Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Thanks for this Piglet! Here's one that sm

Posted By: whorn on 2007-12-29
In Reply to: I found something interesting about US healthcare. - piglet

I read last night regarding voters and pocketbook issues. In this survey 2/3 polled want universal health care.  Those graphs are great!  The health insurance companies are largely the culprit. The Teflon Don would be less greedy than BCBS, Aetna, etc.!!!



Poll: Pocketbook Issues Rising



WASHINGTON (AP) — Kitchen table worries pushed ahead of the war in Iraq over the past month, a shift toward pocketbook issues that has gained currency as the election year dawns.


More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them.


Events, however, can quickly change public opinion. Thursday's assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto could draw more attention to terrorism and national security, an issue that still ranked highly with the public and which 45 percent of those polled considered extremely important.


This latest AP-Yahoo News survey of more than 1,800 people by Knowledge Networks offers a unique opportunity to track changes in public attitudes as the presidential campaign unfolds. The first poll was last month and set a base line to measure national sentiment.


In the new results, men and women approaching retirement were especially attentive to the economy and health care, with six out of 10 ranking both issues extremely important. Politically, the attention to such domestic issues hangs darkly over Republicans. Voters say they are far more likely to trust Democrats to handle the economy and health care.


Consider Linda Zimmerman, a 50-year-old sheep farmer from Thurmont, Md. Her daughter and son-in-law are having trouble keeping up with two mortgages on a town house, she said. One street in her neighborhood has five homes for sale, and one has been on the market for two years.


Registered as a Republican, she's ready to reconsider.


"We're Republicans and I'm very unhappy with them, and I've been watching the Democrats," she said. "We did better when (Bill) Clinton was in than we did with Bush. It's just terrible."


The Democratic edge on such issues illustrates the predicament Republicans face going into a presidential election. Iraq doesn't dominate the news as it used to, replaced by headlines about slumping home sales, high gasoline prices and a credit crunch.


The impact of Bhutto's assassination on public opinion depends on whether Americans perceive her death as an added threat to the United States. Terrorism was the only issue polled that Republicans were more trusted than Democrats to handle well.


Republican Rudy Giuliani had benefited most from people's fears of terrorism. But over the past month his level of support dropped, even among voters who said terrorism was an important issue. Giuliani is now trying to get some of those voters back, releasing an ad Thursday that uses images of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York.


All in all, though, voters appear to be weighing other issues at least as heavily as the country heads into the first voting of the presidential election.


Financial worries have risen in prominence. Forty-eight percent of those polled said Social Security is extremely important to them, up from 42 percent in November. That's virtually the same as the 46 percent who considered Iraq extremely important.


These new public concerns are reflected on the campaign trail, where candidates are hitting domestic topics hard. There too, Democrats have an edge over Republicans when it comes to connecting with their core voters.


Overall, 42 percent of Democrats are very or extremely satisfied with the amount of attention their favored candidates are giving to the issues that matter most to them. Only 32 percent of Republicans feel that way about their candidates. Of all the candidates, Democrat Barack Obama gets the best rating among his supporters.


Bill Hine, a 65-year-old Vietnam veteran from Warrenton, Va., considers himself a "soft Republican" who is partial to John McCain. But the nation's health system needs fixing, he said, and he's not happy with what he's hearing.


"A lot of Republicans are just anti-anything, anti-changing anything, and that's one of the things I'll be looking at," he said.


Six out of 10 people polled said they believe it is at least somewhat likely that the U.S. economy will enter a recession next year. Slightly more — 64 percent — said they worried about a major unexpected medical expense, and 55 percent worried that the value of their stocks and retirement investments would drop.


Forty-four percent said they were concerned that the value of their homes would decrease during the next six months. That sentiment was especially strong in the mountain states.


"Middle-class America is being chipped away at," said Edward Lemieux, a 57-year-old pattern maker from North Smithfield, R.I., who plans to support Obama for president.


His view is influenced by the flight of manufacturing jobs from his state, by the "For Sale" signs that outnumber the "Sold" signs on neighborhood lawns and by his mother's health care needs.


"We're all of a sudden becoming a country of rich and poor," he said. "The middle class is eroding."


Despite those worries, respondents have grown slightly more optimistic about the direction of the nation during the past month. Nearly three out of 10 say the country is on the right path, compared with 24 percent last month. This uptick in the national mood is evident in both parties, though it's much stronger among Republicans. Still, more than seven out of 10 said they believe the U.S. is headed down the wrong track.


Interest in immigration — a major issue in the Republican presidential contest — remained the same as last month, with 37 percent saying it was an extremely important issue. But for all the candidates' efforts to distinguish themselves on that issue, the poll found that none of the leading contenders holds an advantage among Republicans who feel most strongly about immigration.


Sentiments on health care and the economy could make a difference in the Democratic contest.


Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards supporters have much stronger feelings about the economy and Social Security than Obama voters. Edwards has staked his campaign on a message of economic populism, while Clinton draws 40 percent of her support from people with household incomes of less than $25,000, far more than her rivals.


Clinton, Obama and Edwards have been feuding over who would provide the most comprehensive health care plan.


Nearly two-thirds of voters polled said the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." Fewer, but still a majority at 54 percent, said they supported a single-payer system whereby all Americans would get their health insurance through a taxpayer-financed government plan.


Lynn Haynes, 42, of Huntington, W.Va., works in the state government's welfare department where she sees clients who can't afford health care. What's more, she has a 35-year-old sister who is developmentally delayed and "falls into the cracks" of government assistance programs. She's a registered Republican, likes Giuliani but supports universal health care and is giving Democrats a hard look.


"I see too many people at work especially who just don't get any health care," Haynes said. "I look at what they get for retirement and Social Security, and I don't see how they live on that and afford their prescriptions."


The survey of 1,821 adults was conducted from Dec. 14-20, and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 847 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points, and 655 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.


The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.


AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and Associated Press writer Christine Simmons contributed to this report.


 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Now, now, piglet....did I EVER say you or any other...
liberal was evil? I just have a differing opinion on some issues. Why some cannot handle that, why it is such a thorn in some sides...why there is such intolerance on this board for a differing opinion...one does wonder.

Have a good day! :)


Like your POV, piglet

Ahh, the paradox of what is God's will.  "Thou shalt not kill" being one of the commandments, I find it really strange how many bloody battles are chronicled in the Bible and of course, God's team always wins.  So what's that message - don't kill unless God tells you its cool?  How do you know GOD is the one telling you to kill - maybe its a demon impersonating god and trying to get you sin by killing without God's express permission? 


Certainly our president must have a direct line to God and has direct permission to go kill - it can't possibly be God's will for those people to stay alive (yet strangely he created them in the first place, hmmmm).


And what about bugs and vermin?  Its OK to kill them - right?  Its OK to kill animals for sport and food, right?  Don't need God's permission to kill them - even though it is presumably God's will for them to be alive or they wouldn't be here?


Let pro-war anti-abortionists clarify that one, please!


Yeah Piglet!!
You make my point so much more eloquently than I can!
Protection, piglet.....
if we remove the US military presence and full blown insurgency left to take over, the people we are protecting with patrols in Baghdad will no longer have that protection. If they are killing as many of them as they are with us there, you really expect that to just stop when we leave? What bubble are YOU living in?

My way of thinking is not to abandon them now that we are there, regardless of how we got there. You can't turn back time. It's done. And yes, I think we owe it to the Iraqis who welcomed us (and they did in the beginning) and trusted us (and they did in the beginning and some still do...I see it because I don't just watch liberal media)...yes, I think we owe it to those people not to abandon them. If that means a continued military presence for awhile, then I think we should do that. You don't agree. Fine. I think the pain the Iraqi people will feel will be multipled many times over if we pull out now. You don't. Fine. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, but I don't need to. We will just agree to disagree.

And..as a side note...I don't really think you are in a position to call ME arrogant.

Going, having a nice day. lol.
Oh duh well gee thanks piglet for doin that...
fer me. Now maybe I kin understan it. Yer so kind.

I suppose I didn't get through all your post, to coin your words, too much recycled "wind."

Bottom line...if they ever DO get past the posturing stage and impeach the man, and if he is proven guilty, he should be removed from office. I have said that time and time again. Because I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, no matter what political bent someone is. And if he is proven guilty, I sure won't be defending him and yelling hatchet job and vast leftwing conspiracy. You can't say that honestly, you know you can't. If he was found innocent you would be screaming those very things just like everyone else on the liberal blogs. There is no objective thinking anymore. There is no equal application of the law anymore. And that only bothers you on your own side. You could care less what happens to people who do not agree with you. And there is something very, very wrong with that picture.

You have an inability to think objectively anymore. Everything is colored by your political idealogical bent. If a Republican, or a "conservative" says it, it has to be a lie. Cheney is guilty in your mind no matter what an impeachment trial would bring out. Bush is guilty in your mind, it does not matter what evidencce to the contrary might be presented. At least have the guts to admit it. You don't believe if equal justice for all. You don't believe in the concept of justice unless it applies to your side of the fence.

And that, my friend, is why I, and a lot of other Americans, are sick to death of politics. And which is why I am hoping that if Paul does not get the nomination, or another person who shall remain nameless, I hope one of them will run on Independent ticket and send a real message. I hope someone has the guts to tap that resource. I would really like to see that happen. So I am taking your advice, piglet. I am looking to change things. And it is about darned time someone did...thank you SO much for the motivation. Perhaps what I can do here will help. Movements start somewhere, with someone.

We shall see...have a great day, piglet, a REALLY great day!
One more thing, piglet...
you don't find 48 million dead babies just the least bit sad??
Ah, the piglet post of disdain...
I can always count on you.

If you had read the post a little closer, you would have seen that I said that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson did NOT run from war...the word "except" is the big one you missed. You might try reading the whole thing and understanding it before going off on me...but you are so eager to do the latter you won't take time to do the former. John Kennedy put all the players in Nam including helicopter support and Green Berets on his watch...Johnson picked up the ball after Kennedy was assassinated. So he actually started it.

That being said, other than that ill-conceived venture...I think John Kennedy was a good President and a decent man, and if liberals now were more like he was then...suffice it to say I would understand them much better.

You keep saying conservative party. There is no conservative party that I know of. I would agree that the Republican party right now is NOT conservative (at least the upper level politicos) and I have said that numerous times...and I am not a registered Republican except at primary times...as I have also said numerous times. Selective memory, piglet?

And I don't really CARE if you want to call emancipation a LIBERAL idea, and voting for African Americans and women LIBERAL ideas. You can say that until you are blue in the face. It was conservatives who put them into motion, made them work, and they are sustained today. Abraham Lincoln was as conservative by description as there is. He was a deeply religious man and a deeply moral man. His opposition to slavery was on the basis that it was a deeply moral wrong. Until the government got into the social programs business, the majority of programs geared toward the poor and disadvantaged were...GASP...religious programs, also prompted by a deep moral provocation from a place of humility, to serve the needs of the less fortunate, and they did a good job of it. And you can say those are LIBERAL ideas, but they were put into action by CONSERVATIVE people. Ideas are fine, but ACTIONS are what counts.

You have very little tolerance for anyone who does not share your beliefs. No wait..I take that back. Zero tolerance. lol.
Oh pulleeezzzzzz piglet....do you hear yourself??
I don't CARE if the liberal posters cross over. I have said that ad nauseam. You cannot help yourself. You have to twist and put yourself back on that lofty perch. I said nothing about them being ashamed of themselves. I have absolutely no issue with cross posting.

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD...okay....protesting in the streets with antiwar signs...screaming at people who pass...having die-ins...when I protested that saying that sometimes just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...I was attacked. Now you are attacking me for the same thing.

It is so transparent it borders on the ridiculous. Bottom line...you do not want dissent. Period. Just like I would counter a sign carrier I did not agree with in person, or if I chose to carry a sign to protest something I did not agree with...I will do the same thing here.

And here I thought that is what liberals represented...and would argue emphatically for someone's right to stage a die-in with a dead soldier's name pinned to their chest...but let one lone conservative come to an anonymous board and it is get out, we don't want to hear it, exercise your rights if you want but NOT HERE.

Antiliberal and unAmerican.
Piglet, thank you for your voice of reason
It's very refreshing. Thanks again...
Piglet touched on a point in one of her....

posts that is important to understand the profound difference in liberals and conservatives...while I don't agree with the exact wording...it is in the right vein.   She said "liberals view it as a human issue and conservatives view it as a business."  That is not entirely true, because that suggests conservatives do not view it as a human issue at all.  They do.  The difference is, I believe, that while conservatives do have the same compassion, that is tempered with sober thinking. Thinking about what it will cost.  Thinking about the long-term effects.  Thinking about how it affects everyone.  There has to be that balance.  One part of the family needs to try to keep the other part of the family from giving away the farm, to put it simply.  You make similar decisions in your personal lives.  Your kids want a lot of things.  You can't afford to give them everything they want, so you have to make choices.  There just needs to be that balance.  That is obvious from the postings.  Any long-term effect or cost of an entitlement is not entertained, and if it is brought to light, it is greeted with, for lack of a better phrase, "Why do you want to rain on the parade?"  And that really is not the intention.  Conservatives are not against everyone having health care.  Conservatives are not against helping those truly in need.  Conservatives are against keeping people in poverty and beholden to the central government for their every need.  That is a dangerous path.


Why can't we ask the government, instead of just adding yet aonther entitlement, to look at how much money comes in from income taxes as they now stand.  Then look at how much is spent on entitlements.  If it is the consensus of the nation that national health care is the most important to them, then that should be funded first.  Without raising taxes.  That would be reform; you say you want reform.  


Why not reform the welfare system?  Much money could be saved there.  Tighten it up.  Stop making assistance permanent if the person is able to work.  Give them a check, and with that check mandatory participation in job training and placement program, and when they place you, the check stops.  No more endless welfare checks for people who are able to work.  If it is a low wage job, then other entitlements can help...food stamps, etc.  Get people off the government tab who are able to work.  I think we would all be amazed at how much money that would free up for other more important entitlements.   That is what I am talking about.  Let's not create yet another entitlement and raise taxes yet again.  Let's tighten up the government belt.


All that being said, I still have great reservations about national health care from a socialism point of view. Reform health care, introduce more free market negotiation to get the cost of health care down....all those things I am not against.  We don't know if it will work or not, but I would think we should try that first before starting down the slippery slope of socialist programs.


In closing, I would just like to say....we are all Americans, and we do have that in common.  Our lives are probably very similar and we probably come from about the same economic group.  We have differing views, but that doesn't mean we can't treat each other respectfully and not take postings personally, and yes, I am guilty like others of the "pouty postings."  I would like to start away from that, and am going to make a concentrated effort to do so.  I hope others will join me.  We can have discussions, disagreements and lively debates...without disliking someone we don't really know because their opinions differ.  AsI have said and others have said...we have friends or family members with opposing views, but we manage to get through that.  My stepdaughters both are verryyy liberal gals, and we have lively discussions, I agree with them occasionally and they agree with me occasionally...and in the end...we all know where we would like to go, we just differ in how to get there.


God bless, and have a great day!


GREAT post, Piglet....you said it 4 me..sm

this sentence you said....you summed it up for me, what I feel and my thoughts


*Pro-life to me means anti-war, anti-starvation, anti-subjugation, etcetera, for all living things.*


YOU_GOT_IT!!   


LOL. Piglet jumped off the carousel and
LOL.  I'm finding you two and myself a little too amusing today.  Think I've been staring at a computer screen too long today because I'm finding this conversation funny all of a sudden.  Oh well.  Laughter is good for you right?
Umm...2003...isn't that the PAST, piglet....
I thought you were interested in NOW. :-)
Fantastic post Piglet. From Whorn s/m
Thanks for your post piglet. It seems a number of us share concerns regarding the current system. I  currently have health insurance, but due to my age of over 55 and a few minor preexisting conditions I am unable to secure health insurance for below $13.000,00 a year. I  am able to deduct 100% of my premiun on my taxes. I pay no federal tax as a result, but the lessened dollar amout off of off my taxes is  about $150.00 a year, and does  really make a dent in my $!3,000 annual health premium.
um tara, she didn't write the article (piglet)...sm
what is up with you?  Take your nasty pill today?  As a newbie to this particular board (liberals) - I'm offended to read your waste-of-bandwidth attacks/reactions.  Hope the rest of the year 2008 is better for you than the first couple of days appear to be. 
Nice post piglet. All your points are well made.

I agree 100% with what you had to say.  Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately.  The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!


As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.


Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m

meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....


http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0


To Piglet....Gary Kasparov was released from jail
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/29/kasparov.jail.ap/