurate. Did they

poll people above a certain income bracket?

[kurth]

30. We need to nip this shit in the bud

Same old right-wing propaganda dating back to the "HillaryCare" days, but regardless, it's a preemptive strike against any progressive effort to expand health coverage to the uninsured in this country.

[drm604]

34. Yes we do.

Any ideas?

[dysfunctional press]

31. i just want to live long enough to see the revolution...

because the way the neocon clowns run things, it's the only way we'll ever get any meaningful change.

i'll be 45 in a few days, and i hope i can still be around when the changes come.

in my voting life, i've been forced to endure two raygun terms, one poppy the-most-evil-man-in-the-world-bush term, and now probably two terms of his adle-minded demon seed...and i don't consider bill wto-nafta-telecom-act-defense-of-marriage-clinton's two terms to be any real prize for the people's side of the equation...and that would go cubed for his wife-partner, should she decide to seek c-in-c duties come 2008.

why can't we have a russ feingold presidency?

[leesa]

37. Interesting way of asking the question of national health care...what crap

[October]

39. No way! Many of us now have elderly parents

The time it takes to handle the paperwork alone is nightmarish!

This new Part D thing is so screwy. No one to ask for help, either.

[FlaGranny]

40. Do you wonder maybe if it was the way

they asked the question - "doctors and hospitals under federal government control"? Asking the question like that, I'd have an inclination to say no also.

How about, instead, they said: "Recent studies show that Veterans Administration health care system is doing a better job than the private sector - would you be in favor of a similar system for everyone?" Funny how they make you think that doctors and hospitals would be undere MORE federal control than they are now.

[splat@14]

41. Bet they would feel different if they had no insurance. n/t

[dogday]

49. That is what I am thinking

healthcare is healthcare, whether an HMO or Federal program is involved....

[VADem11]

42. It's a crappy poll

The phrasing makes it seem like the government will control everything. If there was a universal healthcare plan, it would simply be for insurance and the government wouldn't employ every doctor or own every hospital.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. As soon as they are elderly and need care or get sick before then,

they will favor national health care.

[AX10]

53. See silverweb's post. These "experts" are not really experts.

[savemefromdumbya]

56. The poll - Americans don't know any better

[boddhi]

60. I don't see why this is being seen as so bad

I actually thought the percentages were worse and I would like to see how this has changed over time. And didn't we go to war in Iraq with about the same amount of support? (And it looks like the war will cost more than the health care plan.) And isn't * still an un-impeached lame duck with less support?

I agree that support should be stronger, but with all the opposing propaganda that's gone out on this issue, I'm betting insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals are changing their drawers over these types of numbers....

43% in favor with some kind of margin for error - that's enough support to turn into a majority with a small amount of pro rhetoric - sounds like enough to be a winnable election issue for the Dem's to me....

[mmonk]

61. It won't be much longer

and the numbers will go up for government healthcare. Especially as all the jobs leave for countries where the state pays for healthcare.

[genieroze]

62. Have my own insurance and would favor universal health care but...

They idea of this misadministration running anything to do with my health is creepy. Look what they tried to do with SS.

[rodeodance]

66. prob. the 50% that HAVE insurance.

[rodeodance]

67. here is the URI for the study.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=37125

[rodeodance]

68. Here is the site for the methodology

The survey was based on a 1,000-person telephone survey with residents across the United States. The margin of error for this survey is +/-3% at the 95% confidence level. Visit http://www.theamericanconsumer.org for detailed results and an explanation of the survey methodology.

About The American Consumer Institute

The Institute is an independent consumer organization committed to providing information, analysis, and policy research to the public for the betterment of American consumers. The Institute is primarily comprised of volunteer public policy experts covering a wide range of issues.

The American Consumer Institute
http://www.theamericanconsumer.org

[rodeodance]

69. this is a good confidence level for this type of survey research. (0.05)

margin of error for this survey is +/-3% at the 95% confidence level.

[Fovea]

78. Wait, is this the same majority that believed in WMD?

Let's definitely let them shape our health-care platform, shall we?

The 1000 people who answered their home land line phone at dinnertime should by all means be the voice upon which all social policy is predicated!

[yurbud]

79. go to American Consumer Institute's webpage and see who their experts are

It looks like a bunch of lobbyists and hacks. The first one they have listed is from the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC think tank.

guess that shows what side they take on health care reform.

[eridani]

83. Absolute bullshit question framing

Single payer does not put health care delivery under government control--just the insurance part.

[yurbud]

84. they're hired gun experts

[Tight_rope]

86. Bullshit...I want names of all those who oppose.

[ramapo]

88. How about half U.S. adults oppose healthcare?

This is so bogus

[Mithras61]

92. A telling statistic here...

"Ninety percent of the 1,000 households surveyed reported having some level of health insurance, and 9 percent reported having no coverage. Fifty-two percent of uninsured households would support a nationalized health plan."

Last time I checked, 90% of Americans didn't have healthcare, so the fact that the ones in the survey do indicates that it isn't a representative sample.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

94. ... and the other half understand what it is.