What's the Rush?

Newsweek Magazine has handed over its latest issue and remaining journalistic integrity to Ted Kennedy and his long campaign for universal health care. Teddy talks about his plane accident during Jack's presidential campaign, as well as his current medical crisis.
Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy. But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.
The anecdotes offered by the Senator, ones of catastrophic health crises, demonstrate the attempt by liberals to confuse the public - and to get Americans to make an emotional leap - that the crushing cost of some health situations should lead us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and restructure our entire system. Americans are starting to figure out that they're being conned. The challenge, they see, despite all the propaganda, is how to lower the cost of health care, not mounting a government takeover. Here are some new numbers from Rasmussen.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters nationwide say that cost is the biggest health care problem facing the nation today. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% believe the lack of universal health insurance coverage is a bigger problem.
In other words, Democrats are offering a prescription that doesn't match up with the diagnosis.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% believe the lack of universal health insurance coverage is a bigger problem. Only 10% believe the quality of care is the top concern, and two percent (2%) point to the inconvenience factor of dealing with the current medical system.
If we agree, for the sake of argument, with the Senator's premise - that everyone should be protected against catastrophic medical events, the jump to a major structural change isn't supported. A more logical approach? Offer Americans affordable catastrophic policies while working to lower the cost of health care.
Given a choice between health care reform and a tax hike or no health care reform and no tax hike, 47% would prefer to avoid the tax hike and do without reform. Forty-one percent (41%) take the opposite view.
The numbers, fortunately, are starting to tilt against the President. Which is why Obama keeps saying we have to do this now, or never. If Americans have a chance to learn what the plan consists of, and experience a debate on the issues, they'll never support the socialists.
The opposition is stronger when asked about a choice between health care reform that would require changing existing health insurance coverage or no health care reform and no change from current coverage. In that case, voters oppose reform by a 54% to 32% margin.
The so called public insurance plan is a set-up, designed to eliminate the private plans. Again, voters are figuring this out - and support for the President's plan is shrinking.
Surveys released at the end of this past week show that 78% believe the passage of health care reform is likely to mean middle-class tax hikes. Also, by a 50% to 35% margin, Americans oppose the creation of a government insurance company to compete with private insurers.
It helps, of course, that the Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the cost of health care will go up, not down, under the President's proposals.

Reagan link grabbed from RedMassGroup. Thanks guys.