Health care changes have widespread public support, according to a CBS-New York Times poll released Saturday. Almost two-thirds say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans while half that many think it's not the government's responsibility.
Do you know anyone who supports this? I don't.
Comments (12)
Polls taken BY Media outlets(in the bag for THE ONE)willl deliver the results they desire.Then they can report the results they desire.
I know that, you know that. Does Joe Blow know that? It would seem to me that the only people who think this is a good idea want something for nothing.
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences
Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.
The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.
the media lies.
you can force a poll to go any way you like.
allow me to load the question..
if you had no job and your kid were really sick would you be thankful if the government provided the help for your sick child?
the answer is of course YES.
the question is however loaded like a mofo.
if you ask the real question...
do you trust the government to provide for your health and to do what is best for you as an American despite the cost to the government??
the answer is obviously NO
if you really want to know about government health care ask any Veteran
then get back to me!
I was at a meeting with 200 people encouraging Rep Blumenaur to lend support to single payer. I have met no one who is opposed at informal contacts and frequent conversations before and after that meeting.
In England if you're 59 or older they won't give you heart stints or a heart bypass.
Just let it be known that if we go to Universal Health Care, which is government paid and government managed health care, our system will be just like England's, and if you're 59 and you need heart care, forget about it. They don't allow you to have it.
I made two NEW POSTS about this, and they both say "Pending Moderator Approval." I'm figuring the Obama gang doesn't want Americans over 59 to know this.
Universal Health Care, government health care, single payer health care are all titles for the same thing.
More from newsbusrers,
NYT/CBS Stock Pro-Obamacare Poll With Obama Voters
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
June 21, 2009 - 13:22 ET
Realizing that Barack Obama's healthcare initiative has hit some roadblocks in Congress, the good folks at CBS News and the New York Times figured they'd help it along by creating a new poll on the subject that WAY oversampled people who voted for Obama.
Although the then junior senator from Illinois received 53 percent of the votes last November, NYT/CBS surveyed almost twice as many Obama voters as McCain voters.
Before we get to the hilarious inner-workings of this truly disgraceful deception, here's how the Times reported its rigged findings Saturday (h/t Gateway Pundit via NBer slickwillie2001):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
Actually, as Bruce Kesler cleverly discovered, what the poll really found was that most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.
And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?
Honestly, stuff like this should be illegal and any news organization found doing it should be significantly fined.
In any industry you could name, such deception of the public would meet with very serious consequences.
Why are so-called news outlets allowed to get away with such obvious deceit with total impunity?
If you earn enough to pay taxes, forget health care..
If you do not earn enough to pay taxes, you are an Illegal, or a "Refugee." Skys the limit.
Pending Moderator Approval since Tuesday abou 4:15 PM
Then call your representatives and congress and tell them to STOP THE SPENDING and do a real insurance and pharm reform.
NEW YORK TIMES & WASHINGTON POST COLUMNISTS PREDICT THAT THE DEMOCRATS’ TRILLION-DOLLAR HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL PILE MORE DEBT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS
Despite the Administration’s pledge that its government takeover of health care will be “deficit neutral” – meaning Democrats will either raise taxes or cut benefits by at least a trillion dollars – columns in both the New York Times and Washington Post today raised the possibility that the massive government takeover will add even more red ink to the already-staggering federal debt. That means that after the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill that still isn’t creating jobs, the half-trillion omnibus with nearly 9,000 earmarks, and a budget that already includes trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, Democrats intend to borrow even more money from China and the Middle East and pass the bill to our kids and grandkids.
In an op-ed entitled, “Prognosis: Debt” Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt writes:
“If you listened to President Obama addressing the American Medical Association last week, you might think that the primary purpose of health-care reform is, as he said, ‘to control the spiraling cost of health care in America…’”
“Yet extending coverage is overwhelmingly the focus of congressional attention so far, and it is quite likely that any legislation that emerges will create a hugely expensive health-care entitlement with no guarantee of the upward cost spiral being slowed.”
In a New York Times op-ed, “Tossing and Turning Over the Federal Deficit,” John Harwood raised similar concerns:
“Mr. Obama insists he will act to narrow the long-term deficit once the economy recovers. But neither the president nor his budget director can be sure that their principal strategies, which involve curbing rising health care costs, will work.”
On Friday, House Democratic Leaders introduced a “health care plan” without even an estimate of how much it will cost, let alone how they will pay for it, leaving the American people to wonder how serious Congressional Democrats are about keeping the President’s pledge. The American people don’t want a government takeover of health care that will raise taxes, ration care, and swell our already-staggering debt. Both parties need to work together to craft a plan that will control costs and fix what’s broken in American health care. House Republicans stand ready to do just that and have offered a better health care reform solution that will:
Make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions.
Protect Americans from being forced into a new government-run health care plan that would eliminate the health care coverage that more than 100 million Americans currently receive through their job.
Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, and give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs.
Ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats.
Improve Americans’ lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases.
Let’s be clear: America can’t afford the Democrats’ government takeover of health care. Under the Democratic plan, millions of Americans will lose their health coverage, their doctors, and their jobs. Americans deserve better, and Republicans are offering a better plan to reduce costs, expand access, and improve the quality of care. Will Democrats continue their go-it-alone approach and pass their costly government takeover of health care? Or will they finally work with Republicans on a bipartisan plan to make health care more affordable and accessible without burying future generations under mountains of debt we know they cannot afford?
I do
Clamesse, Don't belive everything you read. The media was bought and paid for with money that the Illuinati stole from you (and all of us).