Public Option Still The Most Popular Part of HCR

Q Poll:

American voters oppose 47 - 40 percent President Barack Obama's health care reform plan [. . .] but they support key parts of the plan, including 61 - 34 percent for giving people the option of a government health insurance plan that competes with private plans[.]

(Emphasis supplied.)

< Zazi Lawyers Apply for Federal Funding of Defense Expenses | Brooke Astor's Son Convicted of Larceny and Fraud >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't see reform at all (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    Can someone show me where the Medical Industrial Complex is being "reformed" as they call it?

    Through all the smoke and mirrors I still see Government protecting Big Corporations both which see a potential bonanza ("health care bubble") to be inflated on the pocketbooks of Baby Boomers = 65 Million /ages 47 - 60.

    And the rest . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    Generation X = 50 Million /ages 38 - 45
    Generation Y = 78 Million /21 - 40

    will be going along for the ride whether they like it or not.


    No Reform With Obama MIA (none / 0) (#46)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    you're right. No reform with a PO. Strategy? We'll go back again after this incremental gain, and after the elections [get it?] we'll revisit the PO again.

    What a sellout. Obama hasn't been a leader. Afghanistan,unemployment,healthcare,are all losers.

    The Olympics showed what ego can do to common sense.  It was a fool's errand.  We have had a non existent Olympic Committee for a long time and the current Prsident is a corporate hack with no sports experience whatsoever earning over $500,000 a yr.  He's clueless.  So was Mr Charm when he felt he could overcome all odds for Chicago by dragging along Oprah and a $50mil presentation?

    The American Olympic presentation was as big a dud as Obama and co who has been MIA on all the important stuff.

    If we see anything it will be full of triggers and co-ops rather than a PO in a bill that counts. In other words, faux healthcare, and oh yes, we'll fix it after we re elect Obama?


    no PO? then take that "R" out of HCR (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    since the infinite obama/DLC wisdom decided to discard single payer with nary a fight, the only possibilty we have for reform is the public option--however much of a "compromise" from a single payer system that is. take that out, and there is no reform. sure, the health-profiteers will make a concession here and there, but the system will still be based on denial of care, and the pure profit motive.

    the public option is still the most popular part of health care reform because people are starting to realize that that is the only true reform.

    Opt out provision in Medicaid (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    might be food for thought about opt out provision on public option.

    In fact, after complaining that Medicare/Medicaid would lead to socialism in America during the 1960s, all 50 states have chosen to participate in the Medicaid program -- a jointly funded venture between the states and the federal government, which gives states the option to opt out. "Every state has been in Medicaid since 1982. None have ever dropped out," Turtle Bay writes on Daily Kos. "True, Arizona wasn't in until 1982, but that's partly because for a state to get in, they had to actually set up a program." The stimulus is another example:

    And the stimulus -- probably the best example of all, even though it isn't clear that the states had any actual authority to opt-out. We saw the usual gang of idiots saying they were going to reject the stimulus, or in one case, actually attempt to do so over the objections of his state legislature. And what happened? We've got Bobby Jindal carting around oversized stealth stimulus checks to promote himself...
    Think Progress

    I think most people do support (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    a plan that would give people that option, but do they support a plan that would not actually be an option for a significant number of people?  I would love to see the numbers on that question.

    I am convinced that most people do not know that if they have employer-based health insurance they would not be eligible to enroll in the "public" plan, even if that plan would save them money and provide better coverage, and be totally portable.

    Can you imagine having a "public" transportation system that only those without vehicles would be allowed to use?  Me, either.  But that's essentially what the public option plan would do, and I think most people are not aware of that, mostly because it's rarely mentioned.

    And it's not going to be pretty when everyone figures it out.

    I'm all for opening Medicare up by lowering the age of eligibility, but golly, that would be just too easy.

    You're right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    ROBUST public option if we can't have single payer, or we'll see a lot of new faces in Congress.

    Easy would upset the insurance industry (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    and we could not have that. We must love and cuddle the industry that abuses us at every opportunity.

    Think about the campaign contributions that would be lost and cry about the CEOs who would be forced to live on single digit million dollar salaries. Here in America we understand what is really important.


    Should read (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    We must love and coddle the industry that abuses us at every opportunity.

    I liked "cuddle" better (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    Great mental image.

    The idea of cuddling the insurance industry (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:35:06 PM EST
    yuck! I think I'd rather cuddle a snake.

    But IIRC you have been know to enjoy my typos in the past. They tend to be rather funny. I'm sure there will be many more for you to enjoy in the future. My proof reading skills seem to get worse all the time.


    MO, you're such a (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:10:54 AM EST
    serious and thoughtful writer that I always get a kick out of it when a bit of inadvertent whimsy appears in one of your posts.  I like to think of it as your secret inner Al Franken breaking out.

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:45:02 AM EST
    MB, it's fair to say the Obama Admin is (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    both "cuddling" and "coddling" the thugs they're in bed with; in this case, the gluttonous grim reapers from the health insurance lobby.

    The larger (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    story is that Obama has not only not garnered any support for HCR but has actually hurt the cause it seems.

    He's protecting (none / 0) (#17)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    Big Corporations. Unfortunately all the wrong ones.

    The point being (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    true private Health Care, such as a growth explosion and revitalization of Private Practice with Physicians offering say flat-rate no-limit primary care would would sink the HMO's - Health Insurance Company's.

    Typical numbers (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    There are people out there who don't support the entire package, because they are not sure what's in it, and afraid of change.

    But if you ask them about the individual parts of the plan, they will support them.

    That's often the case. In the past, polls have shown that when people are asked about issues, not politicians or parties, they agree more with Democratic positions than Republicans. But in the distorted world of campaigning and media reporting, people don't actually vote based on the actual positions.

    And therefore, it is in the Republicans' interest to keep distorting, muddy the waters, and insert hotbutton issues such as immigration, abortion, gay marriage and guns.

    Afraid of change is true (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    But Americans apparently have become so dependent upon Big Corporations to deliver "stuff" it's  destroyed communities and sustainability.

    Whats to fear about change if it involves rebuilding America where it really needs to be rebuilt?


    There have also been studies showing (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    that the more people know about an issue, the more liberal their views about it.

    I think these may have come from the Center for Deliberativee Democracy at Stanford, but not sure.

    So it's important to the Repubs to keep people from actually learning about the issues.

    Too bad the MSM are so helpful in preventing that learning too!


    I agree (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    There really is no complete package on the table to support. All you can do is say what elements you support. On any given day, if I thought mandates and no public option were likely to end up in the plan, I would say I did not support HCR.

    A friend of mine sent me an e-mail (4.20 / 5) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:23:48 PM EST
    as part of a coordinated campaign asking me to contact my members of Congress and ask them to support "Obama's HCR plan."

    I responded that I would decide whether or not I would support "Obama's HCR plan" when he actually had a plan. Also, mentioned that many things in the Baucus bill would do more harm than good and that I would not support the Obama plan if the basis was what Baucus proposed.


    Maybe Pres. Obama is only concerned (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    legislating insurers can not longer bar people who have "preexisting conditions."  I read recently (can't remember where) that he has talked about his mother, in the hospital with terminal cancer, fighting with insurance co. over whether her condition was pre-existing.

    Not surprising (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    Gotta love Dean's solution to providing some coverage since HCR won't begin implementation until 2013.

    Even if Democrats pass health reform with a public option, it won't be up and running until 2013. Former Gov. Howard Dean suggested that Democrats should open up eligibility to Medicare for people over age 50 so that a "`certain mass' of people will already have benefit from health reform" by the 2010 elections. link

    Dean recommend having people sign up for this program by July 2010.

    Kind of like lambert in a good way.

    Say it louder and often Dean! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:09:28 PM EST
    Just think, turn 50 and get a Medicare card along with the AARP one :)

    If 50 is good enough for AARP, (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:11:31 PM EST
    it should be good enough for Medicare. :-)

    My thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:17:31 PM EST
    all we get now is another jacked up insurance premium . . .

    When I got the AARP info in the mail, I said something to my mom. She said if you think that's bad, wait until Medicare contacts you. I replied I'd be doing a happy dance, lol!~ She had to agree with me there.


    I already have my telephone appt. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by athyrio on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    with a Medicare rep. for enrolling scheduled for a week from now...2010 will be totally Medicare and a supplemental...HOORAY!!!! Apparently since I was born on the first of the month, medicare then gives you coverage for the month before...I was born on Feb. 1...Thus my coverage will begin on Jan. 1......YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Cannot tell you what a relief this is after fighting medical bills for years and years...

    I went in this Monday Oct.8 (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    to apply for Medicare and Social Security. I have an offset, thanks to the Repubs, on my Social Security because I get a state pension here in Ohio. Still, the amount of SS was higher than I expected.

    And, after applying on Monday at noon, I saw the first SS payment direct already deposited in my checking acct on Weds, two days later!

    And my Jan 1 birthdate means I'll be put on Medicare as of Dec. 1.

    Sure hate those inefficient government programs <snark> .... I mean,virtually no paperwork, almost no effort on my part. Unbelievable.



    I mean, already direct deposited..... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:08:01 PM EST
    I'm getting too excited!

    Congratulations! (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:02:07 AM EST
    The Medicare portion was so easy (none / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    The supplemental part not so much.

    Glad that you will no longer have to worry about fighting for your health care.


    Thanks MO blue (none / 0) (#21)
    by athyrio on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:01:03 PM EST
    My hubby who is a retired steel worker, has supplemental that is great thru them, thankfully for about 265 per month...Not too bad...no deductable to face either...I just wish they would open up Medicare for all...that would be so simple...but maybe those simple minded idiots in Washington cannot understand it...

    Actually Medicare is going broke. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    But the solution is to open Medicare up to younger people.  Reach back to 45 years, and that income from younger and healthier people will be a boost for the system.  But the GOP and the blue Dogs won't do it because it is Socialism ya know!

    Medicare For All (none / 0) (#43)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:24:52 PM EST
     The guys running congress including the president have known full well that by not explaining and fighting for a PO from the get go that it is doomed.  Obama has been derelict in his duty by failing to explain clearly and concisely exactly what he stands for with HC, He er, is a little bit for PA, and a little bit ....what?

    The silver tongued orator who promised change and great healthcare has been very vague and very quiet.  Mayhem in the congress with a leaderless group of idiots who show us the Democrats with a majority in both houses cannot lead or govern. Our  president is MIA.

    Denamark was a fools errand. An ego trip while schlepping Oprah and costing $50 million or more. Didn't Oama know that our AOC has been non fuctional?  The gal put in place 7 months ago has been fired.  The current pres. of our AOC is the next to go. Neither of them had any sports knowledge, or connections within the IOC. In fact, our AOC snubbed the IOC's international meetup in Switzerland,and we were no show.

    Obviosly Obama ignored this or didn't know it, along with the IOC's favorites which were Rio and Spain.  So Obama felt his charm was so great he would overcome this? We were slapped down for this hubris to last place. We were the first to go.

    Frankly Obama has not shown leadeership. He's been less than transparent. His WHouse meetings
    with Big Pharma transpired and a "deal" was made [with Rham Emanuel's brother as consultant]  with Big Pharma and Healthcare monopoly. Now seniors will not have the drug deal they could have if the gov't. bargained for drugs.

    I'm saddened and angry at the way we're being played. No job program, another endless war, and a compromised [intentionally] Healthcare Bill.


    He's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    right and I've made the same point. Even if HCR is passed but people dont see any tangible difference in their lives then it's a pretty worthless campaign issue.

    Yes (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    I've never understood the logic of passing a HCR bill that they would not want to have in effect to campaign on in 2010 or 2012. To me it just screams that they don't think it will be any good.

    I think (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    you understand the logic perfectly well.

    There never was a Public Option (none / 0) (#10)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    It was assumed the Public would never even bother to bring up any options other then what new health care "products" we're presented and marketed to them.

    What effect will CBO on BaucusCare (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 05:03:26 PM EST
    have on public option w/opt out?  CBO reports BaucusCare will reduce fed. deficit.


    Baucus used a lot of things that make a (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    very bad bill even worse to get that fed. deficit save.

    Baucus Bill Automatically Cuts Exchange Subsidies to Avoid Early Year Deficits

    The automatic cuts would kick in in any year in which the White House Office of Management and Budget determined that the bill would produce a net budget deficit. In analyzing this automatic provision, the CBO forecasts that budget deficits could result in years 2015 through 2018, requiring average subsidy cuts of about 15 percent. If deficits were worse then projected, the reductions in subsidies would be even higher. Mandatory link for oculus

    His bill delays implementation of the exchanges and related subsidies until July 2013 and does not expand Medicaid until 2014.


    How is that average middle-income family (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:29:13 PM EST
    to budget.  Can't.

    I was thinking more of the public perception aspects though.  Will this be the news headline.  Pass BaucusCare and help plug the federal deficit.  


    BaucusCare is not designed to (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:41:32 PM EST
    provide affordable health care to anyone. It is 100% written to benefit of insurance and pharma.

    Probably will be the news headline since they generally favor corporations and the so called "moderates." This may hopefully be one of those issues where more people are actually paying attention and not so easily fooled.

    BTW did you catch my link in the comment above . It was designed especially for you.


    Yes indeed! (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:43:05 PM EST
    Now I'm miffed. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    You always liked oculus best.  

    No links for the rest of us.  Not even optional ones.

    <pssst, oculus: I caught the comment that started this with DA, I think? and you are a hoot>


    oculus pulled my leg on the (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:20:19 PM EST
    mandatory link yesterday and I really couldn't decide if she was stirring the pot or not. oculus' response to one of my comments.

    Mandatory links. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 06:16:12 PM CST

    BTW CC I'll dedicate my next link to you. :-)


    Except that what's being reported (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    isn't the whole story; I know you are shocked to find this out...

    From the CBO letter:

    An amendment adopted by the committee would require that, beginning in 2012, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) certify annually whether or not the provisions of the legislation are projected to increase the budget deficit in the coming year. If the Director determined that they were projected to increase the deficit, he or she would be required to notify the Congress, and exchange subsidies would be automatically adjusted to avoid the estimated increase in the deficit for that year.

    The estimates presented in this preliminary analysis do not incorporate the potential effects of using this proposed failsafe mechanism, although CBO and JCT estimate that the amended mark would increase the deficit in fiscal years 2015 through 2018.

    My bold.

    From FDL:

    Looking at CBO chart on page 3: in 2015, money going to affordability tax credits would need to be cut by $10 billion (13%). In 2016, they would be cut by $20 billion (21%). In 2017 the cut would be $13 billion (8%), and in 2018 the cuts would only $1 billion (1%).

    Depending on how the cuts to the affordability tax credits were structured, there would between one and six million more uninsured Americans each year from 2015 to 2017 than the CBO letter indicates. The preliminary CBO analysis did not "incorporate" this $44 billion in savings or the several million increase in the number of uninsured Americans.

    Details, details...


    This could be an encouraging sign: (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    From Roll Call:

    We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner," the 30 Democratic Senators wrote in the Oct. 8 letter. "We are concerned that -- absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option -- health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option."


    Senators signing the pro-public option letter included: Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Paul Kirk (D-Mass.).

    Both my Senators signed the letter.

    Mine two. Yeah Di Fi. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    Surprised to see DiFi (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by s5 on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    If she's really joining the push for a public option, maybe I won't write-in my own name against her on the ballot next time around.

    Good for Maria Cantwell (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Spamlet on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:38:45 PM EST
    I had my doubts.

    I still have my doubts (none / 0) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    and we won't know for sure unless a bill is voted on that does not include a ROBUST public option.

    The story on most news (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kenosharick on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:01:54 PM EST
    shows tonight is that this is a disaster and means the end of public option because 60 did not sign this letter. Total misunderstanding of what is going on by the media- big surprise.

    Not surprised that (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:34:41 PM EST
    my sweet Claire's name is not on that list. She does not want anything that might morph "into a comprehensive government plan":

    Her level of intelligence never ceases to amaze me.


    Don't be so sure... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:08:41 AM EST
    "Her level of intelligence never ceases to amaze me."

    We don't know what Claire thinks because daughter, Maddie, refuses to tell her what to think..... until she finishes updating her Face-Book profile.

    And, anyway, C.Mc has more important things to do: link


    But where is Sherrod Brown? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Spamlet on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    After Teh Greatest Speech Evah to Congress last month, wasn't Sherrod Brown one of the first senators to stress Obama's (putative) support of a public option?

    Surprised, he posted today at HufPo (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:50:22 PM EST
    Health Insurance Reform Must Include Public Option

    When you look at the plan on its merits, the opposition makes little sense. It saves money. It will be available everywhere in the country -- providing reliable, affordable, quality health care to those in need. It injects competition into a marketplace that in most parts of the country is dominated by one or two companies.

    What will happen if we hand over taxpayer-funded subsidies to the insurance industry and rely on them to cover all Americans? Insurers will demand higher and higher subsidies each year. Why wouldn't they? It's called profit maximization. After all, these are the same companies that pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars each year while millions of Americans go without any health insurance. link

    Seems like real strong support to me.


    I actually heard that they couldn't get ahold of (none / 0) (#42)
    by steviez314 on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    some senators quickly and wanted to rush this to Reid.  I wouldn't go by who's not on the list as meaning anything.

    I was wondering where Schumer's name was! (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:04:41 PM EST
    Mine, too. Yeah, Herb Kohl... (none / 0) (#47)
    by NealB on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    and Feingold.

    I'm mad: Sherrod Brown (D-OH) (none / 0) (#55)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    didn't sign it. Wonder why.

    My guess (none / 0) (#44)
    by s5 on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:27:18 PM EST
    About 10-15 points of that 47 points that oppose the bill are left leaning voters who fear that the Baucus Debacle will be the final bill. And who can blame them. Fortunately I believe the final bill will be much better, thanks to House progressives holding the line.