By FITSNews || Two months after its passage, a solid majority of American voters continue to favor the repeal of President Barack Obama’s socialized medicine takeover.
According to this week’s Rasmussen Reports poll, 56 percent of American voters favor repealing the law – which is actually higher than the 55 percent that favored repeal immediately after the legislation was passed in late March. Of those, 45 percent strongly favor repeal – the definition of a “hot-button” issue.
Meanwhile, 39 percent of Americans oppose repeal – including 33 percent who “strongly” oppose repeal. Those numbers are down slightly from two months ago, when 42 percent of Americans opposed repeal, 35 percent of them “strongly.”
This polling – combined with recent electoral results – is obviously further evidence that the “big gamble” by Obama and his Congressional allies to pass socialized medicine is in the process of being lost.
WEB EXTRA
Health Care Polling (Rasmussen Reports)
By darby May 20, 2010 at 9:33 am
Give it 10 years.
I bet 30-40% of the med schools will shut down.
Reliance on mid-levels will increase dramatically.
Costs will increase.
Quality will decrease.
But hey, our health care system will resemble that of Jakarta.
After all, it’s just not fair that we have the best health care system in the world.
By You Talkin to Me? May 20, 2010 at 12:23 pm
More of the Medicare-is-Communism time warp. Yawn.
By Ynotfirst May 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm
no medical schools won’t shut down and health care won’t go away. you’ll get the health police at your door like the census workers, verifying you had your physical, got your shots, and are HIV negative, etc.
there are people who don’t get care now. whoopee, now they have insurance by mandate and still no care.
Next, you are microchipped for “care” and or mostly insurance.
By Anonymous May 20, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I know of several people already who are losing their coverage because insurance companies are now forced to drastically reduce costs, because of President Obama’s “reform” package. Some companies are no longer insuring spouses as a result, because they must now carry dependent children up to the age of 26. The health-care “reform” deal wasn’t a deal at all. It involved buying off key members of Congress with special subsidies and earmarks.
There’s a better way to reform our ailing health-care system, and President Obama didn’t even invite Dr. Congressman Ron Paul to his little “health-care summit.” Dr. Paul has practiced medicine too long to not remember the pre-government system, and how much better it was.
Shame on Washington and shame on elected “leaders” who fail to properly conduct themselves amidst major policy dilemmas and instead play politics with our health. We need to radically change the way we do business in this country before it’s too late (and I don’t mean Obama’s “change”: more deficits, debt, war, and perpetual failure).
By harik May 20, 2010 at 1:18 pm
BBBut…Obama promised me I could keep my same doctor…
BBBut…Obama said my premiums would go down…
By medstudent May 20, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Socialized medicine takeover? You realize that this health care law did not include a national single payer system or even a public option.
It instituted an exchange program where a person/business can identify others looking for similar coverage plans and premiums and band together to shop for competitive plans. Yes, the government is going to set mininum coverage standards, but that is GOOD for patients.
I understand the argument that the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to require individuals to have health insurance. That is legitimate debate. But to say that we now have a socialized healthcare system is fiction. In fact, private insurance companies will benefit from this law because of the requirement of having health insurance. Private companies are going to have more customers.
By Step to the Right May 20, 2010 at 1:25 pm
The 33% who want the ‘hand out’ are consistent with the demographics of the Democrat party. The poor and sick and ‘stupid 33%’ will always be among us. First we have to take back the government from the socialist liberals, then repeal the ‘Obama No-Care’ law and never allow the media to control another election of a president or the Congress again!
By Dr. Hunley May 20, 2010 at 4:11 pm
@ medstudent,
So clear and yet not one drop will sink in here. Damn shame too.
By Cooter Brown May 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Nullificashun/interposition iz th’ onlie real solushun. Dont consent!
The court will always bak deir mastas and the politishuns in warshingtun aint neva repealed jack shit– just make it a little easier t’ swaller iz all…
By No Way! May 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm
It is clear that MUSC does not like Socialized Medicine:
Recommended Online Communications/Social Media Guidelines for MUSC
Emerging online interactive and social media platforms are fundamentally changing the way organizations and individuals communicate. These guidelines outline how MUSC as an organization will support the components of social media in terms of its institutional communication goals, as well as providing online communication guidelines for MUSC staff who engage in online discourse and identify themselves as MUSC employees.
Communicating Online for Employees
•The main thing MUSC employees need to remember about blogs and social networking sites is that the same basic approaches apply in these spaces as in other areas of their lives. The purpose of the following guidelines is to help you understand how MUSC policies apply to these newer technologies for communication, so that you can participate with confidence not only on MUSC’s own social media platforms, but in other online venues as well.
•Follow all applicable existing MUSC communications, privacy, conflict-of-interest, and information security policies. For example, you must not share confidential or proprietary information about MUSC and you must maintain patient and student privacy. Among the policies most pertinent to this discussion are those concerning patient and student confidentiality, appropriate use of computers, e-mail and the Internet, photography and video and media relations.
•Any employee who communicates on the Internet about MUSC or MUSC-related matters should disclose his/her role at MUSC. Use good judgment and strive for accuracy in these communications as errors and omissions reflect poorly on MUSC and may result in liability for the employee or MUSC.
•Write in the first person. Where a connection to MUSC is apparent, the employee should make it clear that he/she is not speaking on behalf of MUSC. In social networking profiles, employees will want to include this disclaimer in the “About Me” section of a blog or social networking profile: “The views expressed on this [Twitter, Facebook, blog, website] are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer.”
•Use a personal email address, and not the MUSC email address, as the primary means of identification. Just as an employee would not use MUSC stationery for a letter-to-the-to the editor expressing personal views, he/she should not use an MUSC e-mail address to express personal views on a social networking platform or external website.
•If an employee’s personal blog, postings or other online activities are inconsistent with or would negatively impact MUSC’s reputation or brand, he/she should not refer to MUSC or identify a connection to MUSC.
•Employees should be respectful and professional to fellow employees, business partners, competitors and patients. They should avoid using unprofessional online personas.
•Employees should contact the appropriate website manager if there are any questions about what is appropriate to include in a blog or social networking profile. Remember that if comments wouldn’t be deemed appropriate by a manager or others at MUSC, it is unwise to post them to the Internet. Remember that all content contributed on all platforms becomes immediately searchable and can be immediately shared, i.e. it immediately leaves your control forever.
•Employees should ensure that blogging and social networking activity do not interfere with work commitments –these activities should be restricted to breaks, just as personal phone calls would be.
•Employees should be thoughtful about how they present themselves as MUSC staff members in online networks. By virtue of identifying oneself as part of MUSC in such a network, connections are established to colleagues, managers, patients and donors.
•If a group or individual offers to pay an employee to participate in an online forum as a representative of MUSC, this could constitute conflict of interest and the relevant policies and guidelines would apply.
•If someone from the media or press contacts an MUSC employee about posts made in online forums that relate to MUSC in any way, the employee must alert his/her manager and contact Public Relations before responding.
•MUSC’s Marketing and PR departments should be notified by employees who use personal websites, blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, etc., that present them in their MUSC roles. These activities are encouraged if representations of MUSC are positive and the previous guidelines are followed. As previously noted, MUSC employees should not disparage MUSC or disclose confidential information obtained through their work with MUSC in these types of online communications.
•Some social networking activities and blogging may be approved activities, typically in the context of Marketing and PR, where staff may engage in Internet conversations for work-related purposes. Such engagement on behalf of MUSC must be approved and coordinated through the appropriate Departments.
Official MUSC Social Media Sites and Platforms
•Institutional representation on online social networking platforms must be initiated and authorized through the MUSC Marketing or Public Relations departments (or other governing departments as indicated). To be clear, there may be no official MUSC sites or pages on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., unless approved and/or developed by the Marketing or Public Relations (or other official areas as indicated). All requests to establish official MUSC platforms must be submitted in writing. Any existing sites or pages will have to be reviewed and may be amended or taken down if they do not comply with official MUSC guidelines.
•MUSC official sites on social network platforms may have pages or content areas that are assigned to departments, divisions or programs at MUSC. Communication guidelines will apply to such pages, as well as to content maintained by the Marketing and Public Relations departments or other official areas.
•Content owners are responsible for posting and using content in accordance with MUSC values, the MUSC codes of conduct, HIPAA, and other existing communications, privacy and conflict-of-interest, and information security policies and procedures.
•Content owners are responsible for monitoring and maintaining content:
?Content must be current and accurate
?Content owners will not engage in any communications that would not be acceptable in the MUSC workplace that will respect copyrights and disclosures, and will not reveal proprietary financial, intellectual property, patient care or similar sensitive or private content.
?Content owners are responsible for constantly monitoring postings to social media sites and deleting postings that do not adhere to our policies.
•MUSC ordinarily does not prohibit links to its web sites, provided that any such link does not improperly connote an endorsement by or affiliation with MUSC or otherwise adversely impact any MUSC entity.
•No link(s) may appear on any page or within any context containing content or materials that may be interpreted as libelous, obscene or criminal, or which infringes, otherwise violates, or advocates the infringement or other violation of, any third party rights.
•In the spirit of embracing the interactive nature of online social media, MUSC welcomes user-generated content posts and replies on its pages; however, objectionable content is subject to deletion at the discretion of MUSC. Users should ensure that comments:
•Are not profane or offensive
•Are in context to the site or discussion thread
•Respect the privacy of MUSC’s patients, their families and staff (do not use names or readily identifiable personal specifics)
•Do not disclose MUSC’s proprietary information or that of its partners
Example of Site-Specific Guidelines: Recommended guidelines for creating an approved MUSC Facebook page:
Guidelines for creating a MUSC-themed Facebook page
Currently Facebook is the preferred social networking site for MUSC-themed pages. Facebook is preferred for its popularity with the target audience, ease of use for members and administrators, wide range of tools available for delivering content and clean design that helps maintain the integrity of the MUSC brand. Below is a list of suggestions and requirements to assist you in creating a MUSC-themed Facebook page.
Suggestions
•Embed any YouTube videos made available on the official MUSC YouTube page.
•Upload images of MUSC and other images provided by MUSC (Flickr or photo platform TBD)
•Post photos and videos of your own fundraising events.
•Tell your story. Explain why you support MUSC.
•Add MUSC and MUSC Health as your Facebook friend (both pages being developed in FY10).
•Embed our custom MUSC widget (TBD).
•Below whatever text you put in your “About Me” section, place the following description of MUSC or MUSC Health and a link to its website (content/statement TBD):
•Use any or all of MUSC feeds (list TBD).
Requirements
•Do have designated resources for refreshing content and monitoring your page on a regular basis – a minimum of every two to three days is recommended for content updates, but daily monitoring may be necessary based on the nature of your content and comments.
•Do not use any images of patients unless there is written consent.
•Do not allow any inappropriate photos or copy to be placed on your page. Monitoring of comments on a regular basis is your responsibility.
•Do not post the MUSC or MUSC Health logo unless it is specifically approved or included within another approved piece (e.g. banner ads and widgets).
By Jack May 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm
medstudent, don’t be fooled. It has to be socialized medicine, because Obama supported it and he is a Fascist or Socialist, not sure which or what the difference is, but he is one of them, and he is a Muslim, and he is not a natural born US citizen, and he is . . . well he is.
Also we have the best medical system in the world. It does not matter that our life expectancy is less than all of the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. It does not matter that we have a higher infant mortality rate than all of the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. It does not matter that in every poll taken the percentage of Americans happy with their health care is lower than the percent of people living in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The fact is we have the best health care system, and if any one says otherwise they are lying.
And as someone else said the ones who would be helped by this are mostly the lazy stupid ones, and we know who they are. They are just like Obama.
By medstudent May 20, 2010 at 9:31 pm
@ No way, I felt like your post might have been directed at me. I was not discussing MUSC-related matters. However, I will volunteer that my role is a student, not an employee. Also, I will state that I am not speaking on behalf of MUSC – these are my personal opinions. And I’ll be glad to state them again:
Socialized medicine takeover? You realize that this health care law did not include a national single payer system or even a public option.
It instituted an exchange program where a person/business can identify others looking for similar coverage plans and premiums and band together to shop for competitive plans. Yes, the government is going to set mininum coverage standards, but that is GOOD for patients.
I understand the argument that the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to require individuals to have health insurance. That is legitimate debate. But to say that we now have a socialized healthcare system is fiction. In fact, private insurance companies will benefit from this law because of the requirement of having health insurance. Private companies are going to have more customers.
By The BOSS May 20, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Fully agree with Jack
By EasleyJack May 21, 2010 at 9:31 am
Mr. Medstudent, you obviously have a lot to learn about politics and the steps that shrewd politicians take to acheive their ends. No, there was no single payer system in THIS round. But, the publicly stated objectives of the president, Barney Frank, Dick Durbin and other high ranking democrats is a single payer system that is gov’t run. The steps they have taken to will drive health care in that direction because of costs to companies to provide that coverage. In the end, as companies drop that benefit because it is cheaper to pay the fines, it makes it look as though capitalism has failed. When in reality it is the elected officials that have failed. Health care will be gov’t run. Please give us one gov’t run entity that does it well and efficiently.
By Another Comment May 21, 2010 at 9:44 am
jack you hit it square on the head. You make one mistake though; you are using FACTS instead of Fox talking points..this will surely confuse quite a few a people who post on this site.
By CNSYD May 21, 2010 at 9:56 am
If it is necessary to assign “blame” for Obamacare, then the finger(s) should be pointed at the private insurance companies, the drug companies and the medical profession. If the populace did not feel they were getting screwed by this group at every turn then there would be no Obamacare. Visit any medical facility whether a hospital, diagnostic clinic, a doctor’s office, etc. and what is the primary thing they want to know about you? It is not what ailment you have but what insurance you have. Then they want to know what is your copay and we want it right now. Now go sit in a corner and we will call you sometime later to hear what you ailment is. By the way please observe the sign on the wall that says if your check bounces we are going to come after you. Now take this prescription to a drug store. What is the first thing the drug store wants to know before they even check to see if they have the med? How are we going to get our money. They then tell you that the drug costs hundreds of dollars because it is “new”. Now you remember that while you waited in the doctor’s office a beautiful, dressed to the 9s lady had breezed in (she didn’t have to wait) from the very drug company that sells the drug. Hmmm wonder what kickbacks are involved here? The drug store tells you that you must pay full price because the med is not on your insurer’s list. A month later you get a bill from the doctor for the full amount of the visit saying your insurance didn’t pay and you are now 30 days late and we do notify credit bureaus. You call your insurer and a clerk who is not a doctor tells you why she didn’t approve your claim.
By medstudent May 21, 2010 at 10:22 am
@ AC, Jack didn’t post facts, he posted his predictions. I and many others disagree that the current law will lead to a single payer system.
I am trying to discuss what we actually have before us as a result of this law, and my point was that people who conted this law is a socialized takeover of healthcare are repeating fabricated and hyperbolic Sean Hannity statements.
By Dr. Hunley May 21, 2010 at 11:19 am
@ medstudent –
You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. I tip my hat, just do not let the tr@lls get you worked up too much. Cheers.
By EasleyJack May 21, 2010 at 11:20 am
Med – Fact: Obama, Barney Frank, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid are all on record, in print and video, that they support single payer systems. Fact: when you have the opportunity to graduate and own your own business you will have to deal with the cost of health care. At that point you will have to debate whether or not you want to cover the high cost of paying for that health care for employees or you’d rather pay the penalty. You probably don’t undertsand that now because you aren’t faced with that business decision. This is a fact that businesses are dealing with now. This isn’t speculation. Fact: Catapiller has already stated that it will cost them almost $100 million dollars (Bloomberg.com has many corporate statements to this effect). Zero to do with Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter or any other figure you want to bring up because you refuse to believe there are many of us out here that run businesses on a daily basis that do our own homework and understand the costs associated with doing so. I don’t have to repeat what those other individuals may have to say. Maybe you need to do more individual homework in business and listen to the radio or watch Rachael Maddow less.
By SEMINOLE SAM May 21, 2010 at 11:33 am
THE DEMOCRAPS ARE SOOO F****** STUPID GET RID OF THEM
By Crooner May 21, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Did the poll indicate the percentage of those who “strongly favor repeal” are on Medicare?
By No Way! May 21, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I strongly desire repeal of Obamacare and Obama! Take them both out of force and office respectively. Tired of watching this guy bow to foreign leaders who do not respect this country. I wish Obama could be deported to Mexico and live with them if he wants to be there so much!
By Jack May 21, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Crooner, what is your point. The folks on Medicare should be the most concerned. If Obama has his way they could lose their Medicare and be forced to go on government healthcare; and we all know only lazy stupid people, congressmen and senators; state, federal, and county government employees, and people in the military are on government healthcare.
By Another Comment May 21, 2010 at 6:46 pm
medstudent im on your side on this issue. I actually believed Jack was being sarcastic but i could have read the message incorrectly.
People screamed about single payer and what they considered socialized medicine completely ignoring the 33% annual increase in premiums, the huge profit margins while cutting back on claims. This is what the for profit healtyh insurance industry does on a daily basis. How do large insurance companies cut back on claims? with boards that decide who and what gets approved, kinda of like one of those crazy “death boards” Simple Sarah was talking about during the elections. Ironically and utterly disgustingly she was supporting the very practices she spoke out against. You couldnt write this stuff if you tried..its pure comic gold..
“No way” im curious; did it bother you when W walked hand in hand with the Saudi King? Holding his hand in a subservient fashion..did that bother you. Because i haven’t really witnessed Obama bow to anyone beyond what would be the standard courtesy do another foreign leader in their own land. But hey dont let facts stop keep the hate boiling brother. Maybe you and Seminole can go put on some sheets, drink whiskey and talk tough for a few hours. You guys could be like your own little hate support group.
By CNSYD May 21, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Jack, please explain to me what “government healthcare” plan federal employees are on. Is Blue Cross, etc. “government healthcare”? Why, as a federal employee, do you have to pay premiums if it is as you say? You do realize that most school teachers are “government employees”? I don’t know what university you support but if it is a state school, then your high paid coaches are also “government employees”.
By madcock May 22, 2010 at 9:20 am
As long as Obama is in office, we shall continue to have problems. Why not send the problem home in the next election!
By madcock May 22, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Not sure who the right-wing plant is using my handle, but that’s typical of Republicans. They can’t win the battle of facts, so they resort to using childish tricks.
As for the poll, its from Rasmussen, the people who gave us President McCain.
And as for socialized medicine, we’ve had it since 1965. It’s called Medicare. Wonder if Murdoch will pay Rasmussen to ask Americans on it, how they feel about the GOP’s plans to raise the deductible to $2,000 and then privatize it in a few years?
But yes its an awful thing that insurance companies can’t cancel the coverage of women with breast cancer. What’s this country coming to?
Thankfully we have the Tea baggers to call out Obama for things like this and being to mean to that nice BP and W.Va coal company.
By madcock May 22, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I am the real madcock! I despise this administration!
By CNSYD May 23, 2010 at 9:47 am
Will the real madcock please stand up.
By madcock May 23, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I’ve been posting on here for months as madcock.
Bad enough that Republicans have no knew ideas, only the warmed over failed policies of Dubya, Newt and Sanfraud, but now they can’t even come up with original handles.
Haven’t had such a good laugh in quite a while.
By Jack May 23, 2010 at 7:10 pm
If the taxpayer is paying for your healthcare you are on goverment health care. I don’t care if the Goverment gives it to you through the Medicare system or pays preimums to an insurance company they have cut a sweet deal with on your behalf. It’s still goverment health care. In fact I would reather them give it to you through the Medicare system as that is likely to cost me less. Either way it is still goverment health care.
By CNSYD May 23, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Jack, insurance premiums are deducted from federal government employee’s paychecks to pay the health insurance company which is a company that the employee chooses such as Blue Cross. How is that different for how it works in private industry? The only “deal” that is cut is that these private insurance companies get giant pools and can therefore spread out their risk.
By Joe The Dumber May 28, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Didn’t Rush rave about the care he received in Hawaii, a state with universal healthcare coverage.
As healthcare coverage stands now, the uninsured are paid for by increased costs for the insured, government programs, and charity simply because it is not affordable for many to pay into a coverage pool. Making an affordable coverage pool would allow many of the uninsured to pay for their own healthcare coverage, get treatment earlier when costs are lower, and reduce the burden of others to pay those costs. But hey, if Obama proposed it, it must be part of some socialist/communist/muslim plot to take over the country.
Pingback: Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Social Medicine, 50 Years Ago