42% Favor Free Health Care For All Americans – Unless Their Own Coverage Has To Chang

[sbark]

Rasmussen Reports ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/42_favor_free_health_care_for_all_americans_unless _their_own_coverage_has_to_change)| May 18, 2009 | Scott Rasmussen

Americans are evenly divided over the idea of making free health care available to every one in the country, but opposition grows dramatically when their own health insurance is involved.
Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say every one in the United States should have free health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% disagree.
However, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 27%), Americans reject free health care for all if it means changing their own coverage and joining a program administered by the government. Many surveys, conducted over many years have found a similar unwillingness to support any program that requires a change in coverage. Last December, 58% opposed any kind of government-controlled health plan if it meant they had to change their own insurance coverage.
That resistance to change is partly explained by the fact that 70% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent. Most adults (53%) believe their coverage would get worse if they had to change to a government-run program.
[Snip]
Public support for free health care is down nearly 10 points since September 2007. Then, as now, there was a sizable drop in support for free health care when voters’ own health insurance was impacted. The partisan split in support for free health care is substantial. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats now believe all Americans should have free health coverage, but 68% of Republicans disagree. Adults not affiliated with either political party oppose free health care for all by a 48% to 36% margin.

(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/42_favor_free_health_care_for_all_americans_unless _their_own_coverage_has_to_change) ...

heck...........tax the 42% that want it for a year........and then poll them again........

[MetalHead]

Free Health care?
:lmao2:

There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Someone is paying for it.

[SuspectCorner]

I prefer a single-payer program that would NOT be free to Americans except for the indigent. It should be underwritten by a sliding scale tax or fee - and those that prefer to deal with the private sector insurers should be allowed to do so.

[burmafrd]

Its the usual- everyone else but me. This is where 40 years of me me me gets you.

[sbark]

Why stop at "free" health care........Isnt a free TV, a free car just as much as a Constitutional right as health care..........

[iceberg]

Its the usual- everyone else but me. This is where 40 years of me me me gets you.

while blunt, i can't disagree here. we've become a "gimme" culture and obama is feeding it for votes. the longer we allow people to think being alives means being owed comforts, we're going to have serious problems in this country.

[Doomsday101]

while blunt, i can't disagree here. we've become a "gimme" culture and obama is feeding it for votes. the longer we allow people to think being alives means being owed comforts, we're going to have serious problems in this country.

It is all part of the wealth redistribution mindset. I call it socialistic.

[burmafrd]

This is what SOCIALISM is all about. Cradle to grave with everything given to you without having to work. That is what they are getting in a lot of Europe and the libs want here. They either ignore or don't care that sooner or later the well runs dry and there is NO MORE MONEY to pay for it.

[iceberg]

It is all part of the wealth redistribution mindset. I call it socialistic.

how dare you accuse people of socalistic activities as being socalistic!

commie.

[Doomsday101]

how dare you accuse people of socalistic activities as being socalistic!

commie.

It is what it is. People can play the word game all they want but wealth redistribution is in and of itself socialistic in its nature. Take from some to give to others? It is what it is

[iceberg]

It is what it is. People can play the word game all they want but wealth redistribution is in and of itself socialistic in its nature. Take from some to give to others? It is what it is

i don't disagree. i also find it funny people will dismiss it as necessary. if they feel it is, FINE. then say so but call it what it is and argue those merits from an honest stance, not a hide and disbelieve one.

[Doomsday101]

i don't disagree. i also find it funny people will dismiss it as necessary. if they feel it is, FINE. then say so but call it what it is and argue those merits from an honest stance, not a hide and disbelieve one.

I agree they want to play the word game socialism does not sound nice so we will call it something else. You can call a duck a waterfowl but it is still a duck. :laugh2:

[burmafrd]

as the saying goes if it waddles, and quacks, and looks like a duck its a DUCK.

[jwhardin]

There isn't anything really free, it always carries price in some form or another and sooner or later that price is paid for with blood.

[JBond]

I prefer a single-payer program that would NOT be free to Americans except for the indigent. It should be underwritten by a sliding scale tax or fee - and those that prefer to deal with the private sector insurers should be allowed to do so.

We already pay for the health care of the indigent. What do you think all those taxes that come out of your pay check go to. You do get a pay check, right? Medicare/medicaid combined with a non refusal policy for treatment at hospitals covers all of that. Did you not know that? Happy to educate you.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think the whole question of "Free Health Care" or whatever free benefit you want to include is a good case study. Fortunately for us, we have the perfect test case in California. California has adopted many of these policies and is now struggling with the method of how to pay for it. They are now asking for bailout funds from the rest of the country in an attempt to sustain this method of Government. Their State Government (Arnold) has proposed 7 measures by which to reign in control of there budget problems. The people of California have rejected all but one of the them. The only one they adopted was a measure to cut salaries for elected officials. The people of California, even though they know they are bankrupt and need to adopt the cost saving measures outlined by the Governer, have elected not to make that very responsible move in favor of allowing the rest of the Country to bail them out. This, by no means, solves the problems. All it does is keep the state of California going for another year. They will be right back in the same place next year but instead of adopting corrective measures, they will continue to spend more then they have. This is exactly what we can expect from the rest of America if we allow the same kinds to happen in the rest of America. The difference being that California looks to the rest of the Country to sacrafice in order to make them whole. America will not have somebody to fall back on once we are in the same situation.

The reality is that these kinds of measures don't help people. They simply allow people to over spend while creating debt that can not be over come. People have to be able to adopt fiscally responsible policy. If left to there own devices, they will eat from the troff till all resources are exauhsted.

[ThaBigP]

I prefer a single-payer program that would NOT be free to Americans except for the indigent. It should be underwritten by a sliding scale tax or fee - and those that prefer to deal with the private sector insurers should be allowed to do so.

Here's the problem with your plan. On the surface it would seem to be a reasonable compromise...you prefer the free market? Have at it. You'd rather have taxpayer-funded healthcare? Have at it as well. But....

Do you think that those who prefer the free market will be exempt from federal taxes funding the taxpayer-funded program? Pardon me while I laugh. I understand you cringe at the notion that this could ever be a "free lunch", hence a surcharge with a progressive, sliding scale. But that slack in revenue at the bottom must be recouped somewhere...higher up the scale.

Imagine the opposite...the government decides that the "free market" is so important, it charges a surcharge on top of taxes in order to subsidize that market. But...in spite of being forced to pay for private insurance whether you take it or leave it...you technically have the option of paying additional taxes for a government-run system if you so choose.

[sbark]

Health care is rationed in any system...........at present the market rations health care via price.........under Obama-care it will be rationed, as in Canada, Europe........via waiting lines and availabilty and finally govt beaucrats........

[SuspectCorner]

Here's the problem with your plan. On the surface it would seem to be a reasonable compromise...you prefer the free market? Have at it. You'd rather have taxpayer-funded healthcare? Have at it as well. But....

Do you think that those who prefer the free market will be exempt from federal taxes funding the taxpayer-funded program? Pardon me while I laugh. I understand you cringe at the notion that this could ever be a "free lunch", hence a surcharge with a progressive, sliding scale. But that slack in revenue at the bottom must be recouped somewhere...higher up the scale.

Imagine the opposite...the government decides that the "free market" is so important, it charges a surcharge on top of taxes in order to subsidize that market. But...in spite of being forced to pay for private insurance whether you take it or leave it...you technically have the option of paying additional taxes for a government-run system if you so choose.

Yet we manage to provide effective fire departments, police departments, and a military as safety nets which serve and protect ALL of our US citizens.

[iceberg]

Yet we manage to provide effective fire departments, police departments, and a military as safety nets which serve and protect ALL of our US citizens.

so you think it's fair to take programs that have NOT A DAMN THING to do with this admin and brush aside all he's trying to do with such past history?

you seem to be using history on our own terms.

[jrumann59]

Yet we manage to provide effective fire departments, police departments, and a military as safety nets which serve and protect ALL of our US citizens.


YEah until their is a budget deficit and these ever so important things are the first to feel the crunch. I am all for a voluntary system, let the ones that want it pay and let the ones that don't it keep doing what they are doing. Then you will really see how many people are true believers in the Democratic Mantra.

[BadWolf]

Yet we manage to provide effective fire departments, police departments, and a military as safety nets which serve and protect ALL of our US citizens.

If we ran our healthcare like we do our police departments it might just work. Free healthcare anytime you want, but if you go in you run the risk of getting ticketed for bad health. Smoker... $500 ticket. Over-weight... $500 ticket. Heart disease... $500 ticket. You won't see many waiting lines with that kind of practice.