Poll : Most want Supreme Court to overturn individual health care mandate
A new CBS News/New York Times poll reveals that nearly seven in ten Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn either all or President Obama's health care law or strike down just the individual mandate.
In the poll released on Thursday, 41 percent of those polled think Mr. Obama's health care law should be overturned completely by the Supreme Court, with another 27 percent of respondents saying they want the court to keep the law but overturn the mandate.
Nearly one-quarter - twenty-four percent - of respondents want the entire law upheld. The margin of error is three percentage points.
The percentage that wants to see the entire law abolished is up slightly since April, when 37 percent said they wanted the court to overturn the full law, 29 percent said only the mandate should be overturned and 23 percent wanted the whole law upheld.
There are some good parts to Obamacare, but too much needs to be thrown out so you might as wel go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that the public actually gets to see before their reps vote on it.
Instead of the Obama Transparent Administration which passed this toxic bill under cover of darkness.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Except those whose kids are now covered to age 26; and those whose kids with pre-existing conditions are covered; and those seniors, who know their "donut hole" on prescription drugs is about to be covered; and those adults with pre-existing conditions that know they will be covered by the end of this year; and those who know that by the end of the year they will be able to change jobs, change locations, without having to wait for 1-2 years for their "pre-existing conditions" to be covered by their new employer's policy...
In short, everybody except the ignorant folks who watch FauxNews and believe the b.s. that the GOP keeps throwing out...
GOP Admits They Have No Obamacare Alternative
On Second Thought, GOP Will Just Repeal Obamacare
One of the hard facts about public opinion during the health-care debate was that, while the public quickly soured on health-care reform, it remained quite sweet on the concept of health-care reform. This is why Republican opponents took care to insist at all times they only opposed the particulars of President Obama’s plan, and wanted instead to reform the system their way, with all the popular things and none of the unpopular stuff. Republicans declared they had a “moral imperative” to reform the system, robotically insisting their plan was not merely to repeal health-care reform but “repeal and replace.” As Jonathan Bernstein notes, just last January, Republicans in Congress promised to have their all-gain, no-pain alternative ready and raring to go for the summer so they could move if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare.
But, in a development that received almost no attention at all, Republicans quietly conceded last week that they aren’t going to replace Obamacare at all.
Huge majorities of the public support, in the abstract, the idea of universal coverage. But they turn much more negative when presented with specific measures to offset the costs, like taxes or cuts to Medicare. Republicans have been claiming to support the general goal of expanding coverage but simply opposing any specific measure to do so. But conservatives actually oppose the idea of universal health insurance on moral principle. They tend not to concede this straight out, but the belief pops up from time to time.
The central argument against Obamacare was that it cost too much, and, regardless of what the Congressional Budget Office forecast, would doubtless increase the deficit. Paul Ryan has insisted over and over that the cost-control methods put in place by the Affordable Care Act would certainly fail because they entailed bureaucracy. As it happens, health-care costs have slowed dramatically, and there is strongly suggestive evidence that health-care reform has helped drive the slowdown. James Capretta, an adviser to Ryan, wrote a blog post disputing this conclusion. I find his reasoning unpersuasive, but that’s really beside the point. The interesting thing is Capretta’s fallback position, which is that he opposes Obamacare even if it succeeds in controlling health-care costs beyond its most ambitious goals.
Is there no getting around the “fact” that the government cannot cover the 50 million uninsured Americans? It’s not a fact at all. It’s an ideological preference. What Capretta is conceding is that the facts don’t matter to him at all. He doesn’t think government should guarantee health insurance as a right. He’ll oppose any universal coverage plan on affordability grounds, but should those grounds prove incorrect, he’ll oppose it anyway.
Likewise, Andrew Ferguson has a piece in the Weekly Standard on an unrelated topic. (Political psychology, if you must know.) Ferguson defends his fellow conservatives’ various misapprehensions, including the misapprehension that Obamacare increased the deficit. In Ferguson’s view, of course it increased the deficit:
It’s perfectly reasonable for conservatives to assume that offering health insurance to 43 million people will cost a lot of money, and thereby increase the deficit; and it’s perfectly reasonable to distrust notoriously mistaken budget forecasters who say it won’t.
Obviously it costs money to cover 43 million people, or even the 30 million people actually covered by Obamacare. But there are ways to offset those costs such that it does not increase the deficit, by raising taxes or cutting other spending, which Obamacare in fact did. Now, it is surely possible that those projections would prove incorrect. But what Ferguson is defending is the supposition that increasing the deficit is an inherent feature of any universal coverage scheme. This obviously is not the case, but his offhand statement is telling. They may debate over the particulars, but the particulars don’t ultimately matter. Conservatives just don’t want to lay out the resources to provide universal coverage. They think of health insurance the way I think of flat-screen televisions — a nice thing to have, and something I’d like everybody to have, but not something to which everybody is entitled. I’d like to see conservatives defend that philosophical position openly rather than couch it in easily cast-aside particulars.
Fox News does beat CNN and MSNBC but most of those people who think Obamacare needs to be thrown out aren't watching Fox. What are they seeing? Continuing price increases for health insurance, you can't cover millions more uninsured and extending benefits without throwing the burden on the people who do have health insurance. Both my wife and I saw our health care costs increase under Obamacare and employees at my company are choosing to drop their dental and eye insurance to pay for primary care.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Fox News does beat CNN and MSNBC but most of those people who think Obamacare needs to be thrown out aren't watching Fox. What are they seeing? Continuing price increases for health insurance, you can't cover millions more uninsured and extending benefits without throwing the burden on the people who do have health insurance. Both my wife and I saw our health care costs increase under Obamacare and employees at my company are choosing to drop their dental and eye insurance to pay for primary care.
You don't HAVE "ObamaCare" ...yet...And your prices would have increased no matter WHO was in the White House. Nice rant though.
And you "cover millions more" by having a mandate that requires EVERYONE to be responsible for paying something into the system.
FredHayek wrote: Fox News does beat CNN and MSNBC but most of those people who think Obamacare needs to be thrown out aren't watching Fox. What are they seeing? Continuing price increases for health insurance, you can't cover millions more uninsured and extending benefits without throwing the burden on the people who do have health insurance. Both my wife and I saw our health care costs increase under Obamacare and employees at my company are choosing to drop their dental and eye insurance to pay for primary care.
You don't HAVE "ObamaCare" ...yet...And your prices would have increased no matter WHO was in the White House. Nice rant though.
That isn't true. Costs "MAY" have gone up, but we are part of a trust, and costs DID go up because of the coverage of kids up to 26, and removing the lifetime limits.
Obamacare is bad policy. Some of the ideas are decent, but the massive bureaucracy it creates is wrong headed.
We need to reform healthcare a different way...with more personal responsibility involved.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
So, you paid a little more to make sure kids up to age 26 got coverage? Boo-f**king-Hoo...
"Massive bureaucracy"? rofllol Private insurers spend exponentially more in bureaucracy, most of which is either dedicated to denying claims; advertising, or executive salaries, than Medicare/Medicaid does. Would you like to provide a source for your claim of "Massive bureaucracy"?
And your prices would have increased no matter WHO was in the White House. (And that includes having to drop some things to shore up others...) Nice rant though.
"Massive bureaucracy"? rofllol Private insurers spend exponentially more in bureaucracy, most of which is either dedicated to denying claims; advertising, or executive salaries, than Medicare/Medicaid does. Would you like to provide a source for your claim of "Massive bureaucracy"?
Private insurers spend exponentially more in bureaucracy, most of which is either dedicated to denying claims; advertising, or executive salaries, than Medicare/Medicaid does. Would you like to provide a source for your claim of "Massive bureaucracy"? 
