"Modern Times"
TheLos Angles Times recently reported on a new Gallup poll showing that 49% disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare reform.
The stupidity of the poll ( and by extension those doing the poll) is, that as someone who supports the reforms on the table as well as the public option, I have written extensively about disapproving of the way Obama has handled the heatlh care debate which doesnt mean I disapprove of the policies.
The problem with this poll, as with a similar one by CNN a few weeks ago, is the stupidity of the question. You can approve and support the reforms the Democrats want to pass and still disapprove of how Obama has been handing it. I've said often that I think he's made a mess of it.
But opponents of reform and members of the main stream media read these results and interpret them as meaning that those who disapprove of Obama's handling of health care reform, disapprove of the policies when most polls show exactly the opposite.
The Gallup Poll specifically asked in their polling " Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's handling of health care reform" and then extrapolate the results to mean 49% disapprove of the policy.
Watching "the best political team on television" on CNN discuss the apparent contradictions in the polls is s wonderful IRAM -- Inmates Running the Asylum Moment.
Previous CNN polls showed 63% favored more government involvement and influence in their own health care plans and to cover Americans without insurance ( the public option) with only 36% opposed, and 60% favored paying higher taxes to pay for it, two polls totally contradicting Republican arguments as did CBS News polls which showed 72% favored the government public option and 57% favored paying higher taxes in order to pay for a public option which also flies in the face of all Republican and conservative arguments and gives lie to the belief that the opponents of reform which largely dominate the town hall meetings are in any way representative of the country as a whole.
A recent poll which asked a question actually relevant to the debate ( and I am not vouching for it or its reliability) was a CNN "Quick Vote" poll that asked," Do you believe healthcare is a fundamental American right whether people can pay for it or not?".
The results:
Yes - 83%
No - 17%
Wthether its the Quick Vote poll, two CBS News polls or previous CNN Opinion Research polls, the realibility of which I cant substantiate ( as with any poll) at least they are asking the relevant questions as to what the majority of Americans think about health care reform and what they want to see accomplished. And it is the opposite of what has been recently reported.
As if to bear out my point. Ali Velshi of CNN conducted an on air interview with a group of people in Paduca Kentucky on health care reform. One of the first people to speak said that he and his wife supported the policies of health care reform and what is being proposed, but felt that Obama has done a terrible job dissemenating information. He has. And so has the news media.
Comments
It seems that you rely heavily on CNN and CBS for your data and formulation of thought. While I won't suggest that FOX News is not heavily tilted toward the other side of the debate, I will say that your sources are equally supportive of the administration's agenda. Perhaps you could be more objective if you did a little more questioning and didn't simply parrot Obama networks.
Well, I agree with you. I think the President is not going far enough. We need single-payer. I lived in Canada for 28 years and I know that it works well, so I don't approve of what Obama is doing but I do support healthcare reform.
the problem is that some are dissatisfied with Obama backing off of single payer and they are being lumped in with "No healthcare reform ever" conservatives...and these two sides are complete opposites.
Health care is a right? Of course it is. Nobody is denied healthcare in this country right now! They may be denied insurance for preexisting conditions, but they will never be turned away from a public hospital. The government (the taxpayers actually) already subsidize the cost of that. Our insurance plans also charge us more to help cover that. Obama keeps making the point that we can save money by doing less repetitious testing, but these doctors are not doing all these tests (and sending people to specialists) to squeeze the system, or because they do not communicate between each other. They do it because, at every turn, there is a lawyer trying to pounce on them. Doctors can loose everything! The whole economy is crashing because Liberals forced banks and institutions to write mortgages for people who had no business buying a house. Liberals caused it, us conservatives constantly have to bail them out.
Come on Marc open your beedy little eyes and see this is about power and control. Improving your health is not part of this plan. This is about controling this hugh part of our economy and bringing down capitalism in this country. First the medical industry and then enrgy with cap and trade. Does anyone feel the noose tightening? They're coming straight at us people and if we don't stand up and stop them we'll regret it.
83% think it's a right? What you been smokin Marc?
I've seen questions from the polls. They are loaded so that you even support this particular reform or don't support reform at all. Its true that probably 75% support healthcare reform. Supporting this particular health care reform is another story. Also many are under the impression it will be free. From everything I've read and heard from officials, you have to pay premiums like you currently do for private plans based on health history. This false belief in it being free is probably why support is high if it is at all. You mention higher taxes well yes there will be that plus the premium. The premium might be lower then you would be paying but add in the increase of taxes and the net-cost can easily be higher.
I can't edit my post so I have to add a second one. I think if 83% think health care is a right they need to take a government class. All rights are in the bill of rights and other amendments. You want to make health care a right you have to amend the constitution.
Hey Marc, you are as disconnected from the American people as the Democrats are. You and all of the dems just keep on beleiving that this outrage is not representative because there is going to be a big change in congress next year when many dems are thrown out on their cans. This is socialism and if you buy into this then you must be a socialist.
You want healthcare reform and affordable healthcare? It's called tort reform, you eliminate frivilous litigation against doctors, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies and healthcare costs will go down.
GUYS, UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PLAN WILL IMPOSE MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION ON YOUR LIFE. EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTRY HAS HEALTHCARE ALREADY!!! YOU MAY NOT HAVE INSURANCE BUT YOU WILL NEVER BE DENIED HEALTHCARE NO MATTER WHAT. THE GREATEST THING ABOUT THIS COUNTRY IS THAT IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH YOUR SITUATION, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE IT. IT MAY BE HARD WORK, NO IT IS HARD WORK. WE ARE 38TH IN THE WORLD FOR HEALTHINESS BECAUSE OF OUR LIFESTYLE. THIS WILL ONLY CHANGE IF THE GOVERNMENT ENFORCES LIFESTYLE CHANGES ON YOU. ALL YOU LIBERALS NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LIBERALISM REALLY IS! IT'S LESS GOVERNMENT, IT'S MORE FREEDOM, IT'S LESS CENSORSHIP. DON'T BE SO NI EVE. ANITA, FROM CANADA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? ENJOYING THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. WE AREN'T AS BROKEN AS PEOPLE WILL LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE. I WORK HARD TO ENJOY MY LIFE! YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M PRETTY HAPPY WITH IT. I DIDN'T ASK FOR ANYTHING. I SERVED 4 YEARS IN THE MILITARY TO BETTER MYSELF AS WELL. DON'T BE SO EASILY FOOLED.
Actually his polls are probaly so low that pollisters have been ordered to give him at least a descent showing in approval or it may create panic in the American people, Just my opinion, food for thought
Rights are moral concepts, not merely legal ones. Your statement about the Constitution refutes the very notion of human rights - you are, in essence, saying that people in oppressive countries have no moral right against oppression because they presently have no legal right against it. Nice.
Truth is, lots of cultures beyond America DO view rights as positive, not merely negative, and many would even say that economic and social rights are more important than political ones. That said, plenty of Americans DO view economic and social needs as rights - otherwise, we'd be happy to let the government look the other way while kids and the elderly starve.
If designing the survey, though, I would argue that BASIC health care is a moral right - the right does not extend to every experimental long shot treatment regime. Many other countries do way better than the US on basic health care, which is why we're not even in the top 30 on infant mortality. Shameful isn't a strong enough word.
"pollsters have been ordered"???
By whom, exactly?
As an occasional hired pollster (local races), I can assure you that both issuing such an order, and following it, would be considered deeply unethical across the political divide.
Thus, I ask you - since you are alleging unethical, and perhaps legally fraudulent, conduct (depending on the wording of contracts signed with people receiving the polling information), where is the proof for your accusation?
I don't agree, by the way, with your premise that Obama is less popular than polls say, either. His health care support numbers are lower than his overall approval numbers, and this is in part because he has alienated a fair bit of his base by refusing to consider a Canadian-style single-payer plan. The polling for a public OPTION remains quite consistently OVER 60%, but many of those who agree that Obama's proposals are better than the current system will be marked as disapproving because they feel Obama wasn't nearly bold
Kenneth
A hospital will perform life-saving care on an indigent person who arrives in critical condition, but that doesn't mean they will pay for necessary treatments when a condition is not yet life threatening. Once it becomes life threatening, the number of viable options dwindle, which is why there are a lot of well designed studies putting the yearly death toll at over 20,000 per year due to lack of insurance.
Perhaps you feel comfortable placing your ideology ahead of those lives, and consider their loss to be acceptable so long as it stops the total government percentage of the health care market to rise from 46% (today) to somewhere closer to 60% (after Obama's plan, which does not require those with insurance to abandon it).
Now, whether insurance companies will be able to compete with a government plan in the long term is an open question. In order to lose, though, nearly all decisionmakers would have to decide that the government plan was better over time.
Mike
I see you'd had a 2nd helping of Republican talking points. Better watch your wasteline!
Tort reform (e.g. increasing the legal barriers for poor people to access a system which already excludes them in many ways) would undoubtedly lower costs a bit. Whether that reduction is very enough to justify the worsening health care practices that will hide behind new liability shields is another question entirely.
The health care system is 46% governmental anyway, so socialism (the way you are defining it) is inevitable. Plus, beyond health care, we already have it in education, roads, sizeable chunks of the internet, the military, and a zillion other social services. So, why 20,000 people each year need to die in vain to support your failed campaign against "socialism" is beyond me.
That said, the Obama proposal is against socialist principle, in that the government will not increase its share of the health care delivery system unless it out competes current health insurance providers.
I am often curious what exactly people like you think makes 'socialism' so unacceptable. I consider the regimes that have mis-used the term and have also exterminated their citizens to be represensable, but I think the problem there is a separation of power issue primarily. Other countries, including most of Western European, have gone MUCH farther down the road that you call socialism without that - because they retained political division of power. The Obama proposal falls far short of even Western Europe's standards for 'socialism'.
Finally, those who decry socialism rarely have much concern with the accumulation of power in private industries, either through oligopoly or regular old monopolies. I think the democratically unaccountable structure of corporations is far wor
RL
As a 'person' (not an elite), I strongly support both a public option AND cap and trade (the latter being a distant 2nd best option to a proper carbon tax).
Your notion that it isn't about health care is just another excuse for you not to listen to the other side. The visions of political debate which thrives on excuses to ignore the other side on face is a poor excuse for actual citizen involvement.
If you are concerned about excessive centralization, why not argue for decentralizing the decision making power in any institution. I think a few Republicans willing to say "Public option, yes, but let's decentralize the decision making processes" could probably get the Democrats to buy in (because Dems would really like a few Republican votes on this one).
Your lack of support for constructive alternatives which would better meet your stated goals causes some question about whether your stated goals are really your actual goals. But, keep talking and I will keep listenin
Rich
The best solution for media bias is to read beyond current news sources. I've been following the health care debate for well over a decade. Once the political attention gets turned elsewhere, there are lots of smart arguments being made - on ALL sides.
My conclusion from everything I had read before the Obama presidency led me to support single payer, although I think the Public Option is an acceptable compromise (although probably the LEAST intrusive workable system that could solve the problem of the uninsured).
It is stunning to me how many public option opponents don't even bother to understand the difference between such a system and actual single payer (or, the even stronger variant, where the government is not merely the insurer but also the employer).
I think the inability to acknowledge such differences reflects a very shallow understanding of the issues involved. It's hard to ground a good discussion in such fundamental misunderstandings.
RL
If Marc's eyes are "closed", how can you tell that they are "beedy" and "little"? Why does characterizing your opponents as dishonest due to their facial features advance the cause of open public deliberation? What makes you think that the "people" are a singular entity with uniform interests (in opposition to the "they" which you fear)? Last time I check, we the people had a lot of divisions based on ideology, economic interests, values, etc.
Defend the premises of your arguments, RL. The public sphere demands no less of you!
Woah
Although there's no single "final" bill (as there are two bodies of Congress, and several committees in each working on various bills), the vast majority would not see a tax increase. The tax increases proposed in nearly all cases are income based.
Although there are arguments to be made both ways about whether progressive taxation is or is not in the national interest, your argument is not that nuanced.
The vast majority of the un-insured do not make 250k (or 500k, or more) per year, and thus, for the vast majority of any audience you might be targeting, your argument is a lie.
RL
Do you really think that capitalism is SOOOO weak that just a little bit more governmental health care could collapse it? If it's really that weak, I bet it would collapse regardless.
Or, your statements can be understood as hyperbole, and Obama's proposals merely the latest in a century old debate over the precise boundaries of the appropriate role of government. Despite the hype, Obama is far more of an incrementalist than a revolutionary. I suspect you know this is true, but acknowledging it would require you to abandon your blunt edged rhetorical strategy and replace it with something a bit more nuanced.
Can't blame you for taking the lazy way out, though. Developing sufficient policy knowledge to engage this debate intelligently is a fair bit of work. I wish, however, that you'd make a greater effort instead of letting others do your work for you. That's the intellectual 'equivalent' of the socialism you decry!
Goto -
michaelsavage.com - If you want the truth.
Though some of the questions were a little vague, others were unmistakably clear.
There were a couple of points most Americans DID agree on in the poll. Most (72%) believe there should be a government-administered insurance plan (public option) to compete with private insurance. Americans are 2 times more worried about NOT getting enough health care & treatment, than they are about getting too much.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!