Health care next steps: Fast track, slow track, no track?
There are endless analyses of yesterday’s health summit, all of which probably add as much to the debate as the meeting itself. To wit: No one is changing his or her mind because of the talk-fest.
(One common reaction — see an example here from Slate, not exactly a hub for right-wingism — that I do find interesting is the idea that Obama and the GOP delegation both came out looking better than the congressional Democrats. That strikes me as either an acknowledgment that Republicans exceeded expectations, or that Democrats may have passed a bill a long time ago if they had better leaders in Congress; feel free to discuss below.)
If minds weren’t changed, though, I have come across one particularly interesting suggestion for a next step forward. Here’s Arnold Kling of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, writing at National Review Online:
I thought that President Obama did well to convey a willingness to negotiate. If I were the Republicans, I would move off the “scrap the bill” talking point and instead go with something like this:
We have some areas where we agree, some areas where we might negotiate, and some areas where we can never agree. That suggests a three-track approach.
1. Fast track. For issues such as ending waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, we should aim to pass a bill within 30 days that contains all the ideas on which we agree.
2. Negotiation track. These would be issues where compromise is possible. For insurance competition, the president expressed concern that allowing interstate sales of insurance could cause a “race to the bottom.” That may be a legitimate concern, but it is hypothetical. Instead of preemptively regulating the insurance industry, why not try the Republican approach and see what happens? Meanwhile, create a competitive-practices board for the insurance industry that would monitor the industry and issue public reports on abusive practices. Congress could later vote to convert this board into a permanent regulatory board if public pressure demands it.
I would put the Medicare-cost commission on the negotiation track. But I have long been more willing than most Republicans to endorse doing cost-benefit research on medical procedures.
In principle, the issue of expanding insurance coverage can be put on the negotiation track. But if I were a Republican legislator, I would take a hard line against funding expanded coverage with budget gimmicks, enforced cross-subsidies, or Medicare cuts (again, not that I am against Medicare cuts, but they need to be applied to improving the financial health of Medicare). I would take a relatively softer line against funding more coverage with taxes in an above-board way.
3. Gridlock track. Issues like public funding of abortion or malpractice reform probably go here. Agreement and compromise are not likely.
For all I know, Kling has been calling for such an approach for some time now. But it strikes me as an idea that has found its moment. It’s exactly what I have meant in calling for starting over.
What would you put on the “fast track” versus the “negotiation track”? (And please don’t suggest “tort reform” or the “public option” for the fast track — knowing full well that those polarizing ideas are exactly what we’re trying to distill from the more commonly accepted ideas.)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
91 comments Add your comment
Linda
February 26th, 2010
3:41 pm
CJ@11:01, Both of the sources you quoted have been debunked. You claim that 45,000 Americans die each yr. as a result of having no health insurance. The National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey you reference was conducted between 1986 & 1994 with only 9000 participants. The two doctors who used the data & crunched the numbers are Drs. David Himmelstein & Steffie Woodhandler. Both are avowed govt.-run health care activists.
The second source you used to allude that most bankruptcies are health care related is–viola–also from a study from Himmelstein & Woodhandler.
Is a new mommie who sues her OBGYN for stretch marks a legitimate victim?
Linda
February 26th, 2010
4:10 pm
The most independent, accurate & reliable poll is Rasmussen. It’s not a biased media poll & it doesn’t sell its polls. It has consistently been right-on in elections.
The latest statistics regarding the health care bills(s) are that 41% favor & 56% disfavor. 70% of the political class favor it. 57% of the mainstream voters strongly oppose it. 63% of all voters prefer several small bills. 61% want to scrap it & start all over. Only 35% want reform passed before the mid-term elections.
Reconciliation has never been used in the history of our country to pass a bill that effects 1/6 of our economy, that would transfer that much control of our lives (& our very lives) from the private sector into the hands of the fed. govt., that is passed by only a 51% majority that is favored by only 41% of Americans. Isn’t this tyranny?
BPJ
February 26th, 2010
4:25 pm
There’s a problem with two Republican positions, which seem to be at cross-purposes. First is the proposal, noted above, to allow insurance sales “across state lines”. Of course, you can buy insurance from insurance companies headquartered in other states now; they just have to comply with the insurance regulations in your state. The GOP proposal is to allow sales in a state REGARDLESS of whether they comply with that state’s regulations. When Republican Senator Lamar Alexander was interviewed on the radio about the question of “a race to the bottom”, he admitted that some degree of federal regulations would be required to prevent abuses.
On the other hand, a key Republican talking point was that they didn’t want insurance regulated by Washington; it was better, they said repeatedly, to have such regulation done as it is now, by the state insurance commissioners.
Hence the problem: you can argue that insurers should be regulated by the states in which they sell policies, or you can argue that insurers should be allowed to sell policies to people regardless of whether those policies comply with state regulations (and allow for some federal regulation, to establish a “floor”). I don’t think you can argue for both.
Of course, if one has spent the past year alternately quoting speeches by Ronald Reagan from 1965 denouncing Medicare as a socialist plot, and in the next breath attacking Democrats for trying to bring Medicare costs under control, consistency is a habit long abandoned.
Someone please tell LA that the “public option” was dropped from the health care bill months ago – which is why Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh voted for it.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
4:28 pm
“Both of the sources you quoted have been debunked. You claim that 45,000 Americans die each yr. as a result of having no health insurance…Both are avowed govt.-run health care activists.”
Contrary to Linda’s reasoning, it doesn’t follow that data and/or researchers have been “debunked” or are “avowed” anything simply because one don’t like the results.
And the reason that we might find the overlapping Harvard researchers on more than one Harvard study having to do with health care issues is that…wait for it…they are Harvard researchers who specialize in studying health care issues. Viola.
Also, if Linda wants to debate the results of such studies with those researchers, then she should first learn that all research having to do with large populations necessarily are conducted with samples that are very small relative to the populations being studied. Here’s a book, that Linda might like to explore before embarrassing herself further.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
4:30 pm
correction: s/b “…simply because one doesn’t like the results.” Sorry about the typo.
BPJ
February 26th, 2010
4:33 pm
Actually, the health care bill has already passed the Senate, with 60 votes. It only needs a majority of the House to become law.
What would be passed in the Senate “by reconciliation” would be a few amendments, such as stripping out the “Nebraska exemption” and a few other budget matters.
The polls on opposition to the bill usually don’t break down the opposition, but when they do, about 10% of the country (in other words, 20% of the opposition) is opposed because it doesn’t go far enough in their opinion. In other words, that’s liberals who are sore because there’s no public option, no single payer, etc.
However those liberals may grouse about the bill now, once it has passed they will not want to see Republicans repeal it.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
4:40 pm
Reconciliation, what a hoot. Kyle, do you happen to remember what the Democrats had to say about the Republicans when they were going to use “Reconciliation” back in ‘05? It’s all on tape, public record no less: Obama, Reid, Biden and the Dems will be doing exactly a 180 on the issue of using Reconciliation if the Dems chose to use Reconciliation. Politics at its’ worst.
Negotiation track? Not sure about this “race to the bottom” business but that could be resolved easily enough by making the terms and conditions apply to the best state health insurance policy case not the worst policy case. If the co-opts or these exchanges were more in line with my previous expressed ideas not many insurance companies would dare play games. They simply could not afford to and expect to remain in the healthcare insurance business. Neither would big Pharma which got a big pass on the drug re-importation that was defeated. By the way, if drug safety is the real worry as so often purported, according to CNN 40% of the drugs prescribed in this country are imported from China already. Feel better now?
Smiles For Miles
RH
February 26th, 2010
4:42 pm
CJ Bravo on the copy & paste technique. Since your posts are approximately 3 hours apart, you might want to spend some practicing your new found skill.
Jefferson
February 26th, 2010
4:48 pm
Movin’ on…
RH
February 26th, 2010
5:08 pm
CJ says: “Research shows that 45,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health insurance (that’s more than 9/11 level casualties every month).” AND “Researc also shows that 62 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses and 78 percent of these bankruptcy filings are by people who had medical insurance when they first got sick.”
CJ, does any of that research delve into the real reasons why these people were so “unfortunate”?
Maybe they prefered to spend their money on a BMW lease rather than “pricey” health insurance. That person may have wrecked their beemer and died in an auto accident.
Or perhaps they wanted the American dream, got an interest only loan on a home rather than “too expensive” health insurance. Living the high life they ate out constantly and became obese. Their health declined, they lost their job and walked away from it all and filed bankrupcty.
Again, what are the actual real-life stories behind the statistics? The imagination runs wild with all sorts of interesting tales, doesn’t it CJ?
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
5:11 pm
RH
February 26th, 2010
3:18 pm
sam says – “good leaders don’t govern by poll numbers they do what is right for the country.”
This is spot on. We’re not talking about Patton heading towards Bastogne here, we’re talking about the genuine need to reform a huge portion of the economy, for reasons that are highly suspect. The left has wanted this since FDR, yet we still manage without any Federal micromanagement of our individual insurance policies. How on earth do we mere serfs manage?
If Obozo wanted to do “the right thing” for the country 1) abolish the IRS, 2) privatize Social Security and 3) start respecting the 10th amendment, to start.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:16 pm
CJ, One point of he Dem strategy for passing health care was, “To win, we must not just generate understanding, but emotion–fear, revulsion, anger disgust.” This was written by Robert Creamer in his book “Listen to Your Mother, Stand Up Straight! Progressives Can Win” probably while he was in federal prison or on bail for the 16 felonies he was indicted for & his guilty plea for bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds while leader of an ACORN group, Citizens Action/Illinois. His book reviews included one from David Axelrod, who stated that it “provides a blueprint for future progressive victories” & from Rep. Lloyd Doggett who also referred to it as a blueprint.
The prison plan outlined precisely what the Dems/Progressives had to do to pass health care, including convincing people that it was a right, that there was a crisis, to reduce the credibility of the health industry, to “forge relationships” with such groups as AARP (took govt. funds) & AMA, etc., to organize field programs (ACORN, HCAN, etc.) & to mobilize labor unions.
Creamer said on 8/11/08, “If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy–progressives do–for the first time in really in my lifetime…”
Coincidentally, Creamer is married to Dem Congresswoman Jan Kowskison whose town hall meeting on health care was packed with union members, pre-arranged & instructed when & how to disrupt her constituents, all caught on video.
Also, coincidentally, the night of the first State Dinner in honor of the prime minister of India, the gorgeous blond & her husband who supposedly crashed the party was merely a diversion to take attention from the fact that this convicted felon & his wife were invited guests.
You may verify, read, watch & listen at:
http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2009/12/07/was-democrats-health-care-strategy-written-in-federal-prison/
A MUST READ FOR EVERY AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
5:17 pm
CJ says: “Research shows that 45,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health insurance.”
That’s about the number of fatalities in automobile accidents each year. You can’t insure against this.
Lies, damn lies & statistics. Mark Twain.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:19 pm
I misspelled her name. It’s Schakowsky.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:22 pm
A socialist is a socialist, hang the label progressive on it all day long and it will remain socialist. Like putting lipstick on a pig, it remains a pig.
Kyle Wingfield
February 26th, 2010
5:25 pm
Just one question about that Harvard study for you, CJ: How many of the people who were uninsured when they were first interviewed (between 1988 and 1994) later obtained insurance? How long did they remain uninsured? (I guess that’s two questions…)
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:28 pm
CJ, I don’t have a reference for this, but I’m pretty sure that more than 45,000 Americans die every year THAT HAVE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, even with Cadillac plans, even doctors & their families, even in the best hospitals. Everyone dies whether they have health insurance or not!
Lifestyle kills more Americans than lack of insurance.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:34 pm
The term “uninsured” needs a great deal of clarification, Kyle. Under-insured perhaps but “uninsured” is a misnomer. I think you are smart enough to know that as a fact and as matter of law.
Allen
February 26th, 2010
5:35 pm
The Slate article’s central thesis is that the GOP “won” (whatever that means) because they “seemed reasonable.” That doesn’t seem like a standard for victory I’d want to boast about.
But I do applaud Kyle for touching on issues of public policy – the contrast with a politics-obsessed media is palpable.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:35 pm
The website I quoted above is to the health care debate as the leaked emails were to the global warming debate. Please read it as well as the other similar articles on big government.com.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:37 pm
Lifestyle kills more Americans than lack of insurance
Was that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Hallelujah in the background?
Allen
February 26th, 2010
5:38 pm
Kyle, the researchers in the Harvard study above controlled for past periods of uninsurance, if you want to wade into the methodological details.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:47 pm
The UK is having their first Tea Party. Does that not prove that the Tea Parties are not racist?
LA
February 26th, 2010
6:11 pm
“Does that not prove that the Tea Parties are not racist?”
According to all white liberals, white people are evil and racist.
Kyle Wingfield
February 26th, 2010
6:27 pm
Thanks, Allen, but I asked that question because the study’s authors acknowledge that the lack of insurance represented only one point in time — whereas the people surveyed had 6-12 years afterward to die, possibly after they had obtained insurance. The study’s authors describe this as a “limitation.” I’d say it’s much worse than that.
Anyone interested in reading more about this, check out this Atlantic article (it doesn’t mention this Harvard study, but it does talk about some of the same problems with these kinds of studies): http://tr.im/PXlg
don't speak for me
February 26th, 2010
6:38 pm
1) I do not like the senate bill. The house bill is better, but not great.
2) I am a democrat
3) I am unemployed and uninsured
4) I was insured for over 40 years and paid over $500,000 into the system with my premium payments.
5) I (and my family) were denied coverage because of a condition that occurred (for me) while under care BUT when I became unemployed, which changed my status to the same provider (Kaiser) and made my condition “preexisting”.
So why can every other major country have a health care system that provides universal coverage but we cannot? It does not bankrupt them? I would still have to pay, just not to a for profit 3rd party insurance provider, who will not insure.
Why, when I paid as much for insurance that would have bought me a $5 million dollar whole life plan (that would have given me the money I need to pay for anything I needed on a service for pay basis) am I left holding the bag with no insurance when I need it most?
Why is there such fear of terms like “Socialism”? We have many Socialist programs in our country that provide for harmony and security. Police, Fire, Government, Schools, Public Health, Water, Judicial, etc. Why are we afraid of Health Care? It seems to match the type that are publicly funded. Why do you care where you write your heath coverage check too? Be it a government agency or an insurer?
Free markets do not always insure success. We have seen that in spades in the past few years. Would universal health care remove health care alternatives, such as private hospitals or procedural choice? It does not have to. We have the power to draft the system we want.
Again, it appears that it is fear that is paralyzing forward movement. Rhetorical fear that drives the arguments that prevent us from acting. I am afraid that it will take a crisis, bigger than the one we currently face, to allow us to make a change. Myself, already in that crisis, understands now what is needed. I pay my taxes, I paid my premiums, I paid my dues, I am close to bankruptcy and as it gets closer my options are more limited. When I need help most, I have less support. It is not my choice to be unemployed. It is not my choice to not have the resources to provide for my family.
Soon to be homeless. Soon to be a burden on the rest of society. I am an American and I do not like others stating that I, like many others, reject the “Socialist” plan. I reject the “Insurance” option. I tried it and it failed me and my family on all levels.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
6:41 pm
Great post by Linda at 5:28, where she states how she honestly feels. “Everyone dies” pretty much sums it up. The accuracy of the statistics debated earlier are actually irrelevant to her position.
Kyle, for the record, beyond the kind of fundamental knowledge acquired in undergraduate school, I’m not much of an academic. So, as in the recent discussion on climate change, I try to rely on research conducted by academics who are experts in the subject of discussion–”liberal elitists” as they are called by some because, I suspect, the results of such research either don’t support their predetermined conclusions and/or undermine their arguments. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t know the answers to your questions. If there’s something in the research that you find suspect then I would be curious to take a look at it.
That said, I suspect that you’re on the same page as Linda. Whether 45,000 die every year as a direct or indirect result of not having health coverage is actually irrelevant to you since “everybody dies.” Or do you prefer the slightly less callous “it’s probably their own fault” approach that RH takes at 5:08? Either way, whether such deaths occur every 30 seconds or every 30 minutes really doesn’t matter. Since these statistics might persuade voters that expanding access to health care is both important and urgent, then such statistics and the researchers who developed them must be undermined.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that rather than debating the accuracy of these statistics, we should really be debating whether we should maintain a health care system in which our fellow citizens, or their children, suffer or die as a result of lack of coverage (or go into bankruptcy). Linda and RH say to let them die. I say no. What say you?
LA
February 26th, 2010
6:47 pm
Did Saddam Hussein model himself on Darth Vader?
Was Darth Vader Saddam Hussein’s ultimate hero?
The answer may be lurking in the Tate Modern in London. Chicago-based artist Michael Rakowitz’s exhibition The worst condition is to pass under a sword which is not one’s own explores the surprising parallels between Saddam’s regime and western science fiction through a series of hand-drawn cartoons and sculptural installations.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/02/did-saddam-model-himself-on-darth-vader.php?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
RH
February 26th, 2010
6:54 pm
“Soon to be homeless. Soon to be a burden on the rest of society. I am an American and I do not like others stating that I, like many others, reject the “Socialist” plan. I reject the “Insurance” option. I tried it and it failed me and my family on all levels.”
Did you major in Drama?
don't speak for me
February 26th, 2010
6:56 pm
Why yes, I did major in Drama. Good catch!
RH
February 26th, 2010
7:03 pm
“Why yes, I did major in Drama. Good catch!”
Liberal arts degrees will get you no where in life. There’s where your problems all started!
Linda
February 26th, 2010
8:00 pm
Don’t@6:38, The reason unemployment is so high & employers aren’t hiring is due to a multitude of problems. Small businesses can’t get credit because banks are instead lending to the fed. govt. Rather than making risky business loans & less risky real estate loans, banks are buying almost risk-free T-bills. The more the fed. govt. spends & borrows, the higher unemployment will be. Stimulating the economy is causing the economy to retract. Also, it’s impossible for employers to calculate the cost of an employee with the uncertainty of the aspects of the health care bill & cap & trade bill which Obama said would cause energy costs to skyrocket. If I wanted to cause unemployment to escalate, I would do exactly what the current DC bunch has done. If I was applying for a job in the private sector, I would NEVER admit to an interviewer that I was a Dem/liberal/progressive & supported an agenda that is totally anti-business.
We’re not a socialist country & don’t desire to be one. All our socialists programs are broke & we need no more. The US is almost bankrupt. Our insurance companies (health, hazard, auto, life, etc.) are private. Health insurers make a mere 3% profit, whereas the fed. govt. wastes 53% of its income & will be MORE expensive. It’s inefficient, ineffective & wrought with fraud & excesses.
Free markets don’t insure success but do insure freedom if allowed to work without too much govt. intrusion. Freedom is more coveted than success.
May God bless you.
Kyle Wingfield
February 26th, 2010
8:04 pm
CJ, I asked the questions because I already knew the answers from reading the report. See my comment above to Allen.
The point is that not only columnists and politically inclined readers reach “predetermined conclusions,” as you put it. There have been other surveys to suggest a relationship between a lack of insurance and a greater likelihood of *untimely* death (since, as you note, everyone dies from something). None of them, to my knowledge, have dared to suggest that the number is as large as 45,000 in a year.
If you’re interested in this topic, read the Atlantic article that I linked to in my comment to Allen. (In it, you’ll notice a statistic that 80,000 people die a year from infections they got in hospitals; I don’t think any of us would present that stat as proof that it’s worse to be treated in hospitals than to be uninsured. One point I’d like to make here is that we all know that health-care reform is needed without overdramatized statistics.)
Linda
February 26th, 2010
8:33 pm
CJ, Using biased, unsubstantiated, left-wing references from self-proclaimed health care activists, calling those who disagree with you names & accusing opponents of positions they do not hold is not helping your case or your cause.
The strategy of the liberal agenda is to create a crisis, an urgency, victims & bad guys, whether it’s an economic stimulus or jobs bill, the cap & trade bill or the health care bill. The victims range from humans to polar bears. The bad guys are the evil bankers, the rich, oil companies & health companies. It’s only the progressives that can save the day.
If Americans don’t go along, it’s because they’re misinformed, didn’t hear enough speeches, watch the wrong news channel or are just plain stupid. Let me disagree. Americans have awakened & have spoken, marched, emailed, called & voted. They’re smarter than you think.
Thank you for helping my case & my cause.
May God bless you.
Yancey
February 26th, 2010
9:14 pm
Weren’t they calling it insurance reform for awhile? Insurance reform I’m for. Reforming the entire health care system, I’m not. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. And I sure as hell don’t want the government insuring my health.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
11:34 pm
I apologize for the late reply. I’ve been out.
Thanks for the Atlantic link Kyle, but McCardle’s March 2010 article was written as though the Harvard study didn’t exist. Given the focus of her essay, this was a very strange omission since this study has only been out for a few months and was widely reported in the media and prominently referenced in the House health care debates.
For me, the article further confirms that getting sucked into a debate regarding the accuracy of these statistics is futile. The evidence suggests that whether the number is 20,000 deaths per year (assuming the numbers in the Harvard study are overstated) or 100,000 deaths per year, your position would be unchanged. Irregardless of the actual numbers, increasing access to those without coverage and increasing security to those with coverage aren’t urgent, important, or even necessary from your perspective. The known consequences of bankruptcies, suffering, and deaths are not your concern.
Thanks again for engaging me.
Allen
February 27th, 2010
5:50 am
Kyle, thanks. I apologize for my careless remark. I don’t know about the study in question, but my errant reference was to (what may be) a more recent Harvard paper (that is paywalled).
Challenging assumptions is good, but I am underwhelmed by the Atlantic piece. From the author: “I have not asserted that insuring the uninsured wouldn’t save anyone’s lives. [break] What I said is, the studies so far done often cannot exclude the possibility that there is no effect.”
If you found McCardle persuasive, please consider reading an interesting rebuttal: http://bit.ly/9mXeyX
The best available evidence suggests that thousands of people die annually for lack of health insurance. This should be neither overdramatized nor underemphasized in the course of this debate.
No More Progressives!
February 27th, 2010
9:53 am
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:34 pm
The term “uninsured” needs a great deal of clarification, Kyle. Under-insured perhaps but “uninsured” is a misnomer. I think you are smart enough to know that as a fact and as matter of law.
It depends on what the definition of “is” is.
No More Progressives!
February 27th, 2010
7:08 pm
don’t speak for me
February 26th, 2010
6:38 pm
“So why can every other major country have a health care system that provides universal coverage but we cannot? It does not bankrupt them?”
This brings up an intersting point. Some point to Sweden as the most effective health care delivery system. I do know that 91% of Swedes work, and pay about 50% in income taxes to support their quasi-socialistic state.
Contrast that to the USA, where the entitlement class parasitically drains the system year in & out, without contributing a dime.
BlackVoter
February 28th, 2010
9:10 am
I think it is time to call a spade a spade. In the event you reference polls, tell the readers about your samples. I want to know about the size. I want to know about the people polled. I can go on and on. It is obvious that the majority of Americans want healthcare reform. You can’t call me a liberal b/c I am an INDEPENDENT. Also, I understand the process of public policies. I do agree with the author that we need to categorize the many areas of Healthcare reform. I don’t agree with delaying anything for any party. I see the many prejudices of America rearing its head. What ever happen to a healthy debate? I have read many personal attacks b/c people disagree.
No More Progressives!
March 1st, 2010
9:52 am
BlackVoter
February 28th, 2010
9:10 am
“I think it is time to call a spade a spade. In the event you reference polls, tell the readers about your samples. I want to know about the size. I want to know about the people polled. I can go on and on. It is obvious that the majority of Americans want healthcare reform.”
Do you live in a cave, too? No the people DON’T want the intrusion of Federally mandated health care reform. That’s been made patently clear.
“I see the many prejudices of America rearing its head.”
Really? Name two or three.