I think you need to work on your reading comprehension: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_reform_especially_among_democrats_collapses That's different from supporting it. It includes those who oppose any reform, which Rasmussen reported to be 54%. All it does is make Democrats and Independents less likely to support a bill while Republicans are more likely to support it.
The cost of the Bill I've seen are $1.6T over 10 years for 10M people. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqi0vd508ygGwuXhWnP0tMBDigkQD9A65H8O0 "The drug makers went first in making a deal with the White House, agreeing to pick up $80 billion in additional costs over the next decade to help defray the expenses of the legislation." That's $8B of the $160B cost per year. "The American Hospital Association agreed to shoulder an additional $155 billion." There's $15.5B of the $160B cost per year. "In exchange, both won assurances the White House would protect them against attempts in Congress to seek additional cuts in their projected Medicare and Medicaid payments. The American Medical Association's key issue was different. Doctors hope the legislation will allow them to avoid a looming 21 percent cut in payments under Medicare. The cost to the government for that would be about $230 billion over a decade." Add back $23B and it's a wash.
Like (I thought) I said, I read it earlier in the day and did not have time to go find it. So sorry if I got the whole oppose/support thing mixed up. Point is, the poll wasn't multi-faceted. It was a yes or no on public option. Sorry I used the word support. But supported something with a public option and opposing something without a public option sounds awfully similar. Nit-picky, no?
Additionally, http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cbo-obama-healthcare-to-cost-1-trillion The attached table summarizes our preliminary assessment of the proposal’ s budgetary effects and its likely impact on insurance coverage. According to that assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010–2019 period. Once the proposal was fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million. Signed, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director U.S. Congress
Again, I used the word allegedly. From my understanding, and I haven't been following this as closely as I should or would if I were taking classes, but there are multiple plans out there. The 1.6 trillion plan was the first one, right? I'm not sure which one they're playing around with right now. I just don't see it passing without a public option. And if it did have a public option, it's going to be a blood bath to get it passed. Kinda sad that our country is so evenly and passionately divided. But what else is new, right?
Read the article, it talks about the special interests on both sides of the issue, as well as the costs. They were allegedly going to cut the cost from $1.6T down to $1.1T with $500B in cuts to medicare, but I don't see that really happening, do you? And do note I support a public option, just not one that costs $.01 in additional taxes or borrowing. I'm not that far off from collecting on the 45 years I'll have paid into Social Security, and all the interest payments on the debt we're currently racking up will do is endanger that program and many others.
I support a public option too. I personally believe it is the most important issue in this country so I think we should work to insure everybody by any means necessary. Not single-payer though. I'm not looking to get involved in a huge argument over taxation and whatnot, I'm just letting you know.
Look at the CBO projections again. Net 16M will be insured for a huge cost. I don't see that paying $10,000 per person to cover their flu shots and hangnails makes any sense at all. $1.6T / 16M / 10 years = $10,000 Heck, I thought my own plan was expensive at $3500/year.
I understand you didn't do it on purpose. It was a mistake; everyone makes them. I make more than others. However, it's not close to the same thing. 54% of people would rather have the status quo than what the House is proposing. Now 57% of people would be against the bill without the public option. In a Venn Diagram, there's a massive overlap between those who would rather have the status quo and those who wouldn't want this bill without the public option. In fact, according to Rasmussen, more Republicans would be willing to support the legislation, but fewer Democrats and Independents.
People's opinions are too volatile. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
Especially when they're slanted. This particular line caught my eye on the web page http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693