Poll: Two-Thirds Confused by Health Reform

CBS News Survey Finds Most Americans Scratching Heads Over Proposed Changes to Health Insurance System

(CBS)  Most Americans find the health care reforms being discussed in Congress confusing and say President Obama has not clearly explained his plans to overhaul the system, according to a CBS News poll released Tuesday.

Two in three Americans call the health care reforms being debated by lawmakers confusing; only 31 percent said they have a clear understanding of the proposed changes. Sixty-seven percent of those questioned said the reform ideas were confusing.

This evaluation cuts across party lines, with majorities of both Republicans (69 percent) and Democrats (58 percent) saying the current proposals are confusing.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Most Americans (60 percent) say the President has not clearly explained his health care reform plans. While slightly more than half of Democrats think Mr. Obama has clearly explained his plans, majorities of Republicans and independent voters say he has not.

Government vs. Private Industry

Americans also have increasing doubts as to how well the government can compete with private insurers. Just under half of those questioned said the government would do a worse job providing medical coverage - only 36 percent said it would do better, marking a change since earlier this summer.

There has also been a significant drop in the percentage that says government would be better than insurers at keeping costs down; from 59 percent in June to 47 percent now. Still, more said the government rather than private insurers would do a better job containing costs.

Town Halls

Most Americans have heard or read something about the protestors who attended recent town hall meetings on health care reform. Among those who have heard about them, almost half (49 percent) said the protestors do not reflect the views of most Americans, but 41 percent said they do.

A majority of Republicans (66 percent) said the protestors reflect the opinions of Americans as a whole, while a slightly larger proportion of Democratic participants did not (73 percent). Among those aged 65 and over, 45 percent said the protestors' views were in line with those of most Americans - the highest of any age group.

PDF: Read the Complete Poll

See Also -- Poll: Obama's Ratings on Afghanistan Drop

---

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,097 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone August 27-31, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

[wmb1957]

Will you be able to keep your current insurance plan if you like it?
Probably not, at least if you read the H.R. 3200 literally.
Will illegal aliens be covered.
This seems likely, and they will be eligible for subsidies in some cases.
Will businesses be hurt?
It doesn't look like it, the costs are pushed over to individuals in most cases. An employer can pay 8% at most by going to the public option while currently the averge (as of 2005 BLS Labor Monthly Reveiw 2008) was 10%. The employee would pay the full cost in the exchange however, unless their income was low enough to be subsidized, from what I understand.

Are abortions covered. They are in at least some plans, if I understand correctly, this is another area it is difficult to read.

The costs will likley be more expensive for many then their current plans are. Premiums are set by income with subsidies below four times the poverty level. Those above four times the poverty level can pay up to 11% of their income (gross?) as a premium. Some middle class families could be paying a fifth of their income (from a liberal site) for coverage they pay considerably less for now.

Cost sharing, above premiums, seems to be %5000 for an individual, and $10,000 for a family.

[Ferrell-2]

This health bill will pass and it will make O'Bama our first one-term president in many moons, not to mention the scads of congressmen that will be ousted.

[devilfly1]

Highmark Inc. is a $5 billion health insurance company created from the consolidation of Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Blue Shield. The company contracted with KPMG Consulting Inc. to create an electronic billing and accounts-receivable system. Highmark claims that KPMG abandoned the two-year, $12 million project after it missed deadlines and experienced cost overruns from mistakes. Highmark claims KPMG was more than a year behind schedule and attempted to charge an additional $8 million to complete the first phase of the project. KPMG spokesman John Schneidawind responded that "We've been able to deliver on our part of the project, but through much of the engagement, Highmark hasn't done its part to ensure a successful implementation of the payment system on time and on budget." Highmark claims that KPMG failed to "satisfactorily" complete the database design detailed application architecture, and software design specifications. Consequently, developers began coding even through the design was not stabile. Highmark states that KPMG admitted that "much of the coding work performed during the summer of 2000 was useless and would have to be redone," which would result in 8,000 additional hours of development time.


Sources: Adapted from Lucas Mearian, "Insurer Sues, Claims KPMG Mismanaged Billing Project, Computerworld, November 12,2001 and Lucas Merain, "Highmark sues KPMG over Failed IT Project," Computerworld, November 7, 2001


What do you think of Reality Bytes?

[beeker252]

The 'Commissioner' will make all decisions about your health care with input from Tom Daschle's "Comparable Effectiveness Research Commission (former non-profit Council)" which they funded in HR 1. The "Commissioner" will be drawing up protocols for your health care whether you have a government option or private insurance policy
The comparable effectiveness Research was created by a executive order by Bush 43 as a means to make better use of medicine to provide the best way to provide care at the least amount (insurance companies do this all the time)
It has been used by Betsy McCoughey and Rep. Tom Price as talking points to argue government takeover despite FactCheck.org efforts to refute and debunk McCoughey's assertion which she admitted that she read between the lines what she thought it would do when it does not say so at all. It lives on another day because people read into something that is not going to happen. As for the rest of the gibberish, it is because laws are crafted this way and has been that way since man got educated.

[ayn_rand_not]

Guess this means that CBS and the other corporate media is doing its job and protecting insurance industry profits. It's not as if any of the major media has done any honest reporting - it's all a game of false equivalence and "he said, she said".

[htophet]

As a 63 year old veteran and son of relatives? who fought for this country going back to the American Revolution I find the confusion of this crowd contrived. I find these people acting as provocateurs, apparently getting closer everyday to using guns to start an over throw of the remains of our secular democracy. [The parts left after the last eight years of illegalities by the prior gop criminal Adminstration]
Confusion indeed, the only confusion is why the majority that elected Obama has stood by and watched the loony tuners hog the air waves with staged and corporate paid provocateurs shutting downing our grass roots efforts to get corporate America out of total control of health in our country.
Their very effort shows corporate America to be contemptuous of the American people [except for their bought dogs] and our goverment. There seems only one of two ways this group of people can be handled. One we can ignor them, but order the FBI to track the money back to the ring leaders, then have then sued/fined/seized/ by anyone who can prove they dishonestly cheated them. [Of course the line will be miles long so get there early] If anyone who does not live in the district comes to upset a town meeting they should get a 10 thousand dollar fine, perhaps a conviction as a felon, that would stop the majority and maybe even have them listed on the ?people of interest? on the FBI rolls.
Or we could just have all citzens who are spreading these lies investigated as well as these nutbags carrying guns; does anyone think these are anything but trouble makers? Check them out, dumb as a doorknob, uneducated rednecks attempting to intimidate real Americans by attacking our countries hearings, in my book a treasonable acts which borders on Benidict Arnolds hatred of my country. If found guilty of this they should forfeit all their SSI, VA, MediCal socialized federal program benefits and see if that convinces them all they have been told were lies, finally!
Also, as a veteran who rejects all Taliban types, [All fundamentalists religions ] I would authorize in a heart beat the investigation of anyone or any church who would encourage anyone to bring a gun to a public meeting, president or not. There should be severe punishment by the states so that allowing such nonsense is costly. Perhaps we could publish the states and names that condone this behavior to all countries that send tourist to our country, so as to steer them to a civilized, civil, and respectful part of America, away from these provocateurs homes and businesses.
Be warned that these same types of people stood up in public in Texas the other day calling for the separation of Texas from the union. How is it possible the civil war could have been taught in the schools that are funded by federal money there? If this subject of truthful history had been taught like the law required then these persons would have known that issue was resolved after the complete and utter destruction of all armies and southern cities!
I intend to watch and listen more closely and record all suspected behavior of neighbors who exhibit neo-nazi-con traits like attacking American institutions like our local town hall meetings. We should all study our potential enemies like the Constitutional oath demanded of me, to help protect against foreign as well as domestic enemies. Vigilance in the defense of liberty is no vice. [Barry Gold water 1963]

[lilsmom-2009]

Hi everyone, just a good place to read each proposal and compare one to the other is on AARP. No editorial...just what is in each of the bills out of committees and the Presidents proposal. Please take time to get informed, we really have been trying for 40 years to get help for the average little guy. Nothing hard to read and understand at this site. I don't think you have to be a member to read the different stuff. Say a prayer this evening for California and all the brave firefighters out there.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:27 PM EDT
I already told you Hungry. What is to stop it is that if I had a company tell me to do that, I would be getting rid of that company!! And getting a different one. Me and many like me who did not like the cutomoer service.







You can't "get rid of that HMO" once you've been diagnosed with something wrong with you.

It's called a "pre-existing condition", and NO INSURANCE company will want you, OR take you!!

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:20 PM EDT

And no, it wasnt the conservatives. The conservatives fro mday one said the CRA and other laws/regulations like them were a joke and were screwing up the financial system and allowing loan makers to play on the edges with government money. Liberals in both parties went ahead with it, though.







http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

"Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we?re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act ? a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it?s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren?t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: "In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat."



Tell me again how the government - dominated at the time by the republicans in congress, the senate, and the White House - DID NOT loo the other way.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:24 PM EDT
Even former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines (himself a crook) stated that the CRA was a ctalyst in encouraging bad loans.







Link?

[msimamaji]

So Americans are confused about health care reform. I conducted the some research from Center for Responsive Politics. Here is just some of the evidence I found.
Mitch McConnell gets $ 2 million in political campaign contributions from the health sector.He gets $ 1 million from lobbyists. His top political donor is Kindred Health Care. Among the other top 20 campaign donors are Humana Inc, Blue Cross, and GalaxoSmithKline.
Joe Lieberman has gotten $2 million from the health care sector, which includes health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. He gets $ l million from lobbyists. Lieberman's top 20 political donors include Aetna Health Insurance and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.
Senator Richard Lugar's top industrial backers are security and investment industries. Since health insurance industries are Wall Street's latest darlings, Lugar has every reason for delaying. Lugar also gets $ 177,000 in political campaign contributions from the health sector. Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals and Blue Cross/Blue Shield are among his top 20 political campaign contributors.
Orrin Hatch gets $ 977,000 from health care sector. His top industrial donor are pharmaceuticals and health products. Other top industrial donors include hospitals, nursing homes, and health insurance companies. Of top 20 individual political donors, Blue Cross takes 2nd place. Amgen, Eli Lilly Kindred Health Care are also among the top 20.

The top 6 contributors for Charles Grassley include Blue Cross, 2nd place: Select Medical Group, 3rd place; and Amgen. Throughout Grassley's career he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industries health insurance industry, health products, and pharmaceuticals.
That good old feisty maverick John McCain has received $ 7 million from the health sector, including health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals during his political career $ 1.2 million of McCain's campaign money comes from lobbyists who are now descending upon Washington Dc like locusts from a Biblical Plague in an effort to defeat Obama's health care reforms. From 2005 to present McCain's top 5 political contributors include Merrill-Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs, all of which are reaping record profits from health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals.
Blue Dog Democrats are just as eager to sell America down the river for the right political contribution. It's all about the Benjamins. Do you know that when you or your employer pay a health care premium, you are giving a political campaign contribution? Does a politician like Mitch McConnell or Charles Grassley tell their constituents that they are making political campaign contributions through their health insurance premiums.
I don't think so.
In the meantime, while Senators carry on their namby-pamby debate and expect the world to massage their egos, 22,000 Americans die each year because they have inadequate health care, according to a report filed by the Urban Institute. That's 7 times more than the people we lost in 9/11. According to the 2009 CIA Fact, book, our infant mortality rate is higher than the infant mortality rates of Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Cuba. It is twice as high as the infant mortality rates of Sweden and France.
Are these facts really so confusing? All I can say is that the American public is getting robbed blind by their Congressional representatives, by lobbyists, by the RNC, by the tea baggers, and by Wall Street. They need "unconfuse themeselves" and fast.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:20 PM EDT
The company does make the loans. The yhire people to go get the loans, that is true. but they have to APPROVE the loans. So, the bosses look at the loan and go "hey, this guy cant pay this back.." and disapprove it. But the rub here is that when a loan comes in that the government will back, they go "hey, this guy cant pay it back but so what? If he doesnt, we can dump it on the government." That is why the government thru the CRA set the market up to fail. If they had just let the companies sink or swim on their own, they would have been forced to make better decisions...or go out of business.

And no, it wasnt the conservatives. The conservatives fro mday one said the CRA and other laws/regulations like them were a joke and were screwing up the financial system and allowing loan makers to play on the edges with government money. Liberals in both parties went ahead with it, though. It is they that I blame!







The conservatives turned their backs, and allowed the big businesses to do whatever the hell they wanted, with NO INTERFERENCE from the government -- AS USUAL.

And the result was (drumroll) ...... the mortgage meltdown.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:21 PM EDT
Already did, Hungry.






No you didn't.

You said "the CRA".

Post the section from the CRA law, that MANDATES banks to give loans to people that could not afford them.

I'll even give you the link:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/



I'll give you PROOF that it doesn't exist in the CRA law:

"The law also does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution; instead it emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken ******in a safe and sound manner*******."

"The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, *****consistent with safe and sound operation*****."

(Asterisks added by me for emphasis.)






Now you go ahead and post the section that proves me wrong.

I'll wait.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:17 PM EDT
Greed factor? What are you talking about? When you remove PROFIT, you remove incentive to do a good job! You remove incentive to remove waste and fraud.

The government, every part of it, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. Yo ucant get away from it, it exists in every department!

Your numbers are off because you dont factor in all costs the government entails to administer the program.







What a BIZARRE statement!!!

If there is no profit, then the job quality and product offering isn't as good?!?!

Tell me how you feel about a "military doctor".



Even with the fraud and waste, which COULD be greatly reduced through more stringent investigations and MORE investigators - which you anti-government types oppose - the savings over the greedy FOR PROFIT HMO's would be AT LEAST 30% or more.

And health care dollars would go to health care providers - just like it's supposed to.

[Mortarman29]

Miltary healthcare sucks! I was there, I know!

And we always talk about reducing waste, fraud and abuse. It NEVER happens. There is no incentive to reduce it.

I get lower costs and better service when "greedy" people offer me such services. I go to work everyday and work for my living because I am "greedy." I want as much out of my employer as I can get for my family!

My small business, I want to be "greedy." I want as much as a I can get out of my customers for my family. But, in order to do that, I have to offer a good service that they will want and need. And I have to offer it at a price they will pay. If I over charge, they will go elsewhere.

Same principle here.

[valwayne]

Is it any wonder that most American are confused by Obamacare. Obama doesn't answer questions with clear answers. He treats us like idiots and dismisses any concerns as misinformation. Ask him what cutting $500 billion from Medicare will mean for health care for Seniors, and he tells you that they wont' cut anybody's benefits. $500 billion dollars cut and there won't be any change in benefits? How is that possible? What were they doing with the $500 billion in the first place if they didn't need it for anything? That's only one example. Ask him if Obamacare will cover abortions? He doesn't say absolutely not, he says there's nothing in the bill requiring it. And to think that we called Bill Clinton "Slick Willy"! And when Obama isn't dodging questions Nancy Pelosi is calling anyone with a question UNAMERICAN, and Harry Reid is calling them EVIL MONGERS. Americans know when their questions are being dodged and the Elites are trying to intimidate them into silence! Not this time round!

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:01 PM EDT
Yes there is. My company offers two. Thru regulations and law preventing them from getting lets say a Maryland insurance firm, we are limited in what we can choose from. If I want an insurance firm that is cheap, and lets say they are based in Hawaii, why cant I have them? Right now, Federal regulations and laws say I cant because I live in Virginia.






There is a reason that companies ARE NOT allowed to sell health insurance across state lines.

I don't know WHY they originally banned it, but I'm glad that the prohibition exists for the reason I told you before:

"What is to stop an HMO from TELLING you to go to Kentucky for specialized health care, when you live in Virginia, just to save themselves some money?"

A question that you COULD NOT, and WOULD NOT answer.

And until you CAN answer it, then you shouldn't be calling for an end to the prohibition to sell health insurance across state lines.

[Mortarman29]

I already told you Hungry. What is to stop it is that if I had a company tell me to do that, I would be getting rid of that company!! And getting a different one. Me and many like me who did not like the cutomoer service.

Just like if my auto insurance said I had to get my car that was in an accident fixed at a place in Kentucky. Well, I would be dropping them like a hot potato and getting a different insurance compnay that did not require that!

Again, you mistreat enough people, and you dont have a business!

[Mortarman29]

Gotta go Hungry. Hope you learned somethign again today. I feel obligated to keep helping you learn! My hope is that one day, all of the learning you are getting will help you understand the world as it is. We believe in you! We know you can do it!

See ya later!

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:05 PM EDT
It is a mandate. Believe me, no company wants to push bad loans UNLESS they are in a position where they dont have to pay them back when they fail.






Why don't you POST the mandate, that you INSIST exists?

Could it be that it doesn't exist, and therefore you CANNOT FIND IT?!?

[Mortarman29]

Already did, Hungry.

[Mortarman29]

Even former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines (himself a crook) stated that the CRA was a ctalyst in encouraging bad loans.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 7:05 PM EDT
It is a mandate. Believe me, no company wants to push bad loans UNLESS they are in a position where they dont have to pay them back when they fail. Fannie and Freddie were set-up and the rules made so those companies wouldnt lose out if those risky loans failed. And eventually, they did. And those companies came a calling to the Feds and said "hey, you said you were backing these loans! So here you go."

Again, I am not exempting these companies from blame. But I am slamming the government for creating the environment for this to happen. The environment everyone could see from day one existed.

Why would anyone with a brain allow them to make loans that they didnt have to back up with their own money? Especially risky loans, like in poor neighborhoods? That was stupid!







The company didn't make bad loans. They hired people and told them, "When you make a loan, and it gets approved, you get a bonus."

So the loan managers made ALL SORTS of crazy loans, and even started the practice of "loan flipping" because then they were able to get paid and repaid for the same loans over and over again!!

Google "loan flipping", "insurance packing", "bait and switch", "equity stripping", and "deceptive loan servicing" to find out WHO made these garbage loans, and why they did it.

And as far as "why did the government allow them to do it"? Ask your local conservative politician. THEY are the ones that rolled over and let the companies set the regulations, and ignored their oversight responsibilities while they did it.

[Mortarman29]

The company does make the loans. The yhire people to go get the loans, that is true. but they have to APPROVE the loans. So, the bosses look at the loan and go "hey, this guy cant pay this back.." and disapprove it. But the rub here is that when a loan comes in that the government will back, they go "hey, this guy cant pay it back but so what? If he doesnt, we can dump it on the government." That is why the government thru the CRA set the market up to fail. If they had just let the companies sink or swim on their own, they would have been forced to make better decisions...or go out of business.

And no, it wasnt the conservatives. The conservatives fro mday one said the CRA and other laws/regulations like them were a joke and were screwing up the financial system and allowing loan makers to play on the edges with government money. Liberals in both parties went ahead with it, though. It is they that I blame!

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 6:51 PM EDT
4% overhead? I nthe government? What drugs are you taking...I need a few.

You ever see the studies comparing charities and the government and who had the highest overhead?

Here is a clue...the government wins the title!







We're not talking about charities and non-profits versus the government, dummy.

We're talking about FOR PROFIT corporations versus the government.

EASILY the government wins that hands down, simply because the "GREED" factor has been removed.

[Mortarman29]

Greed factor? What are you talking about? When you remove PROFIT, you remove incentive to do a good job! You remove incentive to remove waste and fraud.

The government, every part of it, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. Yo ucant get away from it, it exists in every department!

Your numbers are off because you dont factor in all costs the government entails to administer the program.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 1, 2009 6:50 PM EDT
The Community Reinvestment Act for one.







That's not a "mandate" to give bad loans.

The bad loans were caused by loan managers that were paid by how many LOANS they made - whether they were good or bad didn't matter, as long as they were approved.

It was SHEAR VOLUME that mattered.

Try again.

Please post the mandate. (If you believe it's from a section of the CRA, then post that section to prove your point. I'll give you a hint - it DOES NOT EXIST.)

[Mortarman29]

It is a mandate. Believe me, no company wants to push bad loans UNLESS they are in a position where they dont have to pay them back when they fail. Fannie and Freddie were set-up and the rules made so those companies wouldnt lose out if those risky loans failed. And eventually, they did. And those companies came a calling to the Feds and said "hey, you said you were backing these loans! So here you go."

Again, I am not exempting these companies from blame. But I am slamming the government for creating the environment for this to happen. The environment everyone could see from day one existed.

Why would anyone with a brain allow them to make loans that they didnt have to back up with their own money? Especially risky loans, like in poor neighborhoods? That was stupid!