Since the House approved the health care bill, some have claimed that public opinion is now obsolete and that the outcome will be dependent upon politics. However, no citizen of a free nation should be resigned to simply watch their government pass legislation that lacks sufficient public approval. According to the Washington Post/ABC News poll, only 19% of Americans believe that the quality of their health care would improve if changed. Lowering levels of approval and increasing skepticism in the public should not be undermined nor considered lightly.
Currently, there are three Democratic Senators that have yet to pledge their support of the bill: Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Sen. Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas). The Senate's first obstacle is to gain 60 votes of approval in order to introduce a debate this week. Without the support of one (or all three) of these Senators, the push for universal health care would be over in the Senate. Accurate representation of the populace that elected them should be among Senators Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln's top concerns. Mrs. Lincoln reflected this sentiment in a statement on Tuesday: “I am responsible to the people of Arkansas, and that is where I will take my direction.”
However, Senate Majority Leader Reid's push for approval by December 18th seems out of touch with public preference. Contrary to the administration's promises about health care, Gallup reports that most Americans share four valid concerns about the new bill:
(1) Costs. Americans have specific worries about the impact of a new bill on their personal costs of healthcare (despite the fact that the bill as passed by the House has the word“affordable” prominently in the title).
(2) Government involvement and bureaucracy. There are basic concerns about the implications of the federal government taking up an expanded role in this sector of the U.S. economy.
(3) Worries that the specific legislation could make things worse rather than better for many Americans’ healthcare.
(4) Worries that the bill won’t go far enough in expanding access to healthcare."
In a country where officials are elected to represent the population, the disconnect between bureaucratic promises and public perception is telling of the political climate, and it seems as though the bureaucracy is overstepping its boundaries and intruding on individual choice and responsibility. Perhaps representatives have neglected their job of properly informing the public of the actualities of health care reform, but the increase in apprehension towards the legislation is nonetheless an accurate measurement of social disapproval.
In 2006, 69% of Americans believed that healthcare was a government responsibility; now, that support has been reduced to just 47%. These numbers not only point to a lowered confidence in the government's ability to address tough issues like health care, but also demonstrate the resistance to the current health care legislation. The bottom line: health care needs to be reformed, not expanded by the government. The current bill isn't the answer.
Comments
Let's take government out of the equation. Remove the barriers to free trade. Let's allow the market to bring innovation and competition to drive down costs and increase quality. It's the system we had in place that worked absolutely fine until the late 60's-early 70's, when our government decided that medicare and medicaid were necessary programs, along with HMOs and vastly increased government regulation.
Justin: Great point.
Also, I forgot to post a link to the Senators' contact information:
www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Now is the time to reassure them that they'll be doing the right thing by voting "No" to this bill.
Amen, Justin.
polls are becoming more and more skewed because polling science has not kept up with lifestyle changes...people used to have a centralized home phone...those days are becoming a thing of the past because of cell phones...whereas one call to a residence produced one viewpoint for that whole houshold, it now only represents about one fifth of the total household view...the parent would usually answer the questions, now, you have a more likely chance of getting an adult child's answer from a cell phone than before...landlines are becoming more and more representative of older people that haven't made the technology leap to cell-only...so landlines are more likely to get you the old people or the "can't afford cells for the whole family"....right now, you can skew any poll simply by deciding "landlines or cellphones?"...landlines older poorer, cellphones younger better off economically.
Uh, Walrus, I call bull.
So if you can't use polls, then how would you actually gauge opinion? Seriously, what methods would you use? Do you honestly think that the polling companies have not accounted for the fact that cellphones have become more widely used? Do you really think they don't factor those kinds of things into their data? Many of the major polling companies tell you exactly how they get their data (Pew and Rasmussen do, Gallup states it at the end of each posting). It doesn't take much work to go to their websites and look it up. You should think about doing that next time before you post conjecture.
I didn't know that polling was done by randomly calling cell phone numbers. Could you please explain in greater detail how that works?
Walrus says: "so landlines are more likely to get you the old people or the "can't afford cells for the whole family"....right now, you can skew any poll simply by deciding "landlines or cellphones?"...landlines older poorer, cellphones younger better off economically."
Are you serious, Walrus? That is a huge generalization about landline and cellphone users. It would seem to me that people that are better off economically would tend to have both a cellphone and landline simply because they can afford to. Also, MANY older people do have cellphones and not everyone that has a cellphone is better off economically. That's just ridiculous.
For elected officials to vote based on polls rather than what serves the long term public interest is the exact opposite of the intention of the founding fathers.
This article is trash, ignorant and uninformed.
Jack - you are the one who is ignorant and misinformed. Yes, health care reform is desperately needed in this country. But the American people don't think THIS health care bill is the answer.
If you know anything at all about economics you would understand that this bill doesn't lower the costs - the primary objective of health care in the first place - and places undue burdens on both businesses and taxpayers.
Jack: Don't know about you, but I'd rather NOT have the government decide what is best for me i.e. "what serves the long term public interest."
Also, the founding fathers purposefully limited the role of government to exclude infringements on the individual. We need to think about personal accountability and responsibility and not depend on (forced) government hand-outs to "take care of us."
Move to France.
For elected officials to vote based on polls rather than what serves the long term public interest is the exact opposite of the intention of the founding fathers.
This article is trash, ignorant and uninformed.
"Independent":
"Jack: Don't know about you, but I'd rather NOT have the government decide what is best for me i.e. "what serves the long term public interest.""
Then vote for different representatives. This is how a republic works.
"Also, the founding fathers purposefully limited the role of government to exclude infringements on the individual. We need to think about personal accountability and responsibility and not depend on (forced) government hand-outs to "take care of us.""
They also designed it to provide for the common welfare. That's why there's such a thing as Constitutional studies, because there are lots of things that are unclear from the document.
"Move to France."
Grow up.
Jack,
Are you submitting that the only time an elected representative should consider the opinion of his/her constituents is if they have been elected on a specific platform regarding that issue? Surely a citizen's only reprieve is not to elect a new representative, which occurs every 2 years at the earliest.
While it is important for our republic to have our representatives somewhat insulated from zeitgeist of the pundit-informed body politic, I do think our representatives should consider the constituency's needs.
Do you honestly think the article is "trash, ignorant and uniformed" by reporting the above statistics? You may very well disagree with the message; however, I think redundantly calling something ignorant and uniformed (please elaborate on the distinction) is a rather common argument for one as enlightened in Constitutional Studies such as yourself.
Hopefully, if this reaches the President's desk, he will consider it as thoughtfully as he has Afghan
You're right, Jack. Because I can totally see the founding fathers passing a trillion dollar tax upon the American people and attempting to increase the size and scope of the federal government for the sake of utility. You're such a student of history.
"For elected officials to vote based on polls rather than what serves the long term public interest is the exact opposite of the intention of the founding fathers."
Umm.... Isn't that how Bill Clinton ran his presidency?
If our Founding Fathers knew what our country had become, they would likely call for a new revolution. The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people; to specifically limit the powers of government (especially Federal), not to empower it. The General Welfare clause is a favorite of democrats, because it allows them to abuse the expansion of government. It wasn't until 1937 with "Steward Machine Co. v. Davis" when the Supreme Court (in order to save themselves) basically granted congress unlimited authority to spend for "general welfare" Until then congress and the president held themselves to the boundaries of the Constitution. In the words of Justice Roberts (the swing vote in the 1937 case) "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."
Read Federalist Papers #s 23, 45 to understand why the limitations on power were set within the Constitution, after the unlimited ability set by the Articles of Confederation.
Originalist says:
"If our Founding Fathers knew what our country had become, they would likely call for a new revolution. The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people; ...."
If our founding fathers had to sit down at the table with a black president, THEY WOULDN'T!!!...those days are long gone...those founding fathers were only protecting the rights of WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS...NOT females, NOT males without property, NOT blacks, NOT ANYONE ELSE!....things have changed! We have income tax and we wouldn't know what to do without it! We have women voting now! We have a black President! GET OVER IT! We are not going to follow YOU back to the old days of the founding fathers! We are in NOW -----LIVE IN THE NOW!
Walrus, you've cracked. Originalist was responding to Jack's erroneous assumption about the founding fathers and his lack of understanding on Constitutional History.
You also have very little knowledge of the beliefs of our founding fathers or Constitutional History. Just because women, blacks, and males w/o property were not given the right to vote, does not mean that their rights were not protected by the Constitution (though w/ exceptions for black slaves). Children can't vote either but they have Constitutional rights. Furthermore, close attention to the debates over the crafting of the Constitution on matters like race might change your perspective on many of our founding fathers. Things weren't as cut and dry as you might think.
Why having a black president suddenly makes our Constitution irrelevant, I'll never know. You really need to learn how to look beyond the color of our president's skin. Your obsession is frightening.
LuxMea says:
"....Just because women, blacks, and males w/o property were not given the right to vote, does not mean that their rights were not protected by the Constitution (though w/ exceptions for black slaves). "
do you know how full of .... that sounds???????
Of course I realize that "equal protection under the law" was not explicitly stated until the 14th amendment, but that does not mean that the Constitution did not protect those groups at all. Free blacks, even in states like North Carolina, had property rights and the right to bear arms (to name a few rights). Much of those things changed after the Nat Turner Rebellion, but the Federal Constitution never prohibited those classes from having those rights. It was laws passed by individual states and rulings by state and local judges that restricted their freedoms, hence a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution that ensures across the board protection of the application of the law. But far be it from me to convince your well read self that the Constitution applied to more than just white male property owners. I'll bet you didn't even know that free blacks had the right to vote in North Carolina from 1776 to 1835?
LuxMea says:
"....I'll bet you didn't even know that free blacks had the right to vote in North Carolina from 1776 to 1835?"
and then in 1836?...you do realize that that example only proves abuse, don't you?
watch:
"I'll bet you didn't even know that free women had the right to vote in New York from 1985 to 2002?"
"I'll bet you didn't even know that free whites had the right to vote in California from 1985 to 2002?"
"those founding fathers were only protecting the rights of WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS...NOT females, NOT males without property, NOT blacks, NOT ANYONE ELSE!"
Again you display your ignorance. Blacks were hotly debated by our Founding Fathers. This was such a great divide that it threatened the acceptance of the document. That is why slavery is not mentioned at all. The preservation of the Union was more important. In fact, Patrick Henry, representing a slave state, refused to attend the convention because he supported abolishing slavery and it was not being debated. See: www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
Why do liberals ike to throw around the fact that obama is black? His race has absolutely nothing to do with why I dislike him. I don't support him because he is a weak and cowardly puppet. I would never support a leader of the strongest country in the world bowing down to others and only making excuses. It is time he takes responsibilities for his own failures
Stupidity is so very entertaining!
Originalist says:
"Stupidity is so very entertaining!"
denial is only fustrating
I thought it didn't matter that President Obama was black?
Stupidity is so very entertaining!
Walrus,
I have NEVER seen any fact put forth by you. All you do is resort to name calling and irrational statements. Where is your argument? Where are your facts to back up your party line statements? You have consistently proven to be a typical hot-headed liberal who cannot debate, so you resort to childish name calling and taunts. It is really getting old. But of course I bet you will have something of the same sort of reaction to this post.
Walrus,
I have NEVER seen any fact put forth by you. All you do is resort to name calling and irrational statements. Where is your argument? Where are your facts to back up your party line statements? You have consistently proven to be a typical hot-headed liberal who cannot debate, so you resort to childish name calling and taunts. It is really getting old. But of course I bet you will have something of the same sort of reaction to this post.
Walrus,
I have NEVER seen any fact put forth by you. All you do is resort to name calling and irrational statements. Where is your argument? Where are your facts to back up your party line statements? You have consistently proven to be a typical hot-headed liberal who cannot debate, so you resort to childish name calling and taunts. It is really getting old. But of course I bet you will have something of the same sort of reaction to this post.
Walrus,
I have NEVER seen any fact put forth by you. All you do is resort to name calling and irrational statements. Where is your argument? Where are your facts to back up your party line statements? You have consistently proven to be a typical hot-headed liberal who cannot debate, so you resort to childish name calling and taunts. It is really getting old. But of course I bet you will have something of the same sort of reaction to this post.
"I'll bet you didn't even know that free women had the right to vote in New York from 1985 to 2002?"
What the heck does that even mean? You don't make any sort of sense. To even be remotely analogous, your example would have to imply that before 1985, women did not have the right to vote in New York, in 1985 they were given that right, and in 2002 their suffrage was revoked. None of which is remotely true, thereby making your example a false analogy. Would that you were able to research even the smallest iota before posting your baseless conjecture. It takes very little time to fact check before posting. Enough government documents and scholarly articles are free to browse that it would certainly be worth your time to look them over before embarassing yourself with your historical ignorance and misplaced arrogance.
LuxMea says:
"I'll bet you didn't even know that free women had the right to vote in New York from 1985 to 2002?"
What the heck does that even mean? ....their suffrage was revoked. "
THAT was the point! Your sample showed that blacks had their suffrage revoked...so they only had that right at the whim of white males...I was only trying to show you how outrageous it would be for modern women to only have suffrage rights at the whim of white males (the same as those blacks)...boy, for someone so well read, you certainly are dense when it comes to analogies....you have zero abilities to walk in someone else's shoes...(and no, I will not explain that to you)
Nothing about your example implied that modern women had their suffrage revoked at the whim of white males. Since you've used recent decades, I could readily assume that minority males could have also taken suffrage from women in NY in 2002. Your analogy also suffers because of the context surrounding suffrage and the Consitution. The Federal Constitution, from it's inception until the 15th Amendment, never specified which classes of society had suffrage. That was something determined by the states. Therefore, a state constitution revoking the suffrage of free black males in NC did not violate the Federal Constitution, right or wrong. Once an amendment is made to the Federal Constitution, it applies to all states. It is the higher law. So, it would be impossible for your analogy to even occur in NY in 2002, unless the 19th amendment was repealed.
It's troubling that you cannot see beyond the race of our founding fathers and look at their core ideas and principles of government.
More on point, you never responded as to what you thought a better alternative to gauging public opinion would be. You don't trust polls, and your stated reasons turned out to be demonstrably untrue. So what is the answer? What method would be sufficient enough to satisfy your demands?
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!