Tweet
The people of this great country are now speaking out and say no to this bull shit gov run health care. they are also saying they were wrtong on voting for this scum bag
By a 50 to 35 percent margin, Americans believe it's a bad idea to create a government health-insurance company to compete with private insurers.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday also shows that voters aren't buying promises that middle-class Americans won't eventually see tax hikes as a consequence of covering an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans.
Fifty-six percent of those surveyed consider a tax increase for the middle class to be "very likely," and another 22 percent say it is "somewhat likely."
Only 4 percent consider a tax hike on the middle class "not at all likely." President Obama has repeatedly insisted that no one earning less than $250,000 would get hit with an additional tax
The Rasmussen poll, based on interviews with 1,000 likely voters, is one in a series of recent surveys suggesting Americans are profoundly skeptical about the health-care plans that are currently making their way through Congress.
A recent Zogby poll, for example, showed that voters oppose the House version of health-care reform introduced on Tuesday by a 52 to 40 percent margin.
That bill would require all Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
It would partially defray the estimated $1 trillion cost over the next decade by increases taxes on individuals making over $280,000 annually (or above $350,000 for families).
And it would establish a "health-insurance exchange," described as "a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."
One option offered by the health-insurance exchange would be a "public health insurance option," which would effectively function as a public alternative to private health insurance.
Opponents of the legislation say that establishing a public health-insurance option undermines the viability of private insurance firms, and would constitute an incremental step toward a fully public system of health care.
A New York Times editorial Thursday sought to refute that notion, asserting the House bill "makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine."
By a 50 to 35 percent margin, Americans believe it's a bad idea to create a government health-insurance company to compete with private insurers.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday also shows that voters aren't buying promises that middle-class Americans won't eventually see tax hikes as a consequence of covering an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans.
Fifty-six percent of those surveyed consider a tax increase for the middle class to be "very likely," and another 22 percent say it is "somewhat likely."
Only 4 percent consider a tax hike on the middle class "not at all likely." President Obama has repeatedly insisted that no one earning less than $250,000 would get hit with an additional tax
The Rasmussen poll, based on interviews with 1,000 likely voters, is one in a series of recent surveys suggesting Americans are profoundly skeptical about the health-care plans that are currently making their way through Congress.
A recent Zogby poll, for example, showed that voters oppose the House version of health-care reform introduced on Tuesday by a 52 to 40 percent margin.
That bill would require all Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
It would partially defray the estimated $1 trillion cost over the next decade by increases taxes on individuals making over $280,000 annually (or above $350,000 for families).
And it would establish a "health-insurance exchange," described as "a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."
One option offered by the health-insurance exchange would be a "public health insurance option," which would effectively function as a public alternative to private health insurance.
Opponents of the legislation say that establishing a public health-insurance option undermines the viability of private insurance firms, and would constitute an incremental step toward a fully public system of health care.
A New York Times editorial Thursday sought to refute that notion, asserting the House bill "makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine."