?Conservatives? Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus


I think even 60 or 70% of Americans want public healthcare from the government. This is why a 'true conservative' will never be a viable candidate... at best you'll get a crypto fascist who plays upon your fear of gays/hispanics/muslims

Right, because the one viable candidate running on UHC did so well in the 08 elections :roll:

Polling generally suggests Americans support universal coverage to the tune of 60%+.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus


I think even 60 or 70% of Americans want public healthcare from the government. This is why a 'true conservative' will never be a viable candidate... at best you'll get a crypto fascist who plays upon your fear of gays/hispanics/muslims

Right, because the one viable candidate running on UHC did so well in the 08 elections :roll:

Polling generally suggests Americans support universal coverage to the tune of 60%+.

People also support puppies and rainbows and world peace. It obviously is not a big enough issue for that 60%+ for them to vote for it.

Hillary would have probably rammed full UHC down the throat of the American people in her first 100-180.


There I go again, assuming people vote on issues, and not broad and vague promises of change.


That being said, I would take Obama over her anyday.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus


I think even 60 or 70% of Americans want public healthcare from the government. This is why a 'true conservative' will never be a viable candidate... at best you'll get a crypto fascist who plays upon your fear of gays/hispanics/muslims

Right, because the one viable candidate running on UHC did so well in the 08 elections :roll:

Polling generally suggests Americans support universal coverage to the tune of 60%+.

People also support puppies and rainbows and world peace. It obviously is not a big enough issue for that 60%+ for them to vote for it.

Hillary would have probably rammed full UHC down the throat of the American people in her first 100-180.


There I go again, assuming people vote on issues, and not broad and vague promises of change.


That being said, I would take Obama over her anyday.

Are you honestly trying to say that people voted for Obama over Hillary due to their detailed ideas on health care? That's absolutely ridiculous. Obama and Hillary were very similar on their health care ideas with the exception of Hillary's mandate, and to say that the primary turned on that would be an incredible stretch that you would need a lot of data to support.

Simple fact is that America supports universal coverage, period.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus


I think even 60 or 70% of Americans want public healthcare from the government. This is why a 'true conservative' will never be a viable candidate... at best you'll get a crypto fascist who plays upon your fear of gays/hispanics/muslims

Right, because the one viable candidate running on UHC did so well in the 08 elections :roll:

Polling generally suggests Americans support universal coverage to the tune of 60%+.

People also support puppies and rainbows and world peace. It obviously is not a big enough issue for that 60%+ for them to vote for it.

Hillary would have probably rammed full UHC down the throat of the American people in her first 100-180.


There I go again, assuming people vote on issues, and not broad and vague promises of change.


That being said, I would take Obama over her anyday.

Are you honestly trying to say that people voted for Obama over Hillary due to their detailed ideas on health care? That's absolutely ridiculous. Obama and Hillary were very similar on their health care ideas with the exception of Hillary's mandate, and to say that the primary turned on that would be an incredible stretch that you would need a lot of data to support.

Simple fact is that America supports universal coverage, period.

But not in the way BHO or you libs want. People may support the idea in general but not the way it's being proposed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Polling generally suggests Americans support universal coverage to the tune of 60%+.

People also support puppies and rainbows and world peace. It obviously is not a big enough issue for that 60%+ for them to vote for it.

Hillary would have probably rammed full UHC down the throat of the American people in her first 100-180.


There I go again, assuming people vote on issues, and not broad and vague promises of change.


That being said, I would take Obama over her anyday.

Are you honestly trying to say that people voted for Obama over Hillary due to their detailed ideas on health care? That's absolutely ridiculous. Obama and Hillary were very similar on their health care ideas with the exception of Hillary's mandate, and to say that the primary turned on that would be an incredible stretch that you would need a lot of data to support.

Simple fact is that America supports universal coverage, period.

But not in the way BHO or you libs want. People may support the idea in general but not the way it's being proposed.

Well then go ahead and tell us the way in which you think most people want it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
More bad news:

"Voters Now Trust Republicans More than Democrats on Economic Issues "

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.


http://www.rasmussenreports.co...issues/trust_on_issues

The pendulum swingeth....

Indeed, and by the time Obama's second term expires, the GOP *might* have a candidate with a decent shot to win.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Polling generally suggests Americans support universal coverage to the tune of 60%+.

People also support puppies and rainbows and world peace. It obviously is not a big enough issue for that 60%+ for them to vote for it.

Hillary would have probably rammed full UHC down the throat of the American people in her first 100-180.


There I go again, assuming people vote on issues, and not broad and vague promises of change.


That being said, I would take Obama over her anyday.

Are you honestly trying to say that people voted for Obama over Hillary due to their detailed ideas on health care? That's absolutely ridiculous. Obama and Hillary were very similar on their health care ideas with the exception of Hillary's mandate, and to say that the primary turned on that would be an incredible stretch that you would need a lot of data to support.

Simple fact is that America supports universal coverage, period.

But not in the way BHO or you libs want. People may support the idea in general but not the way it's being proposed.

Well then go ahead and tell us the way in which you think most people want it.

I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well then go ahead and tell us the way in which you think most people want it.

I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

No it isn't.

Say in this poll for example, people support an expansion of Medicare to create a public alternative to private insurance, which is pretty much Obama's plan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well then go ahead and tell us the way in which you think most people want it.

I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

No it isn't.

Say in this poll for example, people support an expansion of Medicare to create a public alternative to private insurance, which is pretty much Obama's plan.

No it isn't. Yes, I know the BHO admin is trying to claim the Senate crap isn't their doing but really, anyone paying attention knows their hands are all over it. This actual push(not some phantom idea your "poll" about a medicare public plan) is not so popular - especially when the costs associated and the care provided are a bit more detailed. Like I stated - people may like the IDEA of it but actual implementations vary in support. Again, to suggest that poll's idea is "pretty much" Obama's plan is weak at best - it's not and it's certainly not what's actually being pushed currently.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
this poll for example,

I've read the poll several times now, I think to draw any conclusion other than people would favor an aditional choice of medicare to private insurance is a false.

Not many people are against choices, so it's not in the least bit surprising either.

How about a question like "there are 50 million uninsured and it would cost about $5 trillion over 10 years to insure them, would you be in favor of spending that $5 Trillion ?"

I wonder how that poll would turn out?

When you ask people would they like to receive benefits, but omit the cost data, obviously they're usually gonna say "yeah I like the benefit."

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well then go ahead and tell us the way in which you think most people want it.

I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

No it isn't.

Say in this poll for example, people support an expansion of Medicare to create a public alternative to private insurance, which is pretty much Obama's plan.

No it isn't. Yes, I know the BHO admin is trying to claim the Senate crap isn't their doing but really, anyone paying attention knows their hands are all over it. This actual push(not some phantom idea your "poll" about a medicare public plan) is not so popular - especially when the costs associated and the care provided are a bit more detailed. Like I stated - people may like the IDEA of it but actual implementations vary in support. Again, to suggest that poll's idea is "pretty much" Obama's plan is weak at best - it's not and it's certainly not what's actually being pushed currently.

Whatever you do, don't admit to being wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
this poll for example,

I've read the poll several times now, I think to draw any conclusion other than people would favor an aditional choice of medicare to private insurance is a false.

Not many people are against choices, so it's not in the least bit surprising either.

How about a question like "there are 50 million uninsured and it would cost about $5 trillion over 10 years to insure them, would you be in favor of spending that $5 Trillion ?"

I wonder how that poll would turn out?

When you ask people would they like to receive benefits, but omit the cost data, obviously they're usually gonna say "yeah I like the benefit."

Fern

I can't possibly see how that's all you would take from it, especially when the poll also noted that people were willing to pay increased taxes.

Of course all you're doing (and what a lot of the coverage has been doing) is omitting cost data about our current system. You're simply repeating a figure put out by the CBO, when the CBO specifically said it was only talking about the cost of one small part of the proposal, without taking into account savings that are associated with it or the proposal as a whole. As always, these 50 million people are already covered under our system, we already pay for their medical care. So while it might cost the government X dollars to cover them, it also ISN'T costing private industry, private citizens, etc. those dollars to pay for their care.

So I guess you're asking: 'if the pollster asked a false and misleading question, do you think as many people would support it?' When you tell people the cost and omit the savings, obviously they're usually going to say 'hell no, I don't like that!'.

I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to admit that the majority of Americans want universal coverage, even if that coverage has to come from the government. I know YOU don't want it, but unfortunately in this case you are in the minority.

EDIT: Oh, by the way this strongly supports my original point, that being that a plurality of Americans consider themselves 'conservative', but then turn around and say they want government run health care. People don't even know what conservative means.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I can't possibly see how that's all you would take from it, especially when the poll also noted that people were willing to pay increased taxes.

IIRC from reading yesterday, the question was about switching from private insurance (which you wouldn't be paying anymore) and moving to medicare and paying for that through your payroll (as with private insurance). So, you'd just switching your payment from the one to the other (that's how they made it seem in the poll)

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Of course all you're doing (and what a lot of the coverage has been doing) is omitting cost data about our current system. You're simply repeating a figure put out by the CBO, when the CBO specifically said it was only talking about the cost of one small part of the proposal, without taking into account savings that are associated with it or the proposal as a whole. As always, these 50 million people are already covered under our system, we already pay for their medical care. So while it might cost the government X dollars to cover them, it also ISN'T costing private industry, private citizens, etc. those dollars to pay for their care.

So I guess you're asking: 'if the pollster asked a false and misleading question, do you think as many people would support it?' When you tell people the cost and omit the savings, obviously they're usually going to say 'hell no, I don't like that!'.

We keep hearing about "savings" but it's in a general and vague way. I wonder why everyone in Congress is so concernd with finding the trillions of dollars when there's gonna be "savings". I.e., I'm quite dubious of this so-called "savings". Just who get's these savings anyway? Am I as a taxpayer gonna be stuck with the 'bill' part of this (falsely named) UHC, and somebody else gets the 'savings' part?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to admit that the majority of Americans want universal coverage, even if that coverage has to come from the government. I know YOU don't want it, but unfortunately in this case you are in the minority.

If you'd been paying attention you'd know that I want is medical/health insurance reform (Dr.Pizza or someone tried to explain to me yesterday how these two are different but I didn't quite "get it"). Seems to me that of the many people who do have health/medical insurance only after really needing it do we find out it is inadequate. The current so-called UHC looks mostly like a push to get others on health/medical plans; what's the point is it is inadequate?

The majority of Amricans want evryone to have health/medical coverage? Sure they do, who could say no to that question? As with most things it's how we go about it where the problems pop up between Libs and Cons.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
EDIT: Oh, by the way this strongly supports my original point, that being that a plurality of Americans consider themselves 'conservative', but then turn around and say they want government run health care. People don't even know what conservative means.

[/quote]

The poll doesn't say that they want "government run healthcare". The poll says they are for another option to get coverage (BTW: we don't know if they would opt for it, just that they support an additional option - it's hard to be against more choices). Given the bad rep of private health/medical insurance that's not surprising. You might as well say I'm not a conservative because I want more government regulation of insurance (I want the government to create model healthcare plans that insurers must offer, and then arbitrate when their is a dispute between the client and the company about benefits)

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

 

[theeedude]

As far as the OP, as long as "conservatives" stay around 40%, and "moderates" keep voting for people like Obama and a Democrat Congress, they don't have to identify themselves as "liberal." Their secret is safe with me

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well then go ahead and tell us the way in which you think most people want it.

I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

No it isn't.

Say in this poll for example, people support an expansion of Medicare to create a public alternative to private insurance, which is pretty much Obama's plan.

No it isn't. Yes, I know the BHO admin is trying to claim the Senate crap isn't their doing but really, anyone paying attention knows their hands are all over it. This actual push(not some phantom idea your "poll" about a medicare public plan) is not so popular - especially when the costs associated and the care provided are a bit more detailed. Like I stated - people may like the IDEA of it but actual implementations vary in support. Again, to suggest that poll's idea is "pretty much" Obama's plan is weak at best - it's not and it's certainly not what's actually being pushed currently.

Whatever you do, don't admit to being wrong.

Look in the mirror moron. The crap being pushed is not even close to what your "poll" shows support for. And what it does support is a GENERAL IDEA - which is what I've repeatedly stated but you ignore(no surprise there). And as to the BHO plan - no - it's not "pretty much" that because BHO's "plan" wasn't a generic IDEA like the poll was about. Hell, BHO's "plan" barely had any detail but the "poll" has essentially zero.

But hey, I don't expect you to admit that - you libs never seem to when it comes to things like this. You expect "pretty much" to cover you when reality shows it's really not "pretty much".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't implement ANY of them. Hell, my idea(and one supported by many) is to keep the gov't out of the private insurance business as there are already tons of options and choices for people.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't implement ANY of them. Hell, my idea(and one supported by many) is to keep the gov't out of the private insurance business as there are already tons of options and choices for people.

...except the 40 million without coverage you mean. Like when Bush opposed expanding healthcare and said "these choices should be between a patient and their doctor" to which Jon Stewart replied "Ah, I see the problem, Bush thinks poor people have doctors."

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't implement ANY of them. Hell, my idea(and one supported by many) is to keep the gov't out of the private insurance business as there are already tons of options and choices for people.

Well, the opposition had 15 years since 1993 to implement their healthcare reform. They got nothing.
Now time to get out of the way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't implement ANY of them. Hell, my idea(and one supported by many) is to keep the gov't out of the private insurance business as there are already tons of options and choices for people.

Well, the opposition had 15 years since 1993 to implement their healthcare reform. They got nothing.
Now time to get out of the way.

Hmm... silly me... I must have forgotten that part of their platform... Where again was UHC in the R platform? Because lets not play games - by "reform" - you people mean UHC.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't implement ANY of them. Hell, my idea(and one supported by many) is to keep the gov't out of the private insurance business as there are already tons of options and choices for people.

...except the 40 million without coverage you mean. Like when Bush opposed expanding healthcare and said "these choices should be between a patient and their doctor" to which Jon Stewart replied "Ah, I see the problem, Bush thinks poor people have doctors."

:roll: You and I both know that 40 million number is BS. A good portion(if not most) in that figure are not even citizens and another good chunk could afford HI but CHOOSE not to buy it. Those that are truly too poor, already have options for gov't run care(which you people seem to want to force on us all) and hell, some that even qualify for gov't care are too F'n lazy to actually sign up. So yes, you can shove that 40 mill number right back up your ass.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't think there is any 1 way that most want it. People have many various ideas of what "universal coverage" means and how they would like to see it implemented. It's disingenuous for people like you to use the 60% figure to sell BHO's or Kennedy's "plan".

Yeah, people have many ideas, but they elected Obama, which means they gave him the power to implement his ideas. Nothing disingenuous about that. To say that because there are many different ideas, so we shouldn't implement any of them is very much disingenuous.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't implement ANY of them. Hell, my idea(and one supported by many) is to keep the gov't out of the private insurance business as there are already tons of options and choices for people.

Well, the opposition had 15 years since 1993 to implement their healthcare reform. They got nothing.
Now time to get out of the way.

Hmm... silly me... I must have forgotten that part of their platform... Where again was UHC in the R platform? Because lets not play games - by "reform" - you people mean UHC.

Silly you indeed. I didn't say UHC, I said healthcare reform. Where is it?
If they think that unleashing the private sector to solve health care mess is the answer, why didn't they unleash it?
Maybe the Republicans think there is nothing in our health care system that needs reforming?
Whatever the reason, Republicans did not come up with any solutions when they had the chance. So really they should STFU and let someone else try at it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Whatever you do, don't admit to being wrong.

Look in the mirror moron. The crap being pushed is not even close to what your "poll" shows support for. And what it does support is a GENERAL IDEA - which is what I've repeatedly stated but you ignore(no surprise there). And as to the BHO plan - no - it's not "pretty much" that because BHO's "plan" wasn't a generic IDEA like the poll was about. Hell, BHO's "plan" barely had any detail but the "poll" has essentially zero.

But hey, I don't expect you to admit that - you libs never seem to when it comes to things like this. You expect "pretty much" to cover you when reality shows it's really not "pretty much".

The poll showed support for a government funded alternative health care provider. Obama's plan calls for a government funded alternative health care provider. This isn't hard.

I fully expect you to now retreat into a corner, furiously debating the definition of 'pretty much' or 'idea' to avoid admitting fault. You should probably just say your computer autocorrected your post to 'stupid' and leave it at that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Whatever you do, don't admit to being wrong.

Look in the mirror moron. The crap being pushed is not even close to what your "poll" shows support for. And what it does support is a GENERAL IDEA - which is what I've repeatedly stated but you ignore(no surprise there). And as to the BHO plan - no - it's not "pretty much" that because BHO's "plan" wasn't a generic IDEA like the poll was about. Hell, BHO's "plan" barely had any detail but the "poll" has essentially zero.

But hey, I don't expect you to admit that - you libs never seem to when it comes to things like this. You expect "pretty much" to cover you when reality shows it's really not "pretty much".

The poll showed support for a government funded alternative health care provider. Obama's plan calls for a government funded alternative health care provider. This isn't hard.

I fully expect you to now retreat into a corner, furiously debating the definition of 'pretty much' or 'idea' to avoid admitting fault. You should probably just say your computer autocorrected your post to 'stupid' and leave it at that.

lol, No - I figured you'd hide behind the typical lib "pretty much" excuse. It's not "pretty much" and what's actually being debated isn't even close.
Again, if you would actually read what I post(for once) you'd see that I posted about people liking the IDEA - but not implementation - especially once details and costs are aired. But sure - stick your head in the sand and continue to ignore that reality.

Most Americans believe that the nation?s health care system is in need of substantial changes. Four-in-ten (41%) say the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt, while 30% think it needs fundamental changes. About one-in-four (24%) believe that the health care system works pretty well and needs only minor changes. But there is less support for completely rebuilding the health care system than there was during the early stage of the Clinton administration?s unsuccessful effort to revamp health care. In April 1993, a majority of Americans (55%) said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt. As discussion of Clinton?s proposals progressed, support for completely rebuilding the health care system declined. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt. Support for a complete rebuilding of the health care system is lower than in early 1993 among all partisan groups. Today, 53% of Democrats, 38% of independents and 28% of Republicans support completely rebuilding the health care system. In April of 1993, 70% of Democrats, 55% of independents, and 41% of Republicans supported completely rebuilding the system.

 

[theeedude]

"Completely rebuild" and "fundamentally change" are just semantics. Distinction without a difference. The point is that 71% want at least a fundamental change and perhaps a complete rebuild, so Obama needs to at the very least fundamentally change the system.
Not fine tune the system, not plug in some holes in the system, nope.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE SYSTEM!
Seems to me like offering a public option would be one of those fundamental changes.