Agreed.  here are the atual poll questions (keeping in mind this is only one poll):

22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

-------- Support -------- --------- Oppose -------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
9/12/09 55 33 22 42 11 31 3
8/17/09 52 33 19 46 11 35 2
6/21/09 62 NA NA 33 NA NA 5

22a. (IF OPPOSE/NO OPINION FOR A GOVERNMENT PLAN) What if this government-sponsored plan was available only to people who cannot get health insurance from a private insurer - in that case, would you support or oppose it?

Support Oppose No opinion
9/12/09 47 47 6

22/22a NET
------- Support -------
NET At first Now do Oppose No opinion
9/12/09 76 55 21 24 *

23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan - in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?

Support Oppose No opinion
9/12/09 50 42 8

Can you please explain how it get's to 76%?  I am confused.  Looks like fuzzy math.  When described allegedly accurately, it is 46% v 46%.

What am I missing?

Anybody who promotes the Baucus Corporate Faucus Caucus bill is either:

a. Ill informed

b. a shill for special interest

c. not been paying attention

"try to make people like the senate bill..." Mark said to himself. "Your job depends on it!" he thought.

I am just curious.  Why don't you like Rahm Emanuel?  He seems to be at least as far left as you.  I would be very interested to hear your opinion.

Hi James, I used to like Rahm. Before Obama won he was a very good boy. Now, all I've seen is him working behind the scenes to kill the public option. He seems to think that he can recruit blue dogs to do HIS bidding instead of the people's bidding. Anybody who works against the true interests of the American people needs to get out of Capital Hill and the Whitehouse. We can't vote him out, but we can sure protest when he meddles where he doesn't belong. He was supposed to "keep the trains running on time" but I see him sticking his nose where it doesn't belong and also he has the president's ear. This worries me. He has enough "friends" whispering in his ear against the people.

Thanks, Margaret Thatcher.

Programs that are not universal (i.e., do not benefit everyone) are intrinsically unpopular. This is why antipoverty programs are unpopular. People feel that they are paying, through taxation, for programs that do not benefit them. Most Americans confuse these wealth transfers with socialism. On the other hand, nobody, liberal or conservative, decries the public library as a communist plot.

The pres. has already backed up the cost of war--it is greater than the cost of health care reform.  I'm starting to think the irrational right don't want social justice at any price.  It would be nice to see some signs of a Republican leader that can help us all get through this.  I just don't understand how the pro-life Republicans can't see the advantage of health for all the Nation!

This is federal health insurance, nothing more. Don't miss your nose despite your face. Is it socialist by definition? Yes, but so is social security and medicare. I don't want to leave the good will of the people up to big corporate interests. I like to have a balance between socialism and capitalism. We could make it nice. Besides, socialists get SIX WEEKS VACATION EVERY YEAR. In this country, we grovel for two.

So we should start up or increase another social program to make our country more socialist?  Listen, I'm sorry I ever voted.  Obama ran under a bunch of lies and surrounded himself with morons who over spent his budget and gave him bad advice.  This isn't red against blue because I am blue.  This is about an agenda that isn't what the American people signed up for.  The US senate hopefully will play it's roll in the checks and balances system and pass common sense.  I have no respect for those who dig in their heels and are not open to education or change.  People like that are the cause of immature Washington bickering that hurts people because they have to be right (which is not always the case).  Get rid of the losers.

"I have no respect for those who dig in their heels and are not open to education or change. "

me neither

it would, if that were the case. The fact is the public option benefits everyone by bringing down everyone's costs. We just have to make sure people aren't made to keep insurance they don't want.

unfortunately, we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place.  Anything that that costs a trillion dollars or more is hard to swallow right now; especially when 84% are happy with what they have.

That is why I am wondering why we aren't going through our current programs and operations and cutting all redundancies, inefficiencies and PORK (not just Medicare).  We could probably cut in waste every penny we need to pay for healthcare.  If it was a private business instead of government, that is what would happen because enslaving the next generations with debt is not an option.

oh, you two make a great team. Just letting you know, you aren't fooling anyone on here.

Observe the herd as it grazes past you. It cannot distinguish yesterday form today. It leaps about, eats, rests, digests, leaps some more, and carries on like this from morning to night and from day to day, tethered by the short leash of its pleasures and displeasures to the stake of the moment, and thus is neither melancholy nor bored.

........if ony businessmen woud run the government. O' happy day!

A fuller picture..

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7979.pdf

Cherokee Girl:  HUH?

Cherokee,

Fact- Everyone will be required to BUY insurance

Fact- It will be enforced through the tax system

Check out this AP link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_insurance_tax_fact_check

I don't want to run for office, I'm just saying how it is.  I don't understand violations of logic so forgive me for not understanding.

James, with no malicious snark intended, I'm curious:  what did you think Obama was that he is currently proving not to be?

Thank you Tim.  When I voted I was thinking more of president Clinton.  I liked what Clinton did as our leader.  I liked the shrinking deficit and debt.  Thus Obama would be the same, right?  I was sick over the deficit Bush was running.

I enjoyed some of president Obamas promises of transparency, but there hasn't been that.  He seemed sort of in the middle and balanced.  Instead hundreds of billions were spent on some job saving bill and the American people were not told until it was too late.  In fact a trillion plus has been spent this year and it will get worse. It sure didn't save jobs around here.  I didn't see any public debate on that.

Then there was the czar thing where people not even elected were forging policy.  Why?  I don't know.

I do see some effort to work with the Redcoats but I'm not sure if it is just an act.

Myself, like so many others am sick of the squabbling between both groups.  I want health care fixed!  I hate the fact that people can be cancelled for chancy reasons.  I hate it when people want to buy insurance and can't.  I am however suspicious that some are looking for a welfare handout.  Clinton did a great job reducing those roles.

Finally, I wish he would slow down.  Maybe he is a little young and not experienced but quality is more imortant the the quantity approach.  I am a fiscal person at home and that is the corner I see things from.  I wish Clinton was back.  I am scared for my country.

These are my true feelings and I hope a Ross Perot runs next time.

PS. Maybe you could run, I'll give you my vote more than I would ever give a Republican or Obama one.

For someone who pretends to be moderate and sane, you sure use alot of Beck's talking points.

I'm just sayin...

Yuk!  Can't stand the loud mouthed bigot.  Heard him twice because of company ,and don't understand his audience. 

Truly, Clinton was one of our best presidents.  I'm sorry you don't understand.  Live a few more years and you will.

Unfortunately, we cannot go by a politician's words but his actions.  There is NO refuting two things: 1. President Obama inherited a horrific deficit and 2.  He proposes a budget that he admits will increase that deficit 900% to $9 TRILLION in ten years.  That's $9,000,000,000,000.   Antyone who tries to deny that is denying the President's own report.

WE SIMPLY CAN'T DO THAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!

The only way out is to CUT spending and make HARD choices.  Sorry, but sticking our heads in the sand is what got us here in the first place.

I love this piece of rhetoric.  It may be my favorite conservative talking point this year.  Except, of course, the President's own report doesn't say that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_msr/10msr.pdf

Table S-15 for those who want to play along.

You're talking about total additions to the national debt when citing that $9 trillion number.  Over 10 years, the deficit is decreased in the current projections each and every year to a low of $735 billion in 2015, which is still absurdly high but half of the deficit for budget year 2009, which is the transition year from Bush to Obama.

However, fiscal hawks will note the deficit increases from 2016 through to every year to a high of $917 billion in 2019, if current trends continue.

What's the current trend that causes us to literally pay the piper?  Rising health care costs.

So I agree, WE SIMPLY CAN'T DO THAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN!

Which is why we need to reform health care this year.

Tim,

Maybe I am confused, but when talking specifically about the deficit, should we not be referring to Table S-2. EFFECT OF BUDGET PROPOSALS ON PROJECTED DEFICITS? (page 26-7)  That appears to conclude:

Resulting deficits in 2010 Mid-Session Review: 9,051,000,000,000.

I assume that the reference to his proposals includes the savings the President believes will be had.  No?

And, no disrespect intended, but the figure is not so much a "talking point" from the "right wing" as I got it also from Reuters in an article entitled, "Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion" located at http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

Thanks.

Sorry, my percentage increase in the national debt is wrong.  It's an increase in the national debt of 270%.  Still not as bad as 900%.

(But that's what I get for rushing).

Thanks Tim.  I guess I am confused.

Just to clarify; I never said it was a single-year figure; in fact I said it was a 10-year figure.  The chart uses the word "deficit" which seems pretty clear in concluding that the deficit in 10 years will be $9 Trillion.  Are you suggesting that the deficit per the chart in 10 years will not be $9 trillion?

This site does a great job (for the readers) of descriing in simple terms the deficit vs. outstanding debt.  It also links another site that states that the debt as of 9/16/09 is 11,827,966,342,208.43.  http://www.federalbudget.com/

The bottom line is that we agree the current situation is not sustainable.  What we apparently don't agree on is that the spending anticipated by the President's budget is irresponsible and that we should be proposing a better budget for future generations' sake---that seems odd that we agree on A but not B.

So my contention elsewhere remains; we cannot afford EITHER the status quo OR the reform being offered.  Either we have been misled that it is possible to provide the coverage we all need and make it deficit neutral, or we have not been offered the Bill that can do that.

Say what you want about the CBO scoring process, but at least the Healthy Americans Act and the probably-dead-in-the-water Baucus Bill got a favorable rating and is certainly more fiscally responsible than the House Bill.

So why not look at the whole budget and reduce all the pork, redundancies and inefficiencies and demonstrate a $trillion savings to justify the spend? 

Lastly, I was using round numbers.  The amount of the deficit "inherited" varies depending on where you look.  I roughed it at $1 Trillion and rounded down the deficit number in year 10 to $9 trillion.  The blogger argues here http://bizblogger.blogspot.com/2009/02/ap-claims-obama-inherited-13-trillion.html that:

Another very interesting piece of spin, this time from AP writer Liz Sidoti. She claims that Obama "inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit" from Bush. Since the budget year ends in October, we already know that the budget deficit for Bush's last fiscal year was approximately $450 billion (half of which was from the Democrat-proposed and poorly conceived "rebate checks.")

Never before in history have journalists assumed that the president "inherited" the future year's budget until now. Essentially, the media has already absolved Obama of the negative impact of his "stimulus" bill and instead put that spending on Bush's shoulders. I seem to recall that back during the bursting of the stock market bubble that began in March 2000, that was also Bush's fault, despite him not taking office until 2001. That follows the media's Golden Rule: Regardless of the problem, it's always the GOP's fault.

*Update*
I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the budget revisions. We're now up to $1.75 trillion, but that's before the new $1 trillion cap and trade system and $1 trillion government-run health care plan. Let's just call it an even $4 trillion.

Tim,

It is also interesting to note that, on various charts in the report, the deficit begins to increase immediately after the proposed healthcare reforms kick in in 2013 after a couple years of taking in revenue for healthcare and not executing on the plan.  So it is curiously timed so that the true impact of the proposed reform does not hit until after the President has completed his term.

It's interesting, but there's no causality.  HR 3200/Baucus bill/Whatever passes is not reflected in the budget because it's not law. 

Touche' my friend.  I withdraw on that statement.

James,

Quick answer to your "inherited" gripe.  Actually, it's quite common for new presidents to point to economic deficiencies in previous administrations as a way of bolstering their own policies/absolving them from blame.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/

Bush says he inherited recession

Bush, Cheney take advantage of revised GDP data to say economy a mess when they took office.

August 7, 2002: 6:04 PM EDT
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Although last week's revision of U.S. gross domestic product data for 2001 may have been old news for the economy, it was something of a stroke of luck for President Bush, who has since used it as evidence that he inherited an economic mess when he took office.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in separate speeches Wednesday, both claimed the U.S. economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January 2001, implying the blame for the slowdown rested on President Clinton's shoulders.

Both men also made assurances that they had a handle on the problems facing the economy.

"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. "Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals. But I'm certain of this: We won't let fear undermine our economy and we're not going to let fraud undermine it either."

etc.

*

You'll find similar comments from the early Clinton, Reagan, and Carter Administrations.  I'm not saying any of them are right or wrong.  But it's bordering on a political tradition at this point.

Makes sense; I will have to agree again.  Please call me Jim. 

If I may clear things up for all.  A DEFICIT is the yearly projectd debt or the running in the red of your check book:).  The DEBT is the the total amount owed.

And as it accumulayes year to year it becomes a compounding problem, literally; hence the 9 Trillion.

Gary, I'm sorry man.  I can't make people like you.  If I had that power, I would have had a less socially awkward time in junior high.

Good luck to you.

that's all right.  thanks for answering and i love your comment.  it's the pithiest and coolest comment to date (directed to me on change.org).  We're on our own, i've gotten "it" for a long time now.  good luck to you too, and i hope we all get single payer eventually (but don't anybody count on it!)

Check this out...

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

We are frequently told that capitalism is the best engine of wealth creation and general wealth distribution. Only the first point is true. That the engine of capitalism can be used to distribute wealth broadly is more a matter of social policy.

Thanks Martin, the data says something. When combined with the republicans and some moderate dem policies over the past few decades, taking huge contributions from big corp while we all went about our lives, not paying attention, has caused this inequality in our society. Now, the more I see big corp fight the more I am convinced that our country has been hijacked by people who are the opposite of patriots. Yet they hide behind it. :(

That's why I am now firmly pushing for single payer. We have got to get these people out of our healthcare process. Healthcare should not be for profit. They have convinced me of that!

Wealth as property is a construct of the human mind imposed upon a natural world and enforced by rule of law which is an institution of government. Government sanctions the creation of a common currency whether by the Treasury or by banks. Corporations are government defined entities which spend $billions petitioning statesmen to bend the rules in their favor. 

To wit: One of the main functions of government is defining the rules of the game of wealth creation, maintenance, and distribution.